Three Hundred Years of Death: The Egyptian Funerary Industry in the Ptolemaic Period 9004406794, 9789004406797

Citation preview

Three Hundred Years of Death

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Founding Editor M.H.E. Weippert

Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Stökl

Editors Eckart Frahm W. Randall Garr B. Halpern Theo P.J. van den Hout Leslie Anne Warden Irene J. Winter

volume 110

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/chan

Three Hundred Years of Death The Egyptian Funerary Industry in the Ptolemaic Period

By

Maria Cannata

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Cannata, Maria, author. Title: Three hundred years of death : the Egyptian funerary industry in the Ptolemaic period / Maria Cannata. Other titles: Culture and history of the ancient Near East ; v. 110. Description: Boston : Brill, 2020. | Series: Culture and history of the ancient Near East, 1566-2055 ; volume 110 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020002365 (print) | LCCN 2020002366 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004406797 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004406803 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Ptolemaic dynasty, 305-30 B.C. | Funeral rites and ceremonies–Egypt. Classification: LCC BL2450.F8 C36 2020 (print) | LCC BL2450.F8 (ebook) | DDC 393/.30932–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020002365 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020002366

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. ISSN 1566-2055 ISBN 978-90-04-40679-7 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-40680-3 (e-book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To all who continued to believe in me

∵

Contents Preface and Acknowledgments xi List of Tables, Figures and Plates xiii Illustration Credits xix Abbreviations xxi Outline of Egyptian Chronology xxiii Introduction 1 1 Setting the Scene 1 2 Previous Scholarship on the Subject 6 3 Scope and Organisation of the Book 8 4 Notes on the Conventions and Abbreviations Used

13

Part 1 The Organisation of the Necropolis and Its Funerary Priests 1

The Theban Necropolis 17 1 The Overseer of the Necropolis 17 2 The Lesonis 23 3 The Steward 25 4 Choachytes 25 5 Territorial Jurisdiction of the Choachytes 31 6 Embalmers 36 7 Territorial Jurisdiction of the Embalmers 43 8 Other Funerary Priests 47

2

The Edfu Necropolis 50 1 The Overseer of the Necropolis and the Lesonis 50 2 Choachytes and Lector-Priests 51 3 Territorial Jurisdiction of Edfu Necropolis Workers 51

3

The Memphite Necropolis 53 1 The Overseer of the Necropolis 53 2 God’s Seal-Bearers as Lector-Priests and Choachytes 54 3 Territorial Jurisdiction of the Memphite Funerary Priests 60

viii

contents

4

The Hawara Necropolis 63 1 The Overseer of the God’s Seal-Bearers and Embalmers 63 2 God’s Seal-Bearers (and) Embalmers as Lector-Priests and Choachytes 66 3 Other Funerary Priests 69 4 Territorial Jurisdiction of the Hawara Funerary Priests 72 5 The Organisation of the Hawara Necropolis 76

5

The Necropolises in Middle Egypt 91 1 The Head of the Necropolis 92 2 Lector-Priests and Embalmers 92 3 Man of the Necropolis 94 4 Seal-Bearer Who Attends the God 97 5 God’s Seal-Bearers 98 6 Necrotaphoi 99 7 Territorial Jurisdiction of the Funerary Priests in Middle Egypt 103

6

Female Funerary Priests 105 1 Choachytes 106 2 Embalmers 118

7

Services, Income and Taxation of Funerary Priests 122 1 Definition of the Services Performed by Funerary Priests 2 Different Types of Revenues 126 3 Income of Lector-Priests and Embalmers 138 4 Personal and Professional Taxation, Contributions and Exemptions 147 5 Other Economic Activities of the Funerary Priests 151

8

Priestly Associations 159 1 Association of Theban Choachytes 159 2 Association of Theban Lector Priests 166 3 Association of Memphite Mortuary Priests 167 4 Associations of Mortuary Priests in the Fayum 167 5 Associations of Mortuary Priests in Middle Egypt 168

9

The Funerary Priests and Their Social Context 171 1 Place of Residence of the Funerary Priests 171 2 The Funerary Priests and Their Families 182

124

ix

contents

Part 2 Death, Mummification and Burial 10

Death 189 1 The Mourning Period 192 2 Arranging for the Services of Funerary Priests 200 3 Transport of the Deceased to the Necropolis 201

11

Mummification 209 1 The Embalming Place: the pr-nfr and the wꜥb.t 209 2 Arranging for the Mummification of the Deceased 217 3 The Mummification Process: Stages, Rituals and Materials 223 4 Funerary Priests Involved in the Mummification Process 244

12

Burial 249 1 Role of the Funerary Priests Following the Mummification Process 249 2 Funeral and Burial 250 3 The Lexicology of the Entombment 254 4 Delayed Burial 264 5 Mortuary Cult 272

13

Funerary Expenses 278 1 Mummification Materials and Burial Equipment: Production, Acquisition and Provision 279 2 Provision of Mummification Materials and Burial Equipment 292 3 Burial Taxes 295 4 Cost and Payment of the ‘Mummification and Burial’ 305

14

The Deceased 312 1 The Living and the Dead 312 2 Epithets of the Dead 315 3 Social Status and Ethnic Background of the Deceased

325

x

contents

Part 3 Necropolises, Tombs and Burials 15

Necropolises 335 1 Location of Burial Grounds 335 2 Funerary Landscape: Topographical Textual Notes 350 3 God’s Acre: Possession, Taxation and Acquisition of Plots and Tombs 358

16

Tombs 373 1 The Lexicography of Tombs’ Typology 376 2 Tombs’ Typology: Textual and Archaeological Evidence 3 Building a New Tomb 421 4 Using an Existing Tomb 434 5 Collective Tombs 453

17

Burials 459 1 Select Survey of Inhumations’ Typology

381

459

Part 4 Discussion and Conclusion 18

Discussion and Conclusion 485 1 The Organisation of the Necropolis and Its Funerary Priests 2 Death, Mummification and Burial 499 3 Necropolises, Tombs and Burials 514

486

Appendix 1: Palaeographical and Orthographical Analysis of the Root ḳs 521 Appendix 2: P. Florence 3667 (111BC) 539 Appendix 3: Tables 544 Bibliography 626 List of the Main Primary Sources Analysed (Arranged by Necropolis and Category) 682 Bibliographical Details of the Primary Sources Cited (Arranged Alphabetically and by Museums’ Inventory Number) 693 List of Personal Names 719 List of Toponyms Mentioned 746 Select Index of Words 764 Plates 771

Preface and Acknowledgments This work is based on my doctoral thesis titled The Realia of Egyptian Burial Practices in the Ptolemaic Period (332–330BC) submitted to the University of Oxford in 2008. Bumps and humps along the road to completion have delayed its publication until now, although I have already published small sections of this study in journals and conference proceedings, while parts of it have been used by others in academic publications (with and without due acknowledgment). As always, when a manuscript remains unpublished for a long period of time, there is an urge to reconsider everything anew. Indeed, although the core of this study remains the same, I have rewritten it in its entirety, changed its organisation and updated it with more recent research. However, to avoid delaying its publication indefinitely, I have left the section on the archaeological analysis almost unchanged, apart from some additions and minor revisions. While working on this manuscript many friends and colleagues have provided me with help and assistance, and it is my privilege to acknowledge my obligation and gratitude to them all. Prof. John Baines, whose help and support has never wavered during the last few years, and who kindly read through the Introduction and made a number of suggestions that I have incorporated here. Prof. John Tait and Prof. Willy Clarysse, my doctoral thesis’ examiners, made a number of helpful comments and suggestions, particularly with regards to the organisation of the original work, which I have followed in this publication. Prof. Willy Clarysse also kindly read through Table 8 and Appendix 2, and made a number of helpful comments and suggestions, as well as providing additional references. Prof. Günter Vittmann, who kindly took the time to answer a number of questions I had on some of the texts discussed here, and very generously provided me with copies of articles and book chapters to which I had no access, as well as photographs of some of the papyri discussed. Similarly, Dr. Martin Stadler for generously providing me with copies of some of his work to which I had no access while working in China, and for sharing information about a stela from Edfu. Prof. Richard Jasnow for providing me with a photograph of a burial-tax receipt recorded in a Demotic ostracon in the Smithsonian Institute, and for giving me permission to include it in this work. Dr. Dorothea Arnold for granting me permission to study and publish the fieldnotes and photographs produced by the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s excavations in the Asasif under the direction of Herbert Winlock and Ambrose Lansing. Dr. Catharine H. Roehrig for kindly confirming permission and for helping me to obtain high resolution scans of this material. Dr. Marsha Hill for generously providing me with additional photographs from Lansing’s

xii

preface and acknowledgments

unpublished records. Dr. Janice Kamrin for her incredible help with the acquisition of additional photographs from these MET’s unpublished excavation reports, and for all her efforts in trying to answer my questions regarding various aspects of these excavations. Dr. Andreas Effland for kindly sharing with me information from his research and work at Edfu. Dr. Mark Depauw for allowing me access to his database of textual material from Akhmim. My thanks are also due to Dr. Katelyn Chin, Acquisitions Editor at Brill, for her incredible help during the preparation of this monograph, as well as to the Series Editors and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitute to my friends Dr. Francisco BoschPuche, whose help in obtaining research material, as well as his encouragement and moral support, have been very important in the completion of this publication; and equally Christina Adams for generously allowing me access to her doctoral thesis, for our many highly enjoyable and profitable conversations on funerary practices and related topics, and for her encouragement and moral support, which have also been very important to me and my work.

Tables, Figures and Plates Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Timeline of the events described in P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC) 89 Comparative list of the revenues discussed 136 Fines prescribed for association members in relation to funerary matters 170 Stages of the ideal mummification and burial on the basis of the documentary sources listed 241 Attestations of the mummification process’ length in textual sources 243 Temporal variation in the use of the term ‘to bury’ 255 Monthly death incidence according to the data from burial tax receipts 304 Commodities’ comparative price chart 308 Professional titles of people titled ḥry 318 Professional titles of people titled ḥsy 319 Professional titles of people titled ḥry and ḥsy 320 Period of tombs’ use life 345 Land transfer-tax receipts with amounts paid 360 Land transfer-tax receipts with size of building plots and amount paid 360 Tomb transfer-tax receipts with amounts paid 361 Tombs and annexes 382 Chapels 382 Other funerary structures 382 Comparative list of funerary equipment found in tombs 445 Theban collective tombs grouped by profession 455 Collective tombs grouped by origo 455 Theban individuals identified by origo 456 Memphite tombs organised according to mater familias 457 Geographical and temporal variation in the mortuary priests’ titles 487

Tables in Appendix 3 A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4

List of published burial-tax receipts 544 Titles used in the heading of the choachytes’ legal deeds 550 Use of the title choachyte to identify properties’ neighbours 552 Use of the title choachyte within the body of contracts in Demotic

553

xiv

tables, figures and plates

A.5 A.6 A.7

Use of the title choachyte in other Demotic documents 554 Use of title choachyte in both headings and body of contracts in Greek 555 Late period choachytes’ documents in abnormal hieratic and early Demotic 556 Lector-priests’ titles in the heading of Demotic contracts 563 Lector-priests’ titles in the body of Demotic contracts 564 Additional lector-priests’ titles in the heading of Demotic contracts 566 Additional lector-priests’ titles in the body of Demotic contracts 566 Embalmers in Demotic documents 567 Doctors in Demotic documents 567 Embalmers’ titles in Greek contracts from the Theban area 568 Titles borne by the contracting parties and by the endowments’ original owners at Memphis 569 Theban women in legal documents 571 Theban Women identified as choachytes 572 Women in the Memphite legal documents 573 Women embalmers in Demotic documents from Thebes and Memphis 574 Choachytes’ landed properties in the Theban area 574 Loan documents in the choachytes’ archives 575 Lector-priests’ economic activities relating to immovable properties in the Theban area 576 Loan documents in the Theban lector-priests’ archives 577 List of loans recorded in the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers’ archives 578 List of sales recorded in the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers’ archives 580 Choachytes in the House of the Cow in the northern district of Thebes 581 Choachytes’ properties on the west bank 586 Lector-priests’ properties in the House of the Cow in the northern district of Thebes 589 Lector-priests’ properties in Pamenis and Hermonthis 590 Marriage documents in the Theban choachytes’ archives 591 Marriage documents in the Memphite funerary priests’ archives 592 Marriage documents in the Hawara funerary priests’ archives 593 Marriage documents in the archives of mortuary priests from Siut 594 Theban tax / money (of the) overseer of the necropolis variant formulae 595 Receipts of payment of farmed-out necropolis-tax at Edfu 596 Edfu burial tax variant formulae 598 The epithets ḥry and ḥsy 599

A.8 A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 A.14 A.15 A.16 A.17 A.18 A.19 A.20 A.21 A.22 A.23 A.24 A.25 A.26 A.27 A.28 A.29 A.30 A.31 A.32 A.33 A.34 A.35 A.36 A.37

tables, figures and plates A.38 A.39 A.40

xv

The epithets ḥry.t and ḥsy.t 611 List of titled individuals and the tombs in which they rested 614 Summary of archaeological evidence on body treatment and inhumation typology 624

Figures 1 2 3

4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17

Map of Egypt (after Bowman 1996, Fig. 1) xxv ‘Pledging granddad’s mummy on a loan’ (modified from Blackman and Bell 1988) 123 P. Ashmolean accounts. The boxes delineate the various portion of this document and their numbering (Images © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford; reconstruction after Clarysse 2009) 146 The El-Hibeh coffins in the Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum in Hildesheim belonging to Mutirdis [RPM/PM 1953] (left) and Djebastetiuefankh [RPM/PM 1954] (right) 228 Range of professions attested in the Theban documents analysed 326 Range of professions attested in the Memphite documents analysed 327 Range of professions attested in the Hawara documents analysed 328 Range of professions attested in the Middle Egypt documents analysed 329 Combined range of professions attested in the different parts of the country analysed 330 Schematic reconstruction of the s.t-tomb sold in P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC) (Thebes) and its neighbours 356 Schematic reconstruction of the mꜣꜥ-chapel sold in P. Wien ÄS 6052 (239BC) (Thebes) and its neighbours 356 Schematic reconstruction of the plot of land in the Theban necropolis bought by a choachyte with P. BM EA 10388 (223BC) to build a s.t-tomb 357 Schematic reconstruction of the s.t-tomb sold in P. BM EA 10226 (185BC) (Thebes) and its neighbours 357 Schematic reconstruction of the structures and building plots located inside the tomb of Osorkon I as attested from P. Turin 2123 (512BC) and P. Louvre E 7128 (510BC) (Thebes) 371 Schematic reconstruction of the properties neighbouring the s.t-tomb sold in P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC) (Thebes) 384 Schematic reconstruction of the s.t-tomb leased in P. Philadelphia XXIV (227BC) (Thebes) and its neighbours 390 Schematic reconstruction of the ḥ.t-tomb complex leased in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) (Memphis) and its neighbours 391

xvi 18

19

20 21

tables, figures and plates Schematic reconstruction of the ḥ.t-tombs (and) i҆p-structures sold in P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217BC) and P. Carlsberg 39a–b (183BC) (Hawara) and the neighbouring properties 396 Comparison between a schematic reconstruction of the tomb complex described in P. Leiden I 373 b–c (204–203BC) and the plan of the tomb of Bocchoris (the latter after El-Naggar 1986, Fig. 1) (Memphis) 400 Schematic reconstruction of the ḳꜣ-tomb described in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) (Memphis) and its neighbours 401 Schematic reconstruction of the ḳꜣ-tombs listed in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) (Memphis) and its neighbours 401

Plates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16

General map of Memphis and some of the necropolises on the west bank 773 Map of Saqqara 774 Map of the Giza plateau showing the location of the various necropolis areas discussed 775 Sphinx temenos and location of rock-cut tombs 776 Abusir pyramids field 777 Plan of some of the tombs discovered at Tûra el-Asmant 778 Map of the Fayum 779 Map of the Hawara necropolis produced by Petrie 780 Topographical survey map produced by the Leuven Katholieke Universiteit 781 Plan of the el-Kom el-Ahmar Sawaris area investigated by the German mission 782 Plan of the necropolis showing the division in zones by the German mission and the phases of expansion of the cemetery 783 Map of Theban necropolis 784 Sketch map of the limit of the Metropolitan Museum of Art excavations on the Asasif 785 View of the south-east end of the Asasif showing the areas excavated by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, by Carter and Carnarvon and by the Austrian missions. The Ptolemaic structures excavated by Winlock and Lansing are marked over the Ramesside temple 786 Tomb B4: view from northeast with the burial chambers at the back 787 Tomb B11: view from the front, with an entrance step, or slope, in the foreground 787

tables, figures and plates 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 29a 30 31 32 33 34 34a 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

xvii

Tomb B11: view from southeast looking toward the entrance of the tomb; the bins and the pots within are visible on either side of the entrance pit 788 Examples of the type of vessels found buried under the floors of these structures 788 Pots in position beneath floor level in the north chamber in tomb B19 789 Vaulted tombs located within brick enclosure 789 Tombs B5–B12, south view 790 View of tomb B30 looking towards the south 790 Map of the Labyrinth produced by Lepsius 791 Mud brick superstructures identified by the excavator as a birabi. The central one appears to be in the shape of a truncated pyramid, while that to the right resembles a tower 791 Burials in the upper stratum in square 1715 792 Squares 1714, 1715 and 1716 excavated to the west of the ‘dry-moat’ 793 Burial № 4 before and after removal of the mat covering and stones 794 Photographs of some of the inhumations found at Tûra el-Asmant. The bad state of preservation is clearly discernible on some of them 794 Later partition walls inside the tomb of Ankhhor (TT414) 795 Later partition walls inside the tomb of Ankhhor (TT414) 795 Tomb in the foreground described by excavators as the large Ptolemaic tomb 796 Burial emplacement built using bricks for the walls and inscribed stone fragments for the base 796 Burial emplacement built using offering tables, stone slabs and architectural fragments 797 Ptolemaic burial in position inside a crypt 797 Plan of the area around the funerary temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu 798 Sketch of tombs’ construction methods 798 Remains of a family tomb (left) 799 Remains of an individual tomb with intact vault 799 Remains of an individual tomb with collapsed vault 800 Remains of an individual tomb with vault removed and burial still in place 800 Remains of a simpler type of individual tomb visible to the right 801 Tomb B45 (26th Dynasty), view east. Man standing in vaulted passage leading to burial chamber at left pyramidal tomb 801 Cultic emplacement in the forecourt of TT411 802 P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301BC) 803 Upper burial chambers inside tomb O17 804

xviii 44 45 46 47

48 49 50 51 52 53

54 55 56 57 58 59 60

tables, figures and plates Lower burial chambers inside tomb O17 804 Tomb B4: body lying in the north burial chamber 805 Tomb B4: female body lying in the south burial chamber 805 Human remains in situ in tomb B17, with the coffin still visible along the short side of the tomb and the partial remains laying across it and over the other on the ground 806 Sketch of five of the six bodies found in the tomb showing the letters assigned to them by the excavator 806 Bodies found inside one of the brick tombs, possibly B39 807 View from the south-east of the burials 1–11 807 Sketch showing the position of the eleven inhumations found northeast of tomb B40 808 Map of Edfu and its cemeteries 809 Photograph of the coffin and mummy taken immediately after their removal from the tomb. (Garstang Museum of Archaeology, Liverpool University) 810 Burial 207: coffin lid (left) and skeleton inside coffin (right) showing no evidence for wrapping 811 Burials 335 and 336 in wooden coffins 812 Burials 345 and 346 in terracotta coffins 812 Multiple burials 288, 289 and 314 with the wrapped bodies placed directly in the sand 813 Father and child lying next to each other 813 Adult and sub-adult mummies lying together inside the sarcophagus to the right 814 Another adult and sub-adult lying together in the same sarcophagus. Inset: detail of the decoration applied to the cartonnage over the adult body 814

Illustration Credits My thanks are also due to the following individuals and Institutions for granting me permission to reproduce the images and artwork included in this volume (in alphabetical order): Dr Chris Bebbington and Dr. Charlotte Sargent, Curatorial Assistants, The Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool (Pl. 65); Dr Ondrej Beranek, Director of the Oriental Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences (Pl. 5); Dr Francisco Bosch-Puche, Griffith Institute, University of Oxford (Pls 1, 4, 12, 18); Prof. Alan Bowman, Camden Professor of Ancient History, University of Oxford (Fig. 1); Prof. Edda Bresciani, Director of the Journal Egitto e Vicino Oriente and of the Archaeological Mission of the University of Pisa in Saqqara, and Dr Salah El Naggar (Fig. 5); Dr Euphrosyne Doxiadis, artist and writer (Pl. 7); Dr Andreas Effland, University of Hamburg and The German Archaeological Institute, Department in Cairo (Pl. 52); Dr Anna Garnett, Curator of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, University College London (Pl. 8); Dr Robert Gietz, Advertising and Sales Management, Deputy Head of Publishing at Harrassowitz Verlag; Prof. Christiane Zivie-Coche, École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris), Directeur d’études, Section des Sciences Religieuses (Pl. 3); Dr Alice Howard and Dr. David Gowers, Ashmolean Picture Library, Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Oxford (Fig. 3); Dr Janice Kamrin, Associate Curator, Egyptian Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Department of Egyptian Art Archives (Pls 13, 15–17, 19–22, 24, 30–33, 40, 45–51); Prof. Karol Myśliwiec, Director of the Institute of Mediterranean Archeology at the Polish Academy of Sciences, and of the Warsaw University’s Institute of Ancient Egyptian Archaeology (Pls 25–27, 54–58); Dr Nathan Pendlebury, Image Reproduction Administrator, National Museums Liverpool (Pl. 53); Dr Robert Püringer, Printmanagement Department, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Pl. 14 background image, 29–29a); Dr Eric W. Schnittke, Archives of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Pl. 42);

xx

illustration credits

Dr Cédric Larcher and Dr Mazen Essam, Service des archives et collections de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Pls 34–39); Prof. Marco Zecchi, Associate Egyptology Professor, Dipartimento di Storia Culture Civiltà, Università di Bologna; Prof. Paola Davoli, Associate Egyptology Professor Facoltà di Lettere, Filosofia, Lingue e Beni Culturali dell’Università del Salento (Lecce); Casa Editrice La Mandragora (Fig. 1); Dr Orell Witthuhn, Georg-August Universität Göttingen, Department of Egyptology and Coptology, Göttinger Miszellen (Pls 10, 11, 43, 44).

Abbreviations Documents are referred to by their inventory number because I believe this to be the clearest way to identify them. This is preferred over the numbering assigned to them in the various publications in which they were (re)edited.1 Journal abbreviations are those listed in Mathieu’s IFAO abbreviations.2 The following abbreviations are also used: CDD Dem. Glossar Gr. LÄ LRL n. n.d. O. P. PM PP r. Table A v. W. Wb

Chicago Demotic Dictionary: http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catal og/cdd. Demotic Demotisches Glossar (Erichsen 1954) Greek Lexikon der Ägyptologie Late Ramesside Letter note no date Ostracon Papyrus Porter and Moss Prosopographia Ptolemaica recto Tables in Appendix 3 verso Witness Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache

The following editorial conventions are used in the presentation of textual sources: [] [?] ⟦⟧ (…) `´

lost in lacuna uncertain deleted by the scribe passage omitted in translation inserted above line by the scribe

1 Their publication details can be found in Oates 2001. 2 Mathieu 2017.

xxii ˹˺ ˹?˺ {} ⟨⟩

abbreviations uncertain reading uncertain wrongly repeated by the scribe wrongly omitted by the scribe

Outline of Egyptian Chronology Egyptian chronology is still characterised by a certain degree of uncertainty, particularly for the predynastic and early dynastic period, since it is only from 690BC that we have precise dates for individual regnal years.1 Predynastic Period Badarian Period Naqada I (Amratian) Period Naqada II (Gerzean) Period Naqada III Period

c. 4400–3000 BC c. 4400–4000 c. 4000–3500 c. 3500–3200 c. 3200–3000

Early Dynastic Period First Dynasty Second Dynasty

c. 3000–2686 BC c. 3000–2890 2890–2686

Old Kingdom Third Dynasty Fourth Dynasty Fifth Dynasty Sixth Dynasty Seventh and Eighth Dynasties

2686–2160 BC 2686–2613 2613–2494 2494–2345 2345–2181 2181–2160

First Intermediate Period Ninth and Tenth Dynasties Early Eleventh Dynasty

2160–2055 BC 2160–2025 2125–2055

Middle Kingdom Later Eleventh Dynasty Twelfth Dynasty Thirteenth Dynasty Fourteenth Dynasty

2055–1650 BC 2055–1985 1985–1773 1773–after 1650 1773–1650

1 The following chronological outline is based on the one provided in Shaw 2003, 480–489. For an overview of the evidence on which chronologies of ancient Egypt are based and the existing problems in establishing a chronology of Egyptian history see Hornung et al. 2006.

xxiv

outline of egyptian chronology

Second Intermediate Period Fifteenth Dynasty Sixteenth Dynasty Seventeenth Dynasty

1650–1550 BC 1650–1550 1650–1580 c. 1580–1550

New Kingdom Eighteenth Dynasty Nineteenth Dynasty Twentieth Dynasty

1550–1069 BC 1550–1295 1295–1186 1186–1069

Third Intermediate Period Twenty-First Dynasty Twenty-Second Dynasty Twenty-Third Dynasty Twenty-Fourth Dynasty Twenty-Fifth Dynasty

1069–664 BC 1069–945 945–715 818–715 727–715 747–656

Late Period Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (Saite Period) Twenty-Seventh Dynasty (First Persian Period) Twenty-Eighth Dynasty Twenty-Ninth Dynasty Thirtieth Dynasty Second Persian Period

664–332 BC 664–525 525–404 404–399 399–380 380–343 343–332

Ptolemaic Period Macedonian Dynasty Ptolemaic Dynasty

332–30 BC 332–305 305–30

Roman Period

30 BC–AD 395

outline of egyptian chronology

figure 1

Map of Egypt After Bowman 1996, Fig. 1

xxv

Introduction No one who studies the original documents of any religion can fail to be amazed at the power of the dead. There are peoples whose existence is almost wholly dominated by rites connected with them. Elias Canetti1

∵ 1

Setting the Scene

The quotation above is something of a truism in the case of the ancient Egyptian people, whose funerary beliefs and traditions have been, and continue to be, the focus of much academic literature. Their Pharaonic funerary remains— textual, archaeological and artefactual—have been analysed from a variety of perspectives using a range of approaches, and have shaped much of our understanding of their culture. Textual sources show that in ancient Egypt death was accepted as a necessary part of creation, since the underlying idea was that life could only exist, be renewed and regained through death, hence their belief in the survival of the dead after their physical death. Concepts of what happens after death, and therefore the ritual responses to it, are, to some extent, influenced by the ideas that a specific society holds on the nature of man. Christian beliefs, for example, are dualistic, with the person consisting of a corruptible body and an eternal soul, and it is around the fate after death of these two concepts that Christian eschatology is based. On the other hand, the ancient Egyptians’ conception of the human being was monistic, whereby any survival after death depended on the preservation of the individual as a whole.2 A person was understood as a composite of different physical and non-physical elements, the most important of which were the physical body (ḫt), subject to decay, the ka (kꜣ) and the ba (bꜣ).3 1 Canetti 1973, 305. 2 Taylor 2001, 16; Smith 2009, 3. 3 The remaining elements were: the corpse (ẖꜥt) or mummy (sꜥḥ), which are the terms used to describe the body in death; the heart (i҆b or ḥꜣ.ṱ), which was considered the seat of man’s intellect and morals, whose preservation was necessary for the person’s survival as a thinking

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_002

2

introduction

The ka came into existence at the birth of an individual and had the character of a person’s double, hence its depiction as a copy of the person, although it had no physicality. The ka existed during the person’s lifetime, but assumed a more prominent role after death. Indeed, it was associated with the life force of an individual, and it was through the presentation of the offerings to his/her ka that the deceased could receive nourishment in the afterlife. The ba-spirit of the deceased was, likewise, a non-physical element, though it was believed to possess many human characteristics such as the ability to eat, drink, speak and move in and out of the tomb. It was regarded as being closely linked to the body, but also separable from it, and as having the power to become corporeal and incorporeal at will. The body represented a kind of ‘anchor’ for the ba to which it had to return each night in order to be reunited with it. This nightly reunion of the ba to the corpse in the burial chamber enabled the cyclical resurrection, or rejuvenation, of the deceased.4 The preservation of the physical, corruptible body was of the utmost importance since it served as a kind of ‘anchor’ for the other elements, particularly the ka and the ba. This was effected through the process of mummification, which was supervised by the overseer of the mysteries assisted in his tasks by a God’s seal-bearer and a Lector-priest, while the actual operations were probably carried out by the embalmers. The embalming consisted both of the actual operations performed on the corpse to create a mummy, and of the ceremonies and rituals that transformed it into an eternal being capable of reuniting with its ba.5 The deceased that had undergone all of the funerary preparations became an akh (ꜣḫ), a concept that embodies the Egyptian notion of blessed dead. In order to ensure the survival of the transfigured dead in the afterlife it was necessary to provide him/her with offerings through the mortuary cult. Pharaonic funerary literature shows that the recipient of the offering cult was the ka of the deceased, rather than the physical body. The ka travelled from the body in the burial chamber to the chapel where the offerings were presented to it in the formal ritual context of the tomb chapel.6 Ideally, it would be the eldest being (only those judged to have a good heart would be allowed into the afterlife, and this concept is most visually expressed in scenes of a heart being weighed on a scale against the feather of truth (maat)); the name (rn) was also believed to be part of a person’s very essence, for a man’s name to be destroyed or forgotten meant the person’s total annihilation; and the shadow (šwt), also considered an essential part of the living person although it is most often mentioned in connection with the dead and depicted as a black silhouette of the deceased (Taylor 2001, 15–24). 4 Taylor 2001, 19–21, 23, 31–32. 5 Taylor 2001, 23, 76. 6 Taylor 2001, 19, 174.

introduction

3

son of the deceased that served as the main cult officiant, which mythological archetype was represented by the myth of Osiris with Horus performing the funerary rituals for his deceased father. Indeed, providing for the entire burial of deceased parents was, traditionally, the responsibility of their children, as witnessed by Pharaonic funerary inscriptions.7 Already in the Pharaonic Period the fulfilment of this duty was also a prerequisite to inheriting the parents’ property, as shown by a passage in P. Cairo CG 58092/P. Boulaq X (Ramesside Period) concerning an argument over inheritance. The text on the recto makes an allusion to a ‘Law of Pharaoh’ which states ‘let the possessions (of the deceased) be given to him who buries’ (recto lines 10–11). Textual sources show that this law applied to anyone who fulfilled the duty of burying a dead person, not just to the offspring of the deceased.8 However, funerary priests could also perform the mortuary cult in place of the deceased’s son. In the Pharaonic Period these were the hem-ka priests (ḥm-kꜣ), literally, the servants of the ka, who were, as their title implies, responsible for the presentation of the offerings to the ka of the dead person.9 Alternatively, a private mortuary cult could also be performed by the priesthood of a local temple, as indicated by the contractual arrangements stipulated between the provincial governor Djefahapy and the high priest of the god Wepwawet at Asyut. The contracts were inscribed on the tomb walls and established that the endowments of Djefahapy would provide funds for the cult of the god Wepwawet, while its priests would perform and maintain the mortuary cult of the dead governor.10 During the Late and the Ptolemaic periods funerary priests were called water-pourer, or choachyte in Greek. Their occupation, as their Egyptian title implies, was that of pouring water, or rather libations, for the deceased in their care. These were professional funerary priests that fulfilled the role of the ‘eldest son’ whose duty, traditionally, was that of taking care of the funerary ‘needs’ of his deceased parents. Their services could be contracted for by the relatives of a deceased person. In this respect, they can be considered as the successors of the ka-servants of earlier periods of Egyptian history.11 Indeed, the evidence from the Tomb robberies papyri12 indicates that already in the Ramesside Period (New Kingdom) there were professional water-pourers who were attached to the tombs or the shrines

7 8 9 10 11 12

Taylor 2001, 171, 175. Janssen and Pestman 1968, 139–140, 167; Taylor 2001, 171, 175; Lippert 2013, 4, 9. Taylor 2001, 175; see, however, Allam (1985) for an analysis of the actual range of competences of people thus titled. Taylor 2001, 176. Donker Van Heel 1992, 19; Taylor 2001, 177. Peet 1930 and 1915.

4

introduction

of important private individuals, such as the deified Amenhotep son of Hapu,13 a First Prophet of Amun,14 as well as to the shrines of kings.15 Until the Late Period such mortuary cult would often be supported by an endowment, frequently in the form of a parcel of land, which profits served to provide all the items presented to the deceased and for the payment of the cult officiant(s). The latter were paid through a process known as the ‘reversion of offerings,’ whereby they would be given the foodstuffs presented to the deceased.16 In the Ptolemaic Period the funerary priests were paid in kind and money, although the custom of setting up endowments for the express purpose of paying for a person’s mortuary cult appears to have been discontinued.17 Naturally, the elaborateness of the cult proceedings depended on the socioeconomic status of the deceased, with non-royal mortuary cults having a simpler organisation with a smaller number of priests.18 In fact, textual sources indicate that, in the vast majority of cases, throughout Egyptian history, the preparation of the corpse for burial and the subsequent performance of the mortuary cult were carried out by the surviving relatives of the deceased. O. BM EA 5634 (Ramesside Period) from Deir el-Medina, for example, records the absence from work of one of the workers on account of the fact that he had to ‘wrap up’ (ḥr wt) his brother. This, together with the fact that a number of the mummies of the Deir el-Medina workers were poorly mummified, indicates that they were ‘embalmed’ at home rather than by professional embalmers. This, in turn, suggests that even among such ‘status group’ there were people unable to afford the expense of a professional mummification.19 With respect to the performance of the mortuary cult textual sources show that this too was the responsibility of the surviving relatives. The text inscribed on the Qau bowl (6th–11th dynasties), for example, addressed by a son to his deceased mother, shows that the former was responsible for making libations for her. In the ‘letter’ he first mentions an injury done against him by another person and then threatens to stop libating for his mother if she does not intervene against the wrong done to him.20 Similarly, some of the ostraca from Deir el13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

P. BM EA 10053 r. 6.1, 6.5; P. BM EA 10068 v. 1.6 (Donker Van Heel 1992, 25 and Tables III and IV). P. BM EA 10053 r. 3.4, 4.7 (Donker Van Heel 1992, 25 and Tables III and IV). P. BM EA 10054 v. 1.7–8; P. Leopold II, 2.3; P. Amherst 3.4; Abbott Dockets B, 13; P. BM EA 10052, 4.26–27 (Donker Van Heel 1992, 25 and Tables III and IV). Taylor 2001, 95, 174–175. See further Chapter 1 § 4. Taylor 2001, 176. Donker Van Heel 1992, 27; Cooney 2007, 261–262 note 6; Taylor 2001, 77. Gardiner and Sethe 1928, 3–5 and Pl. III–IIIA; Donker Van Heel 1992, 20.

introduction

5

Medina recording workers’ absences, as well as the reasons for their inactivity, show that it was the surviving family members that would be making libations for their dead relatives.21 Likewise, the oath recorded in O. Uppsala 611 (117– 116BC), concerning property stolen from inside a tomb, indicates this was also the case during the Ptolemaic Period, since the plaintiff is to swear that in the tomb there was property with which he made offerings for his father.22 Although individuals that performed the mortuary cult of the deceased during the later periods of Egyptian history are often identified as funerary priests, they were, in reality, no more than ‘lay priests’ alongside another religious class, that of the pastophoroi. A clear distinction between the latter group and temple priests is made in the regulations of the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, which stipulates that the former group could hold only private posts, but not priestly positions.23 In documents of the Ptolemaic period, the professional title of pastophoros corresponds to the Demotic title door-keeper (i҆ryꜥꜣ).24 During the Pharaonic Period the latter appear to have had a rather low status, since in P. Harris I/P. BM EA 9999, a list of temple endowments by Ramses III, they are recorded after, for example, ‘pigeon-keepers.’ However, from the Saite Period onwards pastophoroi appear to enjoy a much higher rank, as shown by the fact that P. Rylands Dem. 9 (513BC) distinguishes between three groups of temple related positions: wꜥb-priests, pastophoroi and ‘people who enter/belong to a temple.’ The same text also indicates that the nature of the income received by the pastophoroi was regarded as being different from that of prophets and priests, which is in keeping with the regulations of the Gnomon of the Idios Logos stipulating that the former group may not hold priestly positions, only private ones. Indeed, from the Saite Period pastophoroi are attested as, for example, dream-interpreters as well as funerary attendants. In turn, the latter group are identified in some Demotic documents by the occupational title of choachyte designating their main activity.25 The appointments of both pastophoroi and choachytes are described in Demotic as ‘private appointments’ (sḥn), which are distinguished from priestly posts identified as ‘offices’ (i҆ꜣw.t).26 P. BM EA 10120 B (517 BC) indicates that already in the Persian Period the Theban choachytes were considered a subgroup of the

21 22 23 24 25 26

Donker Van Heel 1992, 24. Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 316; see also Chapter 18. Muhs in press, 1. See further Chapter 1 § 4. Muhs in press, 5–7; for a current edition of P. Rylands Dem. 9 (513BC) see Vittmann 1998. Muhs in press, 14.

6

introduction

pastophoroi, and their posts sḥn-appointments.27 Interestingly, in the Ramesside period a number of the individuals identified as water-pourers appear to have been engaged in other rather varied professions such as that of baker or of carpenter,28 as was the case with the pastophoroi of the Late and Ptolemaic periods.29 Finally, one of the aspects that this study of the Ptolemaic documentary sources has highlighted is that, despite the diverse range of titles attested throughout the country, which are linked to both temporospatial changes and hierarchical differences (for example lector-priests vs. embalmers),30 the ‘services’ they performed for the deceased can be reduced to two main tasks: the mummification of the corpse to enable its transfiguration into a blessed being, and the performance of the mortuary cult to ensure its eternal survival in the afterlife. These remained essentially the same as those performed by the priests of the Pharaonic Period as, indeed, stayed their core funerary beliefs.

2

Previous Scholarship on the Subject

By comparison with earlier times, the funerary practices of the later periods, particularly those of the Ptolemaic Period, have received less attention. Traditionally, the study of the funerary industry in Egypt during this period has been based mainly on Greek textual sources from selected areas, and especially on the accounts of classical authors, as well as on select documentary sources from this and the following Roman Period. Alongside publications that (succinctly) discuss the functioning of the funerary industry in particular areas of the country,31 previous scholarship on the topic has focused on a number of specific aspects, which can be grouped into the following categories:

27 28 29 30 31

Muhs in press, 7–8. Donker Van Heel 1992, 25. See further Chapter 7 § 5. See further Chapter 11 § 4. For example Bataille 1952; Devauchelle 1987; Thompson 1988; Vleeming 1995; Pasek 2007; Uytterhoeven 2009. Due to space constraints only a general overview of the main publications on the topic is included here (listed in order of publication). I have not presented a survey of the religious and literary texts, since the main focus of my work is on documentary evidence. References to them and to publications of textual and/or archaeological material relating to the sacred animal necropolis are given in the sections where they are discussed.

introduction

7

– (re)edition of individual texts or corpora (including ostraca),32 – study of the composition of particular archives, especially those from Thebes,33 – role and identity of the funerary attendants,34 – economic role and position of the Egyptian priesthood,35 – economic and social position of women,36 – succession laws and inheritance,37 – interaction between ethnic groups,38 – analysis of the funerary archaeological record of specific areas,39 – mummification materials and procedures, and human remains,40 – general studies on Egyptian funerary practices. The preceding list shows how, despite the vast number of publications of documents and archives, as well as of the role and identity of funerary workers in the Ptolemaic Period, previous research has tended to concentrated on particular areas of the country, or on specific aspects of the Ptolemaic funerary practices. However, it is also true that a study of the textual and archaeological record of this period presents many difficulties, since numerous Demotic documents are available only in old editions or are unpublished, as are the early excavations of Ptolemaic funerary remains. Notwithstanding these challenges, and building on previous work, I have undertaken a comparative analysis of the data available from the different parts of the country in order to

32

33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40

See for example Wilcken 1927, 1935–1953; Andrews 1990; Pestman 1981, 1992, 1993; Muhs 2003, 2005; Martin 2009; Vleeming 1994; Pestman and Vleeming 1994; Clarysse and Thompson 2006a–b; Pasek 2007; Armoni 2013. See for example Otto 1905, 1908; Reich 1936; Glanville 1950; el-Amir 1960, 1969; Quaegebeur 1978–1979, 1978; Seidl 1962, 1969 on the Hawara archive. Revillout 1879, 1880; Wilcken 1927, 1935–1953; Sauneron 1952; Quaegebeur 1989, 1987, 1985; Pestman 1981, 1992, 1993; Derda 1991; see also the relevant entries in the Lexikon der Ägyptologie by various authors. See for example Clarysse 1979; Quaegebeur 1979; Johnson 1986; Muhs 2003, 2005; Sauneron 2000. For example Johnson 1998; O’Brien 1999. For example Pestman 1969 and Pestman 1987. See for example Clarysse 1995. See for example Strudwick 2003. For studies on mummification see for example Shore 1992, Janot 2000, and Charron 2004. On analyses of human remains see David 1979 and Gray 1966, while for studies of specific aspects of the embalming process see for example Derry 1942. For an examination of the materials used, see for example Iskander et al. 1964 and 1973; and Lucas 1914, 1914a, 1931, 1932 and 1932a; Riggs 2014 for a discussion on the extended significance of wrapping and wrappings.

8

introduction

chart and understand diachronic variations in the surviving textual record, and to produce a fuller picture of the workings of the funerary industry at this time.

3

Scope and Organisation of the Book

The central theme of the present work is the Egyptian funerary industry of the Ptolemaic Period, more specifically the organisation of the necropolises and that of its funerary workers, as well as the role of the latter in the practical aspects of the embalming, funeral, burial, and mortuary cult of the deceased. The scope of this work is to gather together the evidence available on this topic, to provide a detailed survey of the numerous sources for the practice and administration of mortuary rituals and their practitioners in Egypt during the Ptolemaic Period (332–30 BCE), and to synthesize it so as to make it more accessible to the wider readership. In order to delimit what would otherwise be a boundless subject matter, it has been necessary to set specific thematic, textual, linguistic, temporal, and geographical limits. Thematically the analysis is restricted to the human funerary industry. In fact, even though it appears that the same individuals could be involved in the mummification of both humans and sacred animals, the vast majority of surviving textual sources relate to the former. Therefore, although I use some textual and archaeological sources relating to, or originating from, the sacred animal necropolises, the main focus of my work is on human funerary practices. In terms of textual genre, I have chosen to concentrate almost exclusively on documentary evidence, as opposed to literary and religious sources, because, by its nature the former is less susceptible to the ‘biases’ that influence other types of textual data. This is not to deny the great value of religious and literary sources, and indeed I have drawn upon some of them in this work. However, this study focuses on the practical aspects of the funerary industry— such as Who were the individuals exercising control over the necropolis? What happened during the different stages of death, mummification, and burial? Who were the individuals responsible for these various stages? On this topic, it is the documents—the legal deeds, the receipts and the letters exchanged between individuals with professional links to the funerary sphere—that provide the bulk of the information. In addition, unlike literary and religious sources, the documentary evidence has not been the focus of research to the same extent as the former. Since the funerary industry was one of the most conservative aspects of Egyptian culture, it is the documentary sources in Demotic that form

introduction

9

the core of the textual analysis, although the relevant Greek material has also been drawn upon and included in this study. The temporal focus of this work is the Ptolemaic Period, principally because the vast majority of the pertinent textual sources date from this time. However, documentary sources from the preceding and following periods have also been used as comparative material, though by no means with an extensive coverage, in an attempt to follow the development of funerary practices from the Late Period through to the Roman Period. Geographically, the focal point is the chora since in this region the funerary sphere remained largely free from Greek influence, which is clearly present in Alexandria, as is shown for example by the more widespread use of cremation as opposed to inhumation, as well as by the typology of some of the burial structures. Over 350 documents from around the country attest, either directly or indirectly, to the activity of mortuary priests and provide evidence for the organisation of the necropolises during this period. I have divided these according to the region whence they originated since this appears to largely correspond also to regional differences in the organisation of the funerary industry. By comparing data from different parts of the country it is possible to observe both geographical and diachronical variations in funerary practices, as well as possible trends of influence of one area over another. Finally, in order to arrive at a rounded picture of the funerary industry of this period, I have incorporated relevant archaeological data, particularly with regard to the typology of individual funerary structures, the processes behind the acquisition of new burial plots, and patterns of tombs’ repeated use, as well as the social, economic, religious, political and geological factors that may have influenced them. The work is divided into three main parts, each focusing on different facets of the topic. The first part examines the Organisation of the necropolis and its funerary priests. Thus the first five chapters (each dedicated to a specific necropolis or groups thereof) present, analyse and discuss the textual sources relating to the officials in control of the necropolis, the organisation and hierarchy of the various funerary workers, their competences with regard to the practical aspects of the embalming, funeral, burial, and mortuary cult of the deceased, and their territorial jurisdiction. This treatment has highlighted temporal and geographical variations, for example, in terms of the professional titles borne by the funerary priests, and the specific range of activities performed by each of them. The changes in ‘titulary’ occur gradually and over extended periods, showing that they were internal to the native industry, and not imposed from above by the new regime. A separate chapter is dedicated to the analysis of the evidence pertaining to female mortuary priests and their

10

introduction

performance of this activity. Using a countrywide palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs (= to embalm),41 I argue that, although the evidence is not conclusive, there is no indication in the primary sources that they could not, even did not, exercise this profession in the same way as their male counterparts. Another chapter is devoted to the analysis of the varied terminology used to define and identify the services performed by the priests, the income they received for them, and available evidence relating to their personal and professional taxation. The chapter concludes with a survey of any other economic activity in which they engaged, such as farming, land leasing, borrowing and lending, buying and selling immovable properties, and liturgical services. The last two chapters in this first part deal respectively with the evidence for the membership of these priests in religious associations, and with the social context in which they lived and operated, analysing aspects of residence, marriage and inheritance, as well as interactions with individuals outside their professional circle. The second part of the book is structured from the standpoint of the deceased’s Death, mummification and burial. The analysis starts with the death of an individual and the beginning of the mourning period, examining these aspects from both a textual and a pragmatic perspective. For those who could afford it, it was possible to hire the services of a funerary priest who would take care of the more practical aspects of death—the transport of the deceased to the necropolis, the mummification and the burial. However, the vast majority of the population would be responsible for organising these aspects within the family, including the ritual washing of the body, the arrangements for the transport to the necropolis, and the burial of the deceased. The following chapter is devoted to the analysis of the mummification process in terms of its length and, consequently, cost, as well as the structures traditionally associated with it, the pr-nfr and the wꜥb.t. The latter are studied from a philological point with a view to determine possible differences between them, and from a physical standpoint, whether they denote a permanent or a moveable structure; and finally with respect to their location, and hence the place where the mummification was carried out. Following a brief analysis of whether the family or a mortuary priest may have been responsible for arranging for the mummification of a deceased person, the next section is devoted to examining the mummification process itself and the associated materials and rituals. In addition, using a range of sources, I attempt to define the various stages of this process and

41

This I have argued previously using the Theban data (Cannata 2007), while here I include a full study of all the examples available from the areas under analysis.

introduction

11

their individual length. The final section deals with the identity and role of the funerary priests involved in the embalming. Funeral and burial—the final act of separation between the living and the dead—are the topics covered in chapter twelve. Textual sources clearly show that not everyone was buried immediately after their mummification. This intermediate phase is examined in this section, together with the range of factors that may have affected it. A further section presents a philological analysis of the terms used in these sources to refer to the act of burying the dead, while the final section is devoted to the mortuary cult of a deceased person. Naturally, mummification materials and burial equipment would have to be acquired, and burial taxes would need to be paid, before proceeding to the interment. These materials, their provision, or rather the question of who was responsible for their provision, and the actual cost of the entire process, are discussed in chapter thirteen, which deals with the funerary expenses. The final chapter in this second part is devoted to the deceased, the different terminology used to distinguish the living from the dead, the epithets master (ḥry) and blessed (ḥsy) bestowed on some of the dead, and the social milieux of the deceased attested in the textual sources analysed. This analysis in turn provides information on the social strata that were able to afford the services of these funerary priests, and within them the number of families that on average appears to have engaged these necropolis workers each year. The third part analyses the Necropolises, tombs and burials as physical entities, with respect to the location of burial grounds, and any change apparent during this period, in the five areas under scrutiny, as well as presenting the information about their topography that can be gathered from the textual sources. A separate section is devoted to legal aspects of ownership, taxation and acquisition of burial and building plots in the necropolis, arguing that private individuals and funerary priests alike did not own the plot of land or the funerary structure, which remained the property of the temple in which domain the cemetery area was located. Rather, it was the right of use over these properties that was transferred between the funerary priests themselves and private individuals too. The second chapter in this third part is devoted to the tombs themselves, their construction as well as their repeated use over time. The first aspect is studied on the basis of a unique document detailing the expenses incurred at various stages of the building process for a variety of workers. The second aspect, traditionally termed ‘tomb reuse’ in Egyptological literature, is analysed in its complexity from social, religious, political, economic, and practical perspectives in an attempt to highlight the factors that may have prompted the practice during the Ptolemaic Period. The wide range of terminology used in the textual sources to identify the various types of funerary structures is compared and contrasted with the actual tombs’ typologies

12

introduction

attested in the archaeological record, in an attempt to reconcile the two. A final section is devoted to a discussion of the precision with which the terminology is used in the identification of these structures in the textual record. The last chapter in this part presents a select survey of body treatment, as attested in the archaeological record of these five geographical areas, and its correlation with the mode of inhumation. The analysis highlights the importance of a container for the body (pottery, wooden, or cartonnage) over the use of a burial structure. Various combinations were possible, and the examination shows the multiplicity of permutations aimed at providing the body with as much protection as one’s economic means allowed. The results of the analyses presented in the individual parts of the book are synthesised in a concluding discussion of how the funerary industry and its professional staff were organised during the Ptolemaic Period. The investigation shows how deeply rooted the mortuary practices of this period are in the continuing funerary culture of the Pharaonic and Late periods, and how the industry evolved constantly through processes of internal change. Throughout this study I have incorporated relevant anthropological data in order to add more of a lived dimension to the people whose traditions and culture we are trying to understand, and to place their customs within the wider cultural context that will no longer be of us vs. them. By incorporating a range of ethnographic data it is possible to see how the Egyptians were not alone in their response to particularly difficult life-events, such as death and bereavement. In addition, the application of a theory-informed approach, using insights from other cultures across time and space, permits us to shed some light on aspects for which relevant textual and archaeological evidence is lacking. Most importantly, though, it opens up new avenues of inquiry, suggesting alternative ways in which the available data can be viewed and interpreted. Three appendices are included in the book. In the first I present a palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs, while the second offers a translation of P. Florence 3667 (111BC), recording the expenses undertaken at the death of one of the choachytes by his family, as well as an attempted computation of the final cost. The final appendix consists of 40 tables in which the data analysed is summarised, and which are referred to in the body of text using the abbreviation A. followed by the number of the relevant table. Lists of all documents, one grouped by necropolis of provenance, and one by museum inventory numbers complete with bibliographical details, are given in two separate indexes, followed by a record of personal names and by a list of toponyms mentioned, while an index of select English words concludes the book.

introduction

4

13

Notes on the Conventions and Abbreviations Used

The survival of the textual sources is very uneven, with the vast majority originating from Thebes, as against hardly any published examples from Edfu and Middle Egypt. The first aim has therefore been to identify groups of relevant textual material so as to cover the main geographical areas. The five necropolises/areas chosen are Memphis, Hawara, Middle Egypt, Thebes, and Edfu. In order to fill in gaps in our knowledge, the documentation from Hawara is supplemented with a small number of documents from Tanis, Sobek Pes, Magdola, Oxyrhyncha, Tebtunis and Theadelphia, whenever appropriate. Because the textual evidence from Middle Egypt this area is at present limited to sources from Deir er-Rifeh, Siut, and Sharuna, these are treated together under the heading ‘Middle Egypt necropolises.’ Given that it is the analysis of the Theban sources that helps to elucidate how the funerary industry was structured in other parts of the country, this material is treated first, and it is then compared and contrasted with that from the other areas of the country. The sources originating from Edfu, limited as they are, suggest that the industry in this area was organised along the same lines as that of Thebes; the study therefore starts in Upper Egypt and then moves to Memphis, Hawara, and finally Middle Egypt. The archaeological remains reviewed are those found in these five areas, whenever necessary, or relevant, supplemented with data from other parts of the country that is also used as comparative material. Throughout this work a number of terms are used to identify the people working within the funerary sphere. In particular, although a difference exists in the specific meaning of the terms ‘funerary’ and ‘mortuary,’ here they are used as synonyms; thus, no difference is implied between ‘funerary attendants’ and ‘mortuary attendants.’ Similarly, the word priest is used loosely to refer to individuals who performed a service for the deceased, without any implication as to their status within the temple hierarchy. The status and ranking of lector-priests, choachytes, pastophoroi and others within the temple hierarchy is discussed separately within the relevant chapters. Ultimately, whatever their status within such a hierarchy, these individuals worked in the necropolis and as such they are also identified in this study as ‘necropolis workers/attendants.’

part 1 The Organisation of the Necropolis and Its Funerary Priests

∵

chapter 1

The Theban Necropolis A range of different officers were involved in the necropolis organisation. At its head there was the Overseer of the Necropolis, accountable to the Lesonis and the Steward. The actual mortuary priests were the choachytes, the embalmers, the necrotaphoi and the entaphiastai, the latter two attested only from a very small number of documents.

1

The Overseer of the Necropolis

As mentioned above, at the head of the necropolis organisation there was the overseer of the necropolis, who was apparently drawn from among the lectorpriests, possibly because of their higher status among funerary priests.1 P. BM EA 10528 (291BC), the oldest surviving document on the subject of tax collection, indicates that appointment to this position was farmed out to interested individuals. This contract was stipulated between Pelaias, son of Thotortaios and Tawatenchemet, and Harsiesis, son of Panas and Thibis, both of whom bear the title of lector-priest of the Baboon (ẖr-ḥb n pꜣ ꜥꜥn). In this document, Pelaias, who, in his capacity as overseer of the necropolis, is responsible for the collection of funerary taxes,2 sets out his obligations towards the rest of the lector-priests in the necropolis, and states that he has informed the relevant authority about these arrangements: ‘It is your right, that which is my obligation, not to strike against you concerning the money, and against all the lector-priests who are in the necropolis of Djeme, about the 5 deben (…) concerning which I wrote to the commissioner saying “I will pay them in the name of3 the overseer of the necropolis (with respect to) the money which will be given on 1 See below Chapter 1 § 4. 2 Two different types of funerary taxes are attested for the Ptolemaic period: the ‘money of the overseer of the necropolis’ (ḥḏ mr-ḫꜣs.t), and the transfer-tax. For these taxes see Chapter 13 § 3 and Chapter 15 § 3. 3 The expression rn pꜣ mr-ḫꜣs.t is probably to be understood as meaning ‘instead of’ rather than more literally as ‘in the name of,’ since it seems possible that Pelaias was to act as representative of the overseer of the necropolis, or as a de facto overseer for reasons not specified in the document.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_003

18

chapter 1

account of the tombs,4 at 2½ kite for one, together with the money that will be given to the overseer of the necropolis for the people whom they will bring out to the necropolis of Djeme.” All the said money being mine by reason of (lit. on account of) the 5 deben concerning which I wrote to the commissioner’ (st mtw=k r nt ꜥ.wy=y r tm sh̭ r-r=k n ḥḏ ḥnꜥ nꜣ ẖr-ḥb.w nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ tr=w n pꜣ ḥḏ 5 (…) r-hb=y r pꜣ sḥn n-i҆m=w ḏ i҆w=y r ty.t st rn pꜣ mr-ḫꜣs.t (n?) nꜣ ḥḏ nt i҆w=w r ty.t st rn nꜣ šty.wt n ḥḏ ḳt 2½ r 1.t ḥnꜥ nꜣ ḥḏ nt i҆w=w ty.t st n pꜣ mr-ḫꜣs.t n nꜣ rmṯ.w nt i҆w=w r i҆n.ṱ=w n bnr r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ i҆w i҆nk nꜣ ḥḏ rn=w tr=w ẖr pꜣ ḥḏ 5 r-hb=y n-i҆m=w r pꜣ sḥn).5 lines 1–3

In the following passage Pelaias requests that the lector-priests draw up for him a document in which they renounce claim over any money they may have collected on his behalf, possibly in the absence of Pelaias, and that were to be handed over to him: ‘While, (with respect to) the money which will be given to me on account of the tombs (and) the taxes of the overseer of the necropolis, you are to draw up for me a receipt saying “we are far from it.”’6 (i҆w pꜣ ḥḏ nt i҆w=w r ty st n=y rn nꜣ šty.w nꜣ ḥḏ.w n pꜣ mr-ḫꜣs.t mtw=tn i҆r n=y i҆w r-r=f ḏ tw=n wy.ṱ r-r=f ).7 line 3 4 The correct reading of this word was established by Depauw 2000, 70. 5 I follow Hughes and Nims (1940) in understanding the following text as containing a series of clauses in extraposition since this gives a better understanding of the document’s contents. The present agreement does not provide any evidence for the suggestion that the overseer in charge was Harsiesis, son of Panas (PP III 6929; Vleeming 1995, 253 note 58; Vleeming 1994a, 360; Depauw 2000, 73). Given that the office appears to have been held for a determinate period of time (Vleeming 1994a, 361), the holding of such a position by a person in 301 BC (P. Philadelphia XXX) would not necessarily imply that the same individual was still in service in 291 BC (P. BM EA 10528). Similarly, there is no evidence for the suggestion that this man was a lesonis or head of the temple (Depauw 2000, 73). In P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301BC) this man is identified as the Overseer of the Necropolis. 6 This requirement for a receipt is not immediately evident from those burial-tax receipts where a scribe acknowledges receipt of the money exacted at the request of the overseer of the necropolis: O. BM EA 5782 (3rd cent. BC), O. BM EA 5787 (260BC), O. BM EA 5730 (260BC), O. BM EA 5744 (259 BC), O. BM EA 5729 (252 BC), O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 371 (259 BC), O. Brooklyn 37.1858 E (264 BC), O. Brooklyn 37.1859 E (267 BC), O. Brooklyn 37.1865 E (266 BC), O. Brooklyn 37.1882 E + 37.1857 E (260 BC), O. Brooklyn 37.1864 E (260 BC), O. Brooklyn 37.1863 E (259 BC), O. TT32 (264 BC), O. BM EA 5779 (277–276 BC), and O. Berlin 9699 (254–253 BC). However, they do show that other necropolis workers could collect these taxes, presumably in the absence of the overseer himself, since the burial tax receipts show a number of clerks collecting these duties at the request of the overseer named (see Table A.1). 7 The scribe appears to have confused between two types of clauses since instead of extrapo-

the theban necropolis

19

The following statement by Pelaias indicates that a part of the taxes paid was destined for the temple, which, should the overseer fail to correspond, may have been requested from the lector-priests themselves: ‘(as for) the money8 concerning which they will come against the lectorpriests9 in the name of the domain of Amun, which is in the district of Thebes, I am to give it to it10 (scil. the temple domain)’ (· pꜣ ḥḏ nt i҆w=w r i҆y r nꜣ ẖr.w-ḥb n-i҆m=f rn ḥtp i҆mn nt n pꜣ tš nw.t mtw=y ty.t s ẖr-r=f ). lines 3–4

Thus Pelaias is responsible towards the temple for the exaction and payment of a specific tax, while in the next clause he explains how he is to be repaid for the money he has given to the temple: ‘The money which I will give to it (scil. the temple domain) you are to repay it to me from the money which they will cause him to pay’ (nꜣ ḥḏ nt i҆w=y r ty.t st ẖr-r=f mtw=tn ty.t st n=y ẖn nꜣ ḥḏ nt i҆w=w r ty.t ty=f st).11 line 4

8

9

10

11

sition followed by a conjunctive, he wrote a circumstantial clause followed by a conjunctive, where instead of r-r=w he used r-r=f which is probably to be understood as co-ordinate with the initial pꜣ ḥḏ. The photograph of this document shows that there is indeed a dot before pꜣ ḥḏ as suggested by the original editor of the text, but doubted by the reviewers (Hughes and Nims 1940, 256 note g). An example for the use of a dot as punctuation is also found in P. BM EA 10599 (169 BC) (lines 13–14) (Thompson 1934), where the scribe employed it to separate a present tense clause from the following conjunctive to indicate that he was using the conjunctive independently rather than as continuing the first clause (Johnson 2004, 189). The clause pꜣ ḥḏ nt i҆w=w r i҆y r nꜣ ẖr.w-ḥb was translated by Hughes and Nims as ‘as for the money concerning which they will come to the lector-priests,’ while Depauw proposed the reading ‘the money with which they will come to the lector-priests’ (Hughes and Nims 1940, 255; Depauw 2000, 72). However, the expression r i҆y r is commonly used in legal documents to refer to legal action undertaken against an individual, and this is the way in which it should be understood here. The meaning of the compound preposition ẖr-r=f in this context is not entirely certain, my reading as ‘to it’ is based on an example found in the story of Setne, P. Cairo 30646 (Ptolemaic Period): ‘Setne caused a boat to be brought to him’ (col. 5 line 11) (tw stn i҆n=w tks ẖr-r=f ) (Lexa 1948, 781 ex. 1009.5; Speigelberg 1975, 135). Another example occurs in P. Turin 6083 (105 BC): ‘non c’è (più) una parola che dirò contro te a causa di lui (scil. Psenminis, the deceased)’ (mn mt i҆w=y ꜥš `m-sꜣ=t´ n-i҆m=s (scil. the burial) ẖr-r=f ) (lines 3–4), where the text editor translates it as ‘a causa di lui’ since it is clearly the compound preposition ẖr-r-r=f (Pestman 1985, 178–179). The text does not specify who the person identified as ‘him’ is. However, given that all the taxes mentioned in the present document are those paid by a choachyte on behalf of

20

chapter 1

Pelaias then specifies what his profit will be: ‘(as for) the 2½ kite which they will give on account of the tombs, mine are the 2 kite, while to Petearpres son of Horos, the scribe of the city of ˹Thebes˺12 belongs the ½ kite, which makes it complete’ (pꜣ ḥḏ ḳt 2½ nt i҆w=w r ty.t st rn nꜣ šty.w i҆w i҆nk nꜣ ḳt 2 i҆w wn mtw pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ sꜣ ḥr pꜣ sẖ tmy ˹nw.t˺ pꜣ ḥḏ ḳt ½ tmt).13 lines 4–5

Finally, Pelaias promises that he will not allow either the temple authorities or the state officials to strike against the lector-priests with respect to the payment of the five deben, which suggests that, if he did not pay this amount, it would be requested from them: ‘while I will not let them strike against all the lector-priests on account of the 5 deben aforesaid. You are to act for me in accordance with [everything] aforesaid, (and) I am to act for you in accordance with everything aforesaid from regnal year 14, fourth month of the winter season, day 1, until regnal year 15, first month of the winter season, the last day. If I refuse to act in accordance with everything aforesaid until regnal year 15, first month of the winter season, the last day, I will give to you 10 deben (…) by force, without delay and without any obstruction’ (i҆w bn i҆w=y ty.t sh̭ =w r nꜣ ẖr-ḥb.w tr=w rn pꜣ ḥḏ 5 nt ḥry mtw=tn i҆r n=y r-ẖ [mt nb] nt ḥry mtw=y i҆r r-ẖ mt nb nt ḥry ṯ ḥꜣ.t-sp 14 i҆bt 4 pr.t sw 1 r ḥꜣ.t-sp 15 tp pr.t sw ꜥrḳy i҆w=y sṯꜣ.ṱ r tm i҆r r-ẖ mt nb nt ḥry šꜥ ḥꜣ.t-sp 15 tp pr.t sw ꜥrḳy i҆w=y r ty.t n=tn ḥḏ 10 (…) n ḥtr i҆wṱ mn i҆wṱ sh̭ nb). lines 5–6

12 13

the family, as clearly indicated by the surviving tax receipts for both the burial and the transfer duties, it seems logical that the ‘him’ to whom the text refers is the choachyte (see Chapter 1 § 4 and Chapter 13 § 3). Vleeming 1992; Muhs 2005, 99–100; on the Theban scribal offices and scribal families see also Arlt 2011. Although grammatically the passage should be understood as being in apposition to the previous one, its meaning requires the clause to be understood as separate. In fact, if one were to connect it with the preceding one (‘namely, the 2½ kite which they will give …’) the sense of the passage would be that the person identified as ‘him’ was to pay only 2½ kite, rather than all the duties mentioned in the document. Instead, Pelaias is specifying what he is to receive, explaining that 2 kite are due to him, while the other ½ kite is for the scribe of the city of Thebes. The fact that only the transfer-tax is mentioned indicates that, unless we assume a scribal error, he was not entitled to the ½ kite tax due for each deceased brought into the necropolis, although he appears to have been responsible for its collection, probably on behalf of the temple.

the theban necropolis

21

Therefore, Pelaias, in his capacity as overseer of the necropolis, was responsible for the collection of funerary taxes during one calendar year. He has written to the state authorities informing them that he will pay 5 deben to obtain the right to farm out the transfer-tax due on the sale of tombs (and parcels of land) in the necropolis, as well as the tax due for each deceased person brought into the necropolis. The other lector-priests are to give him a cession document in which they undertake to hand over to him any amount which they may collect on account of these taxes, possibly in his absence. On the other hand, he promises that he will not let the authorities14 bother them with requests for payments, which presumably could happen if he failed to pay the agreed amount. Further, he specifies that he is to receive 2 kite out of the 2½ kite paid as transfer-tax on the plots of land and the tombs, while the remaining ½ kite is due to the scribe of the city. The fact that the other duty, the burial-tax, is not mentioned at this point in the document suggests that it was due entirely to the temple (something that may not have been deemed necessary to specify if it was common practice or knowledge).15 In this scenario the state would receive an advance payment of 5 deben allowing Pelaias (possibly the highest bidder) to farm out the relevant taxes, while the temple would receive its taxes on account of the entombed deceased, allowing him to make a profit out of the difference between the taxes collected and the money paid.16 That the overseer of the necropolis was chosen from among the lectorpriests is indicated also by P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC), a document in which are recorded a number of entries relating to the accounts of two associate lectorpriests, Amenothes son of Horos and Petenephotes son of Petenephotes. Two of the entries in this document show amounts in deben received in the capacity of ‘chief of the necropolis’ (tp ḫꜣs.t), a title which was probably equivalent to that of overseer of the necropolis (mr ḫꜣs.t).17 The office, already attested from the Late Period,18 appears to have been held for a specific period of time, generally one calendar year, at the end of which others may have been able to farm-out the position. Only two individuals are identified as overseer of the necropolis in the surviving receipts, which span the period between 310 and 224BC, and it is therefore not possible to be certain

14 15 16

17 18

In this case probably both state and temple are meant. A scribal error could, of course, also account for the omission, but it seems unlikely. Although at first this may seem a highly desirable arrangement, it may not have been an entirely risk-free enterprise since there was no guarantee on the number of tombs and land allotments sold in a given year. See also Chapter 1 § 6. The office is attested in P. Louvre E 7850 (533 BC) and P. Cairo 50060 (Persian Period).

22

chapter 1

of the exact length of this office tenure, although the evidence of P. BM EA 10528 (291BC) (lines 5–6) suggests it would be for a calendar year.19 During the documented time span, two different overseers of the necropolis are attested. In particular, during regnal years 20–21 and 22–24 of Ptolemy II, Petemestous son of Poulemis was collecting the taxes due, while the overseer of the necropolis appears to have been, at least in year 21, Amenrosis son of Totoes. In trying to explain the mechanics behind the division of work between these individuals it has been suggested that Amenrosis may have infringed on the competence of Petemestous during year 21–22.20 However, the latter could also have been acting on behalf of the overseer Amenrosis, a possibility already mentioned in P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC) (line 3), which means that there was no infringement of competences between the two individuals. The overseer was subordinate to the Steward and the Lesonis as shown by O. Brooklyn 37.1859 E (267BC), O. Brooklyn 37.1858 E (264BC), O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 371 (259 BC) and O. BM EA 5730 (260BC) in which the overseer in office is identified as ‘the representative of the steward’ (pꜣ rt pꜣ ꜥꜣ n pr), ‘the representative of the lesonis’ (pꜣ rt pꜣ mr šn) or both.21 In this capacity, he was responsible for the exaction of funerary taxes on behalf of the relevant authorities, as stated in the tax-farming agreement recorded in P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC), and as indicated by the numerous burial-tax receipts which state that they have been issued at the ‘request of PN, the overseer of the necropolis.’ However, there is also some evidence to suggest a link between the office of overseer of the necropolis and the choachytes. This possibility is raised by a small group of ostraca concerned with the ‘money of document’ (ḥḏ [var. nꜣ ḥḏ.w] (n) bꜣk),22 which are connected with the activity of the choachytes, and, according to the evidence of O. Louvre 93 and 314, to the payment of the transfer-tax on the acquisition of a burial plot. In particular, two of them, OIM 19295 (271BC) and O. BM EA 5695 (263BC), are reminiscent of the agreement recorded in P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC) discussed above, in that they seemingly record receipt of the same amount of tax-farming revenue. The first ostracon addresses a certain Psenamounis son of Panas stating ‘you are filled with the money which has come to you from the 5 silver (deben) which the choachytes give ˹it˺ to the temple, according to ˹the˺ documents ˹that we made˺ (them), which I made for the choachytes ˹for˺ each man among them’ (mḥ.k 19 20 21 22

The tax-farming agreement between oikonomos and tax farmer was also stipulated for one calendar year (Muhs 2005, 13). Vleeming 1994a, 359. See Table A.1. Muhs 2011, 183–193.

the theban necropolis

23

n ḥḏ nt pḥ r-r=k ẖn ḥḏ 5 nt nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw.w ti҆ ˹st˺ r ḥw.t-nṯr r ˹nꜣ˺ bꜣk.(w) ˹r.i҆r=n˺ ṱ=w r.i҆r=y nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw.w ˹ẖr˺ pꜣy rmṯ ẖn=w) (lines 1–4).23 This same individual is also named in the second ostracon where a certain Parates son of Harmais says to him ‘˹I am˺ filled with the ˹½˺ silver kite which have come to you from the 5 silver (deben)’ (˹tw=y˺ mḥ ḥḏ-ḳt ˹½˺ (i҆.)i҆r pḥ r-r=k ẖn ḥḏ 5) (lines 3– 4).24 Given the links between these receipts, the tax-payment on the purchase of a burial plot, and the activity of choachytes, it is possible that they were also connected with the payment of the burial-tax. This, in turn, suggests the existence of a tax-farming agreement between the choachytes and the temple administration, perhaps stipulated along similar lines to that discussed above,25 and thus the possibility that the function of overseer of the necropolis could have, at times, been explicated by choachytes too.26 During the Late Period there appear to have been close ties between these two groups, since the overseer of the necropolis sometimes attended the meetings held by the Theban choachytes’ association for the New Year (P. Louvre E 7840 [538 BC]), while some of the choachytes performed the function of overseer of the necropolis.27

2

The Lesonis

The office of the lesonis of Amun is frequently attested in transfer- and burialtax receipts where the overseer of the necropolis, or a temple scribe, is identified as his representative. The designation lesonis is the Greek rendering of the Demotic title mr šn, the overseer of the šn, although the exact meaning of the latter noun remains unclear.28 From the available documentation it is apparent that the office of lesonis was attached to individual temples as indicated by the fact that the title was often qualified by the name of a god, and that the function was mainly a financial one.29 The evidence indicates that the lesonis was responsible for the receipt and subsequent distribution of commodities to temple personnel as

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

After Muhs 2005, 140. After Muhs 2011, 187. Muhs 2011, 184–185. I am not sure if it is just a coincidence that for regnal years 15 and 22 of Ptolemy II there is no specific overseer of the necropolis attested by name. Donker van Heel 2012, 77; Donker van Heel 1995; Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 16–18, 159. A study of the title was first undertaken by Spiegelberg (1902b, 1916). For this title see also De Cenival 1972, 154; and Muhs 2005, 102–103. Muhs 1996, 190–191; Muhs 2005, 103.

24

chapter 1

shown by P. Cairo 50060 (Persian Period),30 an account, from Siut, to a lesonis for the payment of goods to local temple workers; and P. Berlin P. 13539 (493– 492BC)31 in which the priests of the temple of Khnum at Elephantine inform the Satrap that they have appointed a lesonis who will be in charge of deliveries. Similarly, during the Ptolemaic period the lesonis was in charge of the distribution of the royal syntaxis to temple personnel as indicated by the Serapieion archive and that of Horos, both from Saqqara.32 In addition, the lesonis is in some cases attested at the head of religious associations which may be an indication that he represented a link between the temple and some of the funerary priests, as well as playing a role in the overall organisation of the necropolis.33 The letter from Elephantine, P. Berlin P. 13539 (493–492 BC), indicates that the lesonis was selected from amongst priests of different ranks, although, in general, he appears to have been chosen from among the temple’s high priests.34 This is supported by the evidence of a number of receipts in which the lesonis also bears the title of god’s father. In P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC) party A declares he has bought a tomb from Oaphres ‘the representative of the god’s father Harsiesis son of Horos, the scribe of the divine book, the lesonis of Amun’ (pꜣ rt n i҆ṱ-nṯr ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t sꜣ ḥr pꜣ sẖ mḏꜣ-nṯr pꜣ mr-šn) (line 3). In O. Pontif. Bibl. Inst. (227BC) the scribe signs the receipt as ‘Espemetis the representative of the ˹god’s father, the lesonis˺ of Amun ˹Marres˺ son of Esminis’ (ns-pꜣ-mt pꜣ rt ˹i҆t-nṯr mr-šn˺ n i҆mn ˹mꜣꜥ-rꜥ˺ sꜣ ns-mn) (lines 11–12). Similarly, in O. BM EA 66383 (241BC) and O. Louvre 92 (241BC) the scribe signs the receipt as ‘Paibis son of Apathes, the representative of the god’s father (and) prophet of Amunranesutjereu, the lesonis of Amun, Haefchonsu35 son of Petearpres’ (pꜣ-hb sꜣ ꜥꜣ-pḥ.ṱ pꜣ rt n i҆t-nṯr ḥm-nṯr i҆mn-rꜥ-nsw-nṯr.w mr-šn n i҆mn ḥꜣ=f-ḫnsw sꜣ pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ) (lines 8– 10).36 On the other hand, in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC) (Text A line 5) it is the choachyte Nechthmonthes son of Horos that bears the title of lesonis of Amenope, which is surprising since one might expect there to be a conflict of interest between the two professions.37

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Malinine 1961, 138–139; De Cenival 1972, 158; Devauchelle 1987, 151; Muhs 2005, 103. Martin 1996, 294–295, C3. Muhs 1996, 190–191; Muhs 2005, 103; Jelínková-Reymond 1955; Thompson 1988, 110–112; Ray 1976. For a lesonis attested at the head of another association see Farid 1987, 190 note j; and Donker van Heel 1994, 25. Clarysse 2003, 21. Or K(ꜣ)p=f-ḥꜣ-ḫnsw (Kapefhachonsu) instead of Ḥꜣ=f-ḫnsw (Haefchonsu)? For the new reading see Andrews 1990, 47 note 10. However, it may be of significance the fact that this choachyte is not a lesonis of Amun, but rather of Amenope, a patron deity of this class of lay-priests. The presence of a leso-

the theban necropolis

25

Tenure of the office of lesonis appears to have been annual, with the same person being able to hold the office more than once, although perhaps not in consecutive years.38

3

The Steward

As noted above, another official mentioned in the sources is the steward. In O. Brooklyn 37.1859 E (267BC) (line 5) and O. Brooklyn 37.1865 E (266 BC) the overseer of the necropolis Amenrosis son of Totoes is identified as ‘the representative of the steward’ (pꜣ rt pꜣ ꜥꜣ-n-pr),39 while in O. BM EA 5730 (260 BC) the same individual is identified as ‘the representative of Petemestous the steward, the lesonis of Amun’ (pꜣ rt pꜣ ꜥꜣ-n-pr pꜣ rt pꜣ mr šn I҆mn) (line 4), thus suggesting that both offices could be held by the same individual.40 It is possible that these are simply two names for a single office,41 or that they are indicative of the link between the necropolis on one hand, and state and temple officials on the other. The existence of such a link is also indicated by P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC), in which the overseer of the necropolis states that he has written to the commissioner (sḥn), possibly a state official, to whom he will pay the money for the right to farm-out the funerary taxes.

4

Choachytes

The term ‘choachytes’ (χοαχύτης) is the Greek rendering of the Egyptian ‘water pourer’ (wꜣḥ-mw), which designates both a religious ceremony and a profes-

38

39 40 41

nis at the head of the association is perhaps another indication that it played a role in the overall organisation of the necropolis possibly as a regulating body and a link between the choachytes and the temple. It is also possible that this individual was the lesonis of the choachytes’ association, since the titles of officials of small associations were the same as those of state and religious officials (I thank Brill’s anonymous reviewer for pointing out this possibility). Clarysse 2003, 21. See, for example, P. Elephantine Demotic 8 (224–223BC) which gives a list of the lesonis priests, the year of their tenure of the office and the revenues due to them from the temple. However, for two of the individuals listed the texts adds ‘1½ year in the temple of Edfu’ (line 6), and ‘⅓ year in the temple of Edfu’ (line 8), where it is not clear if this refers to the portion of the year for which they are still owed from the temple, or to the actual length of time spent serving as lesonis in this particular temple. Correction after Vleeming 1994a, 358 note (aa). Muhs 2005, 102. Muhs 2005, 102.

26

chapter 1

sion, that of pouring water or libations.42 In particular, during the Ptolemaic Period this category of funerary priests was responsible for the acquisition of an existing tomb in the necropolis, or of a plot of land, and for the subsequent building of a new burial place; for the payment of the funerary taxes; the temporary storage of the mummy and/or for its burial; and for performing the mortuary cult of the deceased. In documents of the Ptolemaic period, the occupational title of choachyte was used to designate their main activity, while their official and professional title was that of pastophoros,43 in Egyptian door-keeper (i҆ry-ꜥꜣ).44 This is the term used in the opening clause of the vast majority of the legal documents belonging to their archives where the Theban choachytes are identified by the title ‘door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes’ (i҆ry-ꜥꜣ n I҆mn- I҆py n pr i҆mnṱ n Nw.t—var. n tꜣ i҆mnṱ n Nw.t). There are only a few exceptions and variations among the extant documentation, which are in part due to scribal practices, and in part depend on the type and purpose of the documents. In the heading of legal deeds the title of ‘door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes’ (i҆ry-ꜥꜣ n I҆mn- I҆py n pr i҆mnṱ n Nw.t) is always used to identify the main contracting parties, followed by their patronymic and matronymic.45 The main exceptions are P. Berlin P. 3105 (103BC) and P. Louvre E 2436b (103 BC)46 in which one of the contracting parties, party B in both cases, is styled as ‘the door-keeper of Amenope in the necropolis of Djeme’ (i҆ry-ꜥꜣ n I҆mn-i҆py n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n Ḏmꜣ). However, this is probably due to personal scribal practice, since both documents were written by the same person, the scribe ‘Chonstephnachtis son of Harsiesis who writes in the name of Espemetis son of Osoroeris.’ Another exception is the use in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC) of the title choachyte in the document’s heading. This is probably due to the fact that the regulations set down in this document are concerned with the type of activity performed by these priests as choachytes. Other exceptions are limited to the body of the

42 43 44

45 46

On this subject see also Pestman 1993, 6; Donker van Heel 1992, 19. As suggested by Pestman 1992, xix note 2, 51 note e; 1993, 429. Several studies have been devoted to this title, including Jelínková-Reymond 1953, De Meulenaere 1956, Pestman 1993, 428, and Depauw 2000, 83 note c. One of the uncertainties surrounding it concerned the reading of the second sign, pr, and, in particular, whether it should be taken as the house determinative, or as the writing of a separate word. The use of a genitive n in a small number of examples of this word seemed to argue in favour of the latter possibility (Tait 1984, 218). However, Zauzich (2000, 47 note 151) has convincingly argued that the title is to be read as i҆ry-ꜥꜣ, as have most recently Hoffmann and Quack, who suggest a translation as ‘one who belongs to the door,’ or door-keeper (2014, 148). See Table A.2. For these documents see Grunert 1981 and Pestman 1993, 209–210, respectively.

the theban necropolis

27

document. In particular, the main inconsistency is seen in the use of titles as an identification of the owner of a neighbouring property. The same person is in some instances identified as a door-keeper of Amenope, in others as a choachyte, while in some cases only the individual’s name is given (with or without patronymic).47 On the other hand, the title choachyte tends to be used in shorter, less formal documents, such as letters and tax receipts. In these texts the person is in some cases identified simply by name and title, and in others by means of a patronymic as well. In addition, the title is consistently used, within the body of a contract, to refer to the type of activity performed by this class of mortuary priests, and to qualify the revenues to which they were entitled.48 By contrast, Greek documents always identify these mortuary priests as choachytes, probably to distinguish them from priests employed in the cult of the god and who are identified in Greek as ‘pastophoros’ (παστοφόρος).49 The only exceptions are P. Turin Gr. 2153 (111 BC) and P. Turin Gr. 2152–2151 (110 BC), two petitions against unjustified tax demands, in which the petitioners identify themselves as ‘pastophoroi of Amenophis-who-is-in-the-Memnoneia’ (παστοφόροι Ἀμενώφιος τοῦ ἐν τοῖς Μεμνονέοις), which may suggest that the document was written by the petitioners themselves.50 The difference in the use of titles between contracts in Demotic and Greek is exemplified by P. London Gr. 3 (146BC), which is a Greek translation of P. Berlin P. 3119 (146 BC) recording the sale of liturgies. In the latter document the contracting parties are identified as the ‘door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes, Onnophris son of Horos whose mother is Senpoeris,’ and the ‘doorkeeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes, Horos son of Horos whose mother is Senpoeris’ respectively. By contrast in the Greek translation they are identified as a ‘choachyte from Diospolis Magna’ and as a ‘choachyte’ respectively.51 The earliest attestation, in the Ptolemaic period, for the use of a professional title by the Theban choachytes, in the body of a contract, is found in P. Philadelphia II (314BC) where each of the sons of party A, co-owners of part of the 47 48 49

50 51

See Table A.3. See Tables A.4 and A.5. Examples of this latter class of priests are found in P. Leiden Gr. 413, a translation into Greek of the documents of sale and cession recorded in P. Berlin P. 5507 and 3098 (136BC), and in P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (146 BC), a document of sale and division of an inheritance, copied in part in P. Leiden Gr. 416, in which a number of the deceased persons listed are identified as pastophoroi of a particular god. See Table A.6. On the differences between the writing of this title in the three documents, see Pestman 1993, 193–195; Pestman 1992, 51 note e. Pestman 1993, 73.

28

chapter 1

house transferred to party B, is identified as ‘door-keeper of Amenope’ (line 3); while the first document in which one of the main contracting parties is styled as a ‘door-keeper of Amenope’ is P. Philadelphia V (302 BC). However, the additional title of ‘door-keeper’ had already been adopted, at least, by the end of the Late Period. During the 6th and 5th century BC the title ‘choachyte’ was used both as both the professional and the occupational title of this category of priests.52 On the other hand, the title of door-keeper is found in P. Libbey (337BC), a marriage document stipulated between the woman Setatiretbint, daughter of Petearpochrates and Senminis, and the door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes Teos, son of Iuefau and Sarpochratis, dating to Regnal year 1 of Khababash.53 The same title is also employed in P. Louvre E 2430 (334 BC) dating to Regnal year 2 of Darius III. In the contract, a sale of a house, both party B (line 1) and the father of party A (line 2) are identified as ‘door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes.’54 However, due to the lack of relevant documentation, it is not possible to determine with more accuracy when the adoption of this new title took place. A first modification of the title ‘choachyte’ had already occurred during the reign of Apries as indicated by P. BM EA 10113 (570BC), a contract of loan, in which Djechi, son of Tiesmonti and Chaauesiset, is identified as the ‘choachyte of the valley’ (wꜣḥ-mw n tꜣ i҆n.t), where ‘the valley’ refers to the area around Deir el-Bahari, the central part of Djeme necropolis.55 The title did not become firmly established in the scribal tradition until 536 BC, during the latter part of the reign of Amasis, but continued to be used throughout the reign of Darius I. Other variants attested are: ‘choachyte in the west (of) Thebes’ (wꜣḥ-mw n tꜣ i҆mnṱ wꜣs.t) found in P. Louvre E 10935 (556BC) and in P. Berlin P. 3078 (493–492BC); ‘choachyte of the valley in the west (of) Thebes’ (wꜣḥ-mw n tꜣ i҆n.t n tꜣ i҆mnṱ wꜣs.t) used in P. Louvre E 9294 (491 BC); and ‘choachyte in the necropolis of Djeme’ (wꜣḥ-mw n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ṯ-mꜣꜥ) attested in P. Turin 2128 (487BC). In addition, P. BM EA 10120B (517BC) provides evidence for the combination of the activity of ‘choachyte’ with that of ‘door-keeper.’ In this document the choachyte of the valley Psennesis, son of Herirm and Beniuutehties, appoints his daughter Lolous as heir, stating that she will be entitled to a share of all his properties including his ‘charges as choachyte (and) as door-keeper in the mountain’ (scil. necropolis) (sḥn.w n wꜣḥ-mw n i҆ry-ꜥꜣ n pꜣ ḏw) (line 5). However, it is unclear whether this should be considered as an isolated example, or if the practice was more widespread than the paucity of textual evidence would 52 53 54 55

See Table A.7. For this document see Depauw 2000, 235–236. For this document see De Cenival 1966. Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 10.

the theban necropolis

29

indicate. Further indirect evidence for the possible combination of the two professions is provided by P. Louvre E 7840 (538BC) recording the accounts of choachytes’ association of Amenope, which also indicates that the Late Period choachytes were attached to the cult of this god as the choachytes of the Ptolemaic period were to the cult of Amenope. The adoption of the new title of door-keeper of Amenope, it has been suggested, may have been the result of ‘a decline in the importance of the funerary endowments between the two points in time,’ that is, the Late and the Ptolemaic periods, with the choachytes choosing ‘to be seen in a different light.’56 It is certainly possible that the exercise of both professions could be an indication of a decline in the endowment of land to the choachytes as payment by the families for the mortuary cult of a deceased relative. However, it should be noted that there are only four contracts recording such an agreement, P. Turin 2121 (617BC), P. Louvre E 10935 (556BC), P. Louvre E 7836 (536 BC) and P. Louvre E 3231a (497BC). Therefore, it is not possible to determine how common a practice this actually was during the period in question. In addition, a comparative analysis of the regulations of the Gnomon of the Idios Logos on the one hand and late Pharaonic and Graeco-Roman sources on the other, indicate a change in standing of the ‘door-keepers’ (i҆ry-ꜥꜣ), the professional title by which the choachytes of the Ptolemaic Period were known. This change in status from ‘low-ranking door-keepers to higher-ranking pastophoroi’ may date from the reign of Psammetichus I (c. 664–610BC), the first king of the Saite dynasty, whose reunification of the country was accompanied by a series of other reforms, including the introduction of the Demotic script, and of the legal system from Lower Egypt to the rest of the country.57 Whereas the doorkeepers of the earlier Pharaonic Period served as temple guards, for which they may have received a temple income, from the Saite Period onwards they started to perform other functions such as those of dream-interpreters and mortuary priests. Their appointments are described in Demotic as sḥn or ‘private appointments,’ and are distinguished from priestly posts that are identified as i҆ꜣw.t or ‘offices.’58 Ultimately, it may have been this possibility of performing functions not closely linked with the temples that resulted in the increased numbers and status of the door-keepers in the Saite Period.59 The various modifications in the titulary of these mortuary priests may also be a reflection of internal, temporal changes inherent in the organisation of 56 57 58 59

Vleeming 1995, 243–244. Muhs in press, 1, 5. Muhs in press, 14. Muhs in press, 7.

30

chapter 1

the profession resulting, for example, from their new association with the cult of Amenope in place of that of Amenothes. Amenope is one of the manifestations of the god Amun in his ithyphallic form, shown entirely covered by a cloth, except for the head, wearing the double-plume crown and standing over a chest, or a chair, provided with two carrying poles.60 Temple reliefs and private monuments indicate that the god sailed at the beginning of each decade to Djeme in order to perform the funerary offerings for his ancestors buried there, that is the ogdoad, while funerary texts of the Roman Period indicate that the deceased interred in the necropolis were believed to have been able to partake of these offerings.61 The adoption of Amenope as the patron deity of the Theban choachytes is, therefore, a perfectly logical one, since he can be seen as an archetypal libationer.62 Doresse understands that of Amenope as a Late Period popular cult which development resulted from a decline in royal donations to temples, and in the need to find alternative sources of revenues, in this case, from devoted individuals.63 Although the celebration of the beginning of each decade is already attested in the Saite Period, it is only in the 29th dynasty, during the reign of Akhoris, that the cult acquires its more definitive character as indicated by an inscription of this king inside the small temple of Medinet Habu attesting to his construction of a temple to Amun ḫnt i҆pt=f and mentioning the ogdoad for the first time.64 This could indicate that the change in the titulary of the Theban mortuary priests took place at some point between the 29th dynasty and the Second Persian Period, and that it was linked to the increased importance enjoyed by the cult of Amenope. However, such a change needs to be understood within the wider context of the social, political

60

61

62

63 64

Doresse 1971, 114–115; Doresse 1973, 111–112; Sethe 1929, §28. In temple reliefs or on private monuments he is depicted standing before the king or private individuals who are shown in the act of making libations, burning incense and presenting him with floral offerings (Doresse 1973, 116–117). Smith 1987a, 80 note (c); Doresse 1971, 116 nº 1; Doresse 1973, 93 nº 12bis, 122; Doresse 1979, 62–64. Medinet-Habu was, according to the Hermopolitan theology, the burial place of the ogdoad, the primordial gods (Doresse 1973, 122–126; 1979, 41). For the rites at the beginning of the decade see also Bietak 2012 and 2012a. Already from the Ramesside Period the god is in charge of making offerings to the deceased every ten days (Doresse 1973, 120–121; Černý 1939, no. 66, line 4–6). See also the observations by Pestman on the use of two different determinatives in the writing of the word west (i҆mnṱ) in the full title of the choachytes, which shows that when used in conjunction with the god Amenope the ‘evil’ determinative was used, as was the case with the noun ‘death,’ while when used with the goddess Hathor the word was accompanied by the divine determinative (Pestman 1993, 430–435). Doresse 1979, 64. Doresse 1979, 42–43.

the theban necropolis

31

and economic conditions prevailing at that specific time. In this context, it is perhaps quite telling that the new title was adopted only towards the end of the Late Period and may be indicative of the unstable political situation of the country, and of the threat felt by the population. In fact, it is possible that such a change was the result of a more widespread combination of the two professions caused perhaps by a desire to be associated more closely to the temple, particularly if during this period, as it would appear was the case during the Ptolemaic and Roman dominations, the native aristocracy was closely linked to the priestly milieu with the native élite occupying many of the ranks of the temple hierarchy.65

5

Territorial Jurisdiction of the Choachytes

From the surviving textual evidence it is not entirely clear how the choachytes’ territorial jurisdiction was determined, how labour division among them was organised, nor on what basis the family of a deceased person chose a particular choachyte. It is possible that in some cases the choice was based on family traditions and their association with a particular family of funerary attendants, although this does not explain, of course, the basis on which this choice was made in the first place. A number of deeds stipulate that the family will not be able to engage the service of any other choachyte besides the present beneficiary and his or her children. This is the case in P. Philadelphia VI (301 BC) (line 8), P. BM EA 10240 (228–227BC) (lines 4–5), P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC) (line 4), and P. BM EA 10388 (223BC) (lines 7–8). Some contracts mention the obligation of the choachyte to serve the family from the day of the contract onward without specifying the duration of such an obligation, as in the case of P. Turin 2130 (99 BC), P. Berlin P. 3106 (98 BC), P. Berlin P. 3139 (98 BC) and P. Turin 2132 (98BC), while in P. BM EA 10240 (228–227BC) the seller specifies that the beneficiary is to ‘work as a choachyte’ for him ‘from the above regnal year 20, first month of the inundation (ꜣḫ.t) season, until the completion of 99 years’ (mtw=k pꜣy=y wꜣḥ-mw (…) ṯ ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t tp ꜣḫ.t r ḥry šꜥ pꜣ mnḳ rnp.t 99) (lines 3–4). Indeed,

65

Lewis 1993, 276; Lloyd 1982, 55. There does not appear to be any evidence for the involvement of the Pharaohs of the Late Period in the organisation of the priesthood and the appointment of priests to the various offices, beside the donation of land to the temples or its reduction. On the basis of the evidence of P. Berlin P. 13543 (219BC) (Martin 1996, 311–312, C11) concerning the payment of a bribe to purchase a priestly office, it could be suggested that the organisation of the temple was left in the hands of the natives.

32

chapter 1

the evidence of a number of legal documents confirms that in some instances the choachytes remained in the service of the same family for a number of years. In P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC) the liturgies for the deceased Imouthes son of Esminis, who is said to be in the ḥ.t-tomb of Abunefer, are bequeathed by the door-keeper Horos to his son Horos. The liturgies for the same individual are still listed amongst those that Horos son Horos shares between his sons Osoroeris, Nechthmonthes and Petemestous with P. Berlin P. 3099, P. Berlin P. 3100 and P. Berlin P. 5508 (124BC) respectively.66 This division is later confirmed in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) where it is stated that ‘Osoroeris together with Nechthmonthes and Petosiris shall serve Harmais [the prophet of Ptah],67 and Imouthes son of Esminis, between us68 as the three men’ (mtw wsi҆r-wr ḥnꜥ nḫṱmnṱ ḥnꜥ pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r šms ḥr-m-ḥb [pꜣ ḥm-nṯr ptḥ] ḥnꜥ i҆y-m-ḥtp sꜣ ns-mn i҆wṱ=n n pꜣ s 3) (col. 2 lines 30–31). In particular, in P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113 BC), the last division document drawn up by Horos before he died, it is specified that the three brothers will share in the emoluments received for these individuals until their ταφή (taphe), probably referring to the final entombment in their tomb(s).69 Thus the individual is attested in the care of the same family of choachytes for at least 39 years. Similarly, the deceased Amenothes son of Spotous is attested in P. Amherst 60b (153 BC), P. Berlin P. 3119 (146 BC), P. Bibl. Nat. 218 (146 BC) and P. Berlin P. 3099/3100/5508 (124BC) for a total of 20 years. Given that liturgies represented the funerary priests’ assets, they could be bought, sold and pledged as securities on legal documents.70 However, this means that families could end up with a choachyte different from the one they had originally chosen. It would be interesting to know whether the individual families had any saying on the matter at all, or if these rights were transferred by the funerary priests even without the express consent of the families concerned. If the latter’s consent was required, the choachytes would find their freedom to dispose of their assets limited by the decision of the various families. On the other hand,

66

67 68 69

70

Horos and Sachperis had six children. Of these, five, Osoroeris the eldest son, Nechthmonthes, Petemestous, and possibly Petosiris and Taues, are involved in the family activity, while the other son, Chapochrates, is in the military [army?]. The surviving contracts are those drawn up for Osoroeris (P. Berlin P. 3099), Nechthmonthes (P. Berlin P. 3100), and Petemestous (P. Berlin P. 5508), although it is probable that one had also been drawn up for Petosiris and one for Taues (Pestman 1993, 128). For this restoration see Pestman 1993, 440. For the correction to Erichsen’s reading see Pestman 1993, 176 note b. Thus Pestman 1988, 116–117. Following the taphe, the mortuary service for this individual will be shared between only two of the brothers, Osoroeris with Nechthmonthes, and Nechthmonthes with Petosiris respectively (col. 3 line 1; col. 17 lines 9–11; col. 30 line 1). On the latter aspect see Chapter 7.

the theban necropolis

33

if these assets could be freely bought and sold without the need for the consent of the interested parties, the latter’s choice would be invalidated by the funerary priests’ legal transactions. Indeed, this is probably the reason behind the clause appended to a number of contracts stipulating that a specific choachyte is to serve the family from the date of the deed onward, with or without specification of the duration of the obligation.71 Yet, as noted above, there is also a group of documents that prevents the various families from engaging the services of a different choachyte, a clause that extends even to the offspring of the funerary priest named in the contract.72 It is also possible that each of the choachytes was associated with, or in charge of, a specific zone within the necropolis of Djeme. Such a possibility is suggested by P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) which lists plots of lands owned by a choachyte among tombs in a particular area of the Djeme necropolis. If this was the case, the family might have chosen their choachyte on the basis of where s/he operated because of a desire to be associated with that particular area, for example because of the presence there of a memorial chapel (mꜣꜥ) to a venerated individual. Over time a family’s burials would have clustered around the same area thus contributing to the choice of such an area and of a particular choachyte. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest a zoning of necropolis land and cultic areas during other periods of Egyptian history. The possibility of a division into districts of the Middle Kingdom cultic area at Abydos is, for example, indicated by a number of stelae which attest to the existence of districts (wꜥr.t), or subdivisions thereof.73 These, it is suggested, were used to designate areas close to the Osiris temple complex and therefore favourable locations for the erection of offering chapels, which, by virtue of their proximity to the temple, were ideally placed for their owners to partake of the offerings made there.74 Similarly, a zoning of the necropolis may be sug71 72 73

74

See P. Turin 2130 (99 BC), P. Berlin P. 3106 (98 BC), P. Berlin P. 3139 (98BC) and P. Turin 2132 (98 BC), and P. BM EA 10240 (228–227 BC) mentioned above. See P. Philadelphia VI (301 BC) (line 8), P. BM EA 10240 (228–227BC) (lines 4–5), P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC) (line 4), and P. BM EA 10388 (223 BC) (lines 7–8) mentioned above. The wꜥrt nbt ḥtpt, wꜥrt ddt ḥtpt, wꜥrt nbt ḏfꜣw, wꜥrt ꜥꜣt hmhmt and the wꜥrt nbt ꜥnḫ. These terms are, for example, mentioned in the stelae Louvre C15, Louvre C3, Leiden V.3, Leiden V.6, BM EA 567, Berlin 1192, CCG 20153, Louvre C170, Leiden V.79, BM EA 573, BM EA 213, Vienna 32, CCG 20479 and BM EA 159 (Simpson 1974, 13). To the list should be added also ÄS 109 (Seipel 1994, 136–137, Pl. 64). Simpson (1974, 13) suggests that some of them were perhaps interchangeable since they are mentioned together, and that they may originally have been subdivisions of others. He also suggests that the same terms may have been used in other parts of Egypt to designate similar areas. Simpson 1974, 13. In particular, the terms wꜥrt nbt ḥtpt and wꜥrt ḥtpt could have referred to the area where private cultic chapels were erected, and are perhaps to be seen as the

34

chapter 1

gested by the presence of the Late Period stone blocks discovered by Petrie in the Giza necropolis, and inscribed in Demotic with the names of a number of choachytes.75 For the Roman period Bataille suggests that burial grounds were divided into districts on the basis of the evidence provided by some mummy labels. He argues that the mention on a large number of these labels of the place of origin of the deceased is a clear indication of a division into districts of the larger necropolises where people would be buried according to their place of origin. In fact, he concludes, there would be no need to indicate the individual’s origo if his/her mummy did not have to travel to the burial grounds from a different location.76 Spiegelberg understands the origo as evidence for the existence of registers where the citizens’ names were recorded according to a division into districts (tꜣ mr(.t) i҆we.t) of the city in which the defunct had lived.77 This, Bataille notes, would serve the exact same purpose, that of determining where the deceased should be interred.78 Bataille cites as additional evidence the listing of the deceased’s origo in P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113BC) (lines 8, 5–7), which, he argues, shows that in the Ptolemaic period people chose to be buried close to one another as they had been in life.79 However, without denying the distinct possibility that the necropolis of Djeme was divided into districts, it should be noted that this practice was not at all widespread. In fact, for the Ptolemaic Period, the vast majority of cases in which the deceased are designated by their origo are found in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC), accounting for over ⅔ of the total occurrences, thus indicating that this was probably a personal scribal practice, rather than a requirement of the necropolis’ organisation. On the other hand, the identification by means of a toponym would have been nec-

75 76 77

78 79

equivalent of the wꜥrt mnḫt nṯrw, which probably indicated an area reserved for royal cultic structures (Wegner 1996, 135–136). This contrasts with Lichtheim’s (1988, 92) suggestion that the terms could have referred to the entire cultic area at North Abydos. See Chapter 3 § 3. Bataille 1952, 235; Schmidt 1896, 79. Spiegelberg 1931, 40. The correct reading of the word as tꜣ mr(.t) i҆we.t was supplied by Zauzich who translated it, on the basis of the equivalent Coptic terms, as ‘borough’ or ‘neighbourhood,’ and which refers to divisions either in the city or in the necropolis depending on the context (Zauzich 1987, 99), although this would still be in line with Bataille’s suggestion. Bataille 1952, 236. Bataille 1952, 236. See also the evidence of P. Harkness (MMA 31.9.7) I, 33 and II, 2 where the text gives the ‘districts’ (i҆we.wt) of Pernebetwety, the town where the deceased woman for whom the text was inscribed had lived. The existence of such districts is also confirmed by three mummy labels, Heidelberg Inv. Nr. 1892, Michigan Inv. 4535.10 and Vienna MT 47, which refer to its 4th, 11th and 15th district respectively (Smith 1999, 284). I thank M. Smith for this reference.

the theban necropolis

35

essary for the lector-priests, who divided their areas of competence according to the origo of the deceased, a practice that, at times, resulted in disputes over whose right it was to embalm a certain person.80 In addition, had the type of organisation envisaged by Bataille been present in the Theban necropolis, we would probably expect to find some indication of it in the extant documentation relating to the choachytes’ activity. Instead, the evidence indicates that different choachytes, whom the documents suggest were chosen by the families, appear to have been appointed to specific areas over which they acquired control. This is not to deny the possibility that the necropolis of Djeme was divided into districts, but rather that from the Ptolemaic period there is not enough evidence to suggest that such a division was based on the origo of the deceased. Indeed, a division of burial grounds is still implemented in present day cemeteries in Egypt, such as in Cairo and at Zawwyat al-Amwat, east of el-Minya in Middle Egypt. In particular, at Zawwyat al-Amwat the cemetery area is informally divided into sections each placed under the responsibility of an undertaker. Although these areas are not assigned official numbers, as is the case in Cairo, each of the cemetery workers is aware of their territorial limitation and is careful not to encroach upon his colleagues’ section.81 In conclusion, the data from other periods of Egyptian history suggest the possibility that the large area over which the necropolis of Djeme extended may have been divided, formally or informally, into districts each under the responsibility of different choachytes, although there is a lack of direct evidence from the Ptolemaic period itself. Such a division could have been implemented with or without the aid of boundary markers as clearly shown by evidence from modern Middle Egypt. Finally, it is clear that choachytes could operate in different necropolises. This is indicated, indirectly, in P. Berlin P. 3099, 3100 and 5508 (124 BC), where the testator declares that to the beneficiaries also belongs the 1/5 of the funerary assets owned by their mother ‘in any necropolis and any place.’ Although this could be simply a formulaic expression, more direct evidence is provided by a number of documents which show that some choachytes had a lease for the office in Hermonthis and neighbouring areas. This is the case in P. Louvre E 2429bis (292BC), P. Louvre E 2428 (277BC), P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC), P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC), P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC), P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC) and P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC), all of which probably refer to the same position since they concern transactions between members of a single family. In particular,

80 81

See below Chapter 1 § 7. El-Shohoumi 2002, 190, 195.

36

chapter 1

P. Louvre E 2429bis (292BC) identifies this office as ‘my work as choachyte at Hermonthis for which th[e priests] of Montu of the fourth phyle made a lease for me (scil. party A)’ (tꜣy=y wp.(t) n wꜣḥ-mw n i҆wnw-mnṱ r-i҆r n=y n[ꜣ wꜥb.w] mnṱ nb i҆wnw n pꜣ 4 sꜣ.w sḥn r-ḥr=s) (line 2), while in P. Louvre E 2428 (277 BC) it is defined as ‘my work as choachyte of Hermonthis together with the leases which were made (for) me (scil. party A) in the temple (and) the town’ (tꜣy=y wp.t wꜣḥmw n i҆wnw-mnṱ ḥnꜥ nꜣ sḥn.w i҆w.i҆r=w n=y n ḥ.t-nṯr pꜣ tmy) (line 2). This indicates that permission to operate within, as well as control over, a specific area was granted, through a lease, by the relevant authorities, and that the choachytes perhaps had to apply for it to the temple under which jurisdiction the necropolis laid.82

6

Embalmers

Three different titles are used in documents from the Theban area to identify embalmers: lector-priest (ẖr-ḥb), embalmer (ḳs) and doctor (swnw). The first group, the lector-priests, literally ‘he who carries the ritual-book,’ a title that refers to their function as readers of the rituals recited during the mummification process, was that category of funerary priests who, during the Ptolemaic Period, were in charge of the mummification of the deceased.83 The title is often further qualified either by the name and/or location of the necropolis in which they mainly operated, by the name of the sacred animal to whose cult they were attached, or by their district of origin which probably also corresponded to the main area for which they were responsible. This range of titles is encountered both in the heading and within the body of Demotic contracts, and are used to refer to lector-priests as owners or occupants of houses and tombs, as owners of liturgies, as members of councils, and to their professional activity.84 However, there is also a small group of documents in which the title ẖr-ḥb is followed by the word tp, both in the heading and in the body of the doc-

82

83

84

On the basis of the evidence of these contracts, Vleeming (1995, 245) suggests that in the smaller necropolises the choachytes may have operated on the same basis as the lectorpriests, that is, by holding monopolies over certain areas. In addition, the documents indicate that the same person could be responsible for human and animal mummification as shown by the fact that Harsiesis, son of Panas and Thibis, is identified both as a ‘lector-priest of the necropolis of Djeme’ (ẖr-ḥb tꜣ ḫꜣs.t Ḏmꜣ) and as a ‘lector-priest of the Baboon’ (ẖr-ḥb n pꜣ ꜥꜥn), although it is not clear whether both offices were held at the same time. See Tables A.8, A.9, A.10 and A.11.

the theban necropolis

37

uments.85 The title, borne by members of the same family over four successive generations, is attested solely in documents belonging to the archives of Lolous, called Petenephotes, son of Petenephotes and Mutirdis, and Amenothes, son of Horos and Tashebura, uncle and nephew respectively, who worked together for a number of years. These documents span a period of 53 years and were written by different scribes.86 Pestman understands the word tp as referring to the rank of these lector-priests and translates the title as ‘chief ritualist in the necropolis of Djeme’ (ẖr-ḥb tp n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n Ḏmꜣ).87 In his study of the titles ẖryḥb and ḥry-tp, Quagebeur suggests that the word tp may be an ordinal number marking the order of promotion of the various lector-priests,88 thus following Pestman’s understanding of this term. However, P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC) suggests that this word may have a different meaning in these documents. This document records a number of entries relating to the accounts of two colleagues, Amenothes and Petenephotes. Two of the entries show an amount in deben received in the capacity of tp ḫꜣs.t: ‘The reckoning of the money: what belonged to me concerning his reckoning within (the) money of the chief of the necropolis: 35 deben’ (pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ ḥḏ.w r-wn-nꜣ.w mtw=y ḥr pꜣy=f i҆p ẖr nꜣ ḥḏ.w n tp ḫꜣs.t ḥḏ 35); lines 6–7

‘The reckoning of the money: ⟨w⟩hat came to me here in Djeme for the ⟨year⟩ 39: 15 deben within (the) money of the chief of the necropolis’ (pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ ḥḏ.w ⟨i҆.⟩i҆r i҆y r ty n ḏmꜣ ẖr ⟨ḥꜣ.t-sp⟩ 39 ḥḏ 15 ẖr ḥḏ n tp ḫꜣs.t). lines 11–12

Pestman understands the expression ḥḏ tp ḫꜣs.t as ‘money of the chief of the necropolis’ and as referring to the money the two colleagues earned together as ‘chief (lector-priests) of the necropolis.’89 This would then suggest that a particular payment was to be made by someone specifically to a chief lector-priest of the necropolis (ẖr-ḥb tp n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t). However, the expression is reminiscent of the tax of the overseer of the necropolis (ḥḏ mr ḫꜣs.t), the burial tax paid on

85 86 87 88 89

See Tables A.10 and A.11. Except for P. Turin 2133 (118 BC) which is not signed by a scribe. Pestman 1981, 6–7. Quaegebeur 1987, 383 and note 95. For the titles ẖry-ḥb and ḥry-tp see also Quaegebeur 1985 and 1989; and Vittmann 2009. Pestman 1981, 51 note j.

38

chapter 1

each deceased individual brought into the necropolis.90 Consequently, rather than taking this title as referring to a hierarchy within a professional group, that of lector-priests, I would suggest understanding it as an equivalent of that of overseer of the necropolis (mr ḫꜣs.t) attested from 310 BC (P. Brussel 8255c) to 242BC (O. Cairo 12536–12582), a position held by a lector-priest on an annual basis, as noted above, and would perhaps indicate a change, over time, in the terminology used in the identification of this official.91 In some years the two colleagues acted jointly as overseer of the necropolis, as shown by the fact that in P. Amherst 47+56 (114BC) Lolous-Petenephotes is simply identified as ‘lector-priest of the necropolis of Thebes (in) Djeme’ (ẖr-ḥb n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n nw.t ḏmꜣ), rather than as ‘chief lector-priest of the necropolis’ (ẖr-ḥb tp n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t).92 In addition, if the two titles were to be interpreted as referring to two different officials, one would have to assume the existence of another tax, unattested from elsewhere, that was to be paid to the ‘chief lector-priest of the necropolis.’ The other titles encountered in the Theban documents are those of ‘embalmer’ and ‘doctor,’ both of whom appear to have had some involvement in the mummification process.93 The meaning of the title ḳs, traditionally translated as ‘embalmer,’ was put into question on the basis of the Greek rendering of this word as ‘leather-worker’ (Σκυτἐων) in P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (UPZ II 180a) (113BC), the last will made by Horos, son of Horos, in favour of his eldest son Osoroeris, and previously recorded in Demotic in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC). On the basis of this Greek parallel, and of the Coptic word ⲕⲁⲥⲉ, denoting also a shoemaker, it has been argued that the title ḳs should be translated as leatherworker.94 However, a comparative analysis of the occurrences of the word ḳs in the Theban documentary sources shows that during the Ptolemaic period 90 91

92

93 94

On this tax see Chapter 13 § 3. In P. Turin 2129 (171BC), P. Turin 2131 (145 BC), P. Turin 2136 (126BC), P. Turin 2146 (125BC), P. Turin 2135 (118 BC), P. Turin 2139 (118 BC) and P. Turin 2133 (118BC), the writing of the term tp uses a more elaborate orthography than in P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC), which is written as the simple numeral 1, presumably because these were private accounts. Some evidence for the practice of sharing this office may be provided by a small number of documents from Hawara in which the position of overseer of god’s seal-bearers and embalmers is held by two, in some cases related, individuals at the same time, for which see Chapter 4 § 1. See Tables A.12 and A.13. De Meulenaere 1955, 80; Crum 1939, 121. However, it should be noted that, beside the word ⲕⲁⲥⲉ, there is in Coptic also the term ⲕⲁⲓⲥⲉ, which refers to (a) preparation for burial, embalming; (b) grave-clothes, shroud; and (c) corpse (Crum 1939, 120–121). The Chicago Dictionary Project accepted this suggestion and corrected the meaning of the Demotic title ḳs from embalmer to leather-worker, CDD letter Q, 86–87. Note, however, that Den Brinker et al. 2005a do not refer to the correction proposed by De Meulenaere.

the theban necropolis

39

this root had a wide range of meanings, all relating to aspects of mummification and burial, and that the Greek rendering of Demotic words is not entirely consistent, which, therefore, does not constitute reliable evidence on which to base the understanding of the Demotic title ḳs.95 That individuals identified as ‘doctors’ were involved in the mummification process is shown by a passage in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC), the list of regulations adopted by the Theban choachytes, where the members agree that ‘no man at all within the association will bring doctors (scil. embalmers) to the association of Amenope besides the choachyte who goes to (the) ḳs, the wꜥb (and the) 35 (days ceremony)’ (Text C lines 10–11).96 The use of the title ‘doctor’ to denote a class of embalmers was probably linked to the belief that death was a state of ‘illness’ from which the deceased could be treated.97 However, the available sources do not provide clear evidence on the different roles that the three groups, lector-priest (ẖr-ḥb), embalmer (ḳs) and doctor (swnw), had during the embalming process. That a difference existed between them is suggested by the presence in P. Florence 3667 (111BC) of different entries for the payments made to a lector-priest and to an unspecified number of embalmers, which indicates that the two were not the same.98 In documents written in Greek three different terms are used to translate the Demotic titles lector-priest, embalmer and doctor, although their use is not consistent.99 The title lector-priest is generally rendered as ‘taricheutes,’ although there are a small number of documents from the Theban area, P. Turin Gr. 2155 (119BC), P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–117BC) and P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116 BC), in which the title is translated as ‘paraschistes.’ These are the only documentary texts in which the latter is attested, while in Classical sources it is employed by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus in their description of the Egyptian funerary practices. Literally, the term means ‘one who rips up lengthwise,’ from the verb παρασχίζω, and it is used to refer both to the slitting up of a fish (cutting it lengthwise) and to the incision made on a deceased person during the embalming process.100 Diodorus distinguishes between the paraschistes who makes the first incision on the body of the deceased, and whose job was considered impure, and the taricheutai who were in charge of the subsequent operations,

95 96 97 98 99 100

On this see further Cannata 2007 and Appendix 1. The emendation is rejected here and the title translated throughout as ‘embalmer.’ On this passage see further Chapter 11 § 3. On this aspect see Chapter 10. See further Chapter 11 § 4 and Appendix 2. See Table A.14. Liddel and Scott 1897, 1143; Pestman 1981, 4–5.

40

chapter 1

and whose activity was considered ‘worthy of honour’ (Diodorus I.91). However, this contrasts with the fact that the individuals identified in Greek as paraschistai are titled ẖr-ḥb tp in Demotic, the latter suggesting a more important and involved function in the embalming process. Pestman remarks that, as a ritualist, the lector-priest would have had various functions and would have been present at the various stages of the embalming process, such as at the time the first incision was made (παρασχίζω) and at the time the body was embalmed (ταριχεύω), and that, depending on the circumstances, the title was translated into Greek either as paraschistes (παρασχίστης) or as taricheutes (ταριχευτής).101 However, this statement implies that the scribe was familiar with the various details of the embalming process, something that is not borne out by the evidence since the translation of the Demotic title ẖr-ḥb tp as paraschistes does not correspond to the meaning the title has in Egyptian, and rather suggests that the scribe was unfamiliar with the terminology generally used in this context. In fact, although it is possible that, as Pestman suggests,102 the use of this title represents simply a scribal error, it seems strange that the scribe should use such an uncommon term in place of the more familiar one of taricheutes. Indeed, the fact that among the documentary texts this group is the only one where the title of paraschistes is, at present, attested may suggest that the scribe was more acquainted with classical works, such as those of Herodotus. On the other hand, its use could also indicate that in practice a distinction between those who worked as paraschistes and those who acted as taricheutes did not apply, and that the same person could be in charge of both operations, although it is hazardous to use Greek titles as evidence, since they are not reliable, equivalent translations.103 With respect to the documents belonging to the archives of the two colleagues lector-priests, Lolous-Petenephotes, son of Petenephotes, and Amenothes, son of Horos, Pestman suggests that the title ‘chief lectorpriest in the necropolis of Djeme’ (ẖr-ḥb tp n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ) was linked to activities in the necropolis of Djeme, while the title of paraschistes was completely unrelated to it and instead linked to activities performed in a wider area and in another necropolis, that of Pois.104 However, such a statement is not sup101 102 103

104

Pestman 1993, 7 note 3, 171 note f. Pestman 1981, 8. Unfortunately, none of the three documents bears the name of the scribe and it is, therefore, not possible to determine whether the use of this title is to be ascribed to a personal scribal practice. Pestman 1981, 7–8. Pestman further adds that from the analysis of this archive one gets the impression that Amenothes and his colleague were probably in charge of the entire process of mummification, thus the use of the term paraschiste to identify the two may be an error of the scribe since all attestations are found in (Pestman’s) document 5 which

the theban necropolis

41

ported by the available documentation. In the first instance, the Demotic title is simply the official designation by which they were known, further qualified by the name and/or location of a necropolis, as was the case with all other lector-priests.105 That Amenothes and his colleague Lolous-Petenephotes operated also in other necropolises is shown by P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC), which indicates that they were responsible not only for the deceased of Djeme but also for some of the dead from the town of Hermonthis.106 In addition, P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116BC), one of the documents written in Greek which identifies the two colleagues as paraschistes, specifies that under the competence of LolousPetenephotes fell not only the village of Pois and others in the Coptite region, but also the temple of Amun at Thebes and the village of Psameris. Therefore, it is clear that the difference in the titles used rests on the language in which the various contracts were drawn up, with those in Greek using, erroneously, the title of paraschistes as an equivalent of that of ‘chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme’ (ẖr-ḥb tp n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ) in Demotic. The Greek equivalent of the Demotic title ‘doctor’ (swnw) is attested in only one document, P. Leiden Gr. 413 (136BC), which is the translation of the contract of sale of liturgies recorded in P. Berlin P. 5507 + 3098 (136BC). The Demotic contract lists, among other liturgies, ‘the ⅓ of Psenamounis the doctor’ (pꜣ ⅓ n pꜣ-šr-i҆mn pꜣ swnw) (line 7), translated in P. Leiden Gr. 413 (136BC) as taricheuton.107 Unfortunately, this is the only evidence available for how the title was rendered in Greek and it is, therefore, not possible to determine if other equivalent titles were also in use. Nevertheless, it is interesting that this category of embalmers is identified in Greek with the same title as that commonly used for lector-priests. In P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC), a personal account of the two lectorpriests Amenothes and Petenephotes, one of the entries concerns an amount received ‘on the day of giving medications.’108 It is to be wondered whether the

105 106

107 108

has not survived (Pestman 1981, 7–8). However, it is unclear to me what Pestman meant by this statement since the title of paraschistes is certainly used in P. Turin Gr. 2155 (119BC), P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–117 BC) and P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116BC). See Tables A.8–A.11. P. Turin 2141 (c. 131 BC) is a list of private accounts. The only title mentioned is that of ẖr-ḥb tp n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t since one of the entries related to money received by the two colleagues in this capacity. Although in P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116 BC) there is also evidence for one of the two colleagues taking charge of two deceased individuals from Hermonthis, the document does not constitute proof of them working in this area since the deceased had been transported to, and had died in, the temple of Amun in Thebes, which fell under the competence of the two lector-priests. Pestman 1993, 230 note b. On this document see also Chapter 7 § 3.

42

chapter 1

use of this expression, which is something that normally applies to doctors, indicates that rather than being separate groups, the title of doctor was used to identify the specific activity carried out by these individuals during the mummification process. In fact, the latter title is never associated with the name of a necropolis or to that of a god, as in the case of the other two titles. Another term used in Greek to designate embalmers is that of scuteus. This title is attested in only two documents from the Theban area, P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (UPZ 180a) (113BC), a last will and testament previously recorded in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC), and P. Leiden Gr. 414 (UPZ 181) (105 BC), a contract of sale of a plot of land in which party A, two brothers and two sisters, are identified as scuteis from the Memnonia (col. II line 9).109 Unfortunately, the Demotic titles of party A in the latter document are not known and their profession cannot be ascertained further from the Greek sale document. On the other hand, in P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (UPZ 180a) (113BC) the scribe translated the first occurrence of the title ḳs.w as ‘leather workers’ (lit. shoemaker), but omitted the title in lines 5 and 6. In addition, he first rendered the title ẖr.w-ḥb as ‘leather workers,’ and then crossed it out and corrected it to ‘taricheutai,’110 which clearly shows he was not very familiar with the correct terminology.111 From the same root as σχυτεῖς also derives the word σκῡτῐνος, used metaphorically to refer to somebody ‘of skin and bones [or] gaunt,’ and σκῦτος, denoting ‘skin, hide especially dressed or tanned hide.’112 Therefore, it is not surprising to find the term σχυτεῖς used to denote embalmers, which work made the corpse appear as being made of tanned, leathery skin and bones.113 The title of lector-priest is not always used in short, less formal documents. Pestman distinguishes between two types of agreements according to the formulae used: 1. an official type in which the contracting parties are introduced by the clause ‘A has said to B’ (ḏ A n B), that is drawn up by a professional scribe and includes a list of witnesses; and 2. a less formal type in which the parties are introduced by the clause ‘A is the one who says to B’ (A pꜣ nt ḏ n B), without wit-

109 110

111

112 113

Pestman 1993, 202–203. Pestman (1981, 7 note 10) suggests that the additional information of their origo helped the scribe decide between one profession and the other, but I fail to see why the origo of these two groups of workers should have any bearing on the profession they exercised. In fact, it is possible that it was the abbreviated spelling of the word ḳs in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC) what confused the scribe. This raises the question of whether the document was copied or written under dictation. The first instance implies an ability to read both languages, something that may not have been the norm, while the second instance would imply only the ability to understand Egyptian, which may be expected at such late a date. Liddel and Scott 1897, 1406. On this see further Cannata 2007 and Appendix 1.

the theban necropolis

43

nesses and often drafted by one of the parties or by another, private, individual. On the basis of these criteria, he identifies P. Turin 2139 (118 BC), an agreement concerning the exchange of some work-animals, as belonging to the second type and therefore of a less formal nature, since it was not confirmed by witnesses.114 However, such a division does not correlate entirely to a distinction between official and informal documents, based on the inclusion or exclusion of professional titles in the identification of the parties and other individuals. In general, in less formal documents the individual is identified simply by name, as in the case of P. Turin 2142 (after 129BC) and P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC), a register of birth dates and a list of accounts respectively, perhaps because intended for personal use only; while in some instances the person is also identified by means of a patronymic, such as in P. Turin 2134 (118 BC), an oath, and even by means of both patronymic and matronymic, as in P. Turin 2138 (117 BC), another oath. By contrast, in P. Turin 2139 (118BC), mentioned above, party A is identified by his full title, as well as by patronymic and matronymic, despite the fact that, according to Pestman’s criteria, this type of document should be considered as being of a more informal nature. The title embalmer (ḳs) is also used to identify the contracting parties in the heading of the contracts recorded in P. BM EA 10390 (136BC) and P. Amherst 48+52 (113 BC). In all these instances the title is accompanied by that of Servant of Montu, lord of Hermonthis. In the body of documents only the title embalmer (ḳs) appears, while in one instance this is further qualified by the district of origin, possibly also corresponding to the location of the necropolis in which this individual operated. By contrast, the title doctor (swnw) is never used in the heading of contracts, nor, as noted above, is it associated with the name of a necropolis or that of a god.

7

Territorial Jurisdiction of the Embalmers

The number of surviving documents belonging to the Theban lector-priests is quite small, particularly by comparison to the large archives once owned by the choachytes. These span the period between 291 and 101 BC, and indicate that labour division among the lector-priests was different from that among the choachytes, and that they were entitled to perform the embalming of the people resident in the areas allocated to them. Clear evidence for this is found in a group of documents written in Greek and relating to the professional activity of the two colleagues mentioned above,

114

Pestman 1981, 115.

44

chapter 1

the lector-priests Amenothes, son of Horos, and Lolous-Petenephotes, son of Petenephotes. In P. Turin Gr. 2155 (119BC) is recorded the legal decision concerning a petition which Amenothes presented against Lolous-Petenephotes. According to the terms of their agreement, the temple of Amun at Thebes, together with its priests, fell under the control of Lolous-Petenephotes who, contravening this accord, claimed the right to embalm not only them, but also the descendants of the priests, the latter’s slaves and freed slaves. The judges pass judgement in favour of Amenothes, instructing his colleague to adhere to the clauses of the original contract. The document clearly shows that, within defined areas, the two lector-priests owned rights to embalm specific individuals living or working there. Similarly in P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–117BC), in which the same Amenothes presents another petition against Lolous-Petenephotes and his wife, accusing them of taking remuneration for embalming bodies falling under his control. On the other hand, P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116 BC) preserves a petition presented by Lolous-Petenephotes against Amenothes accusing him of having contravened the terms of their agreement. Following a detailed description of which areas fell under each of them, the plaintiff explains how his colleague breached their agreement first by taking care of the son of a certain Pamonthes who had died in the Temple of Amun, and then of the daughter of a leather-worker who had been transported115 there from Latopolis. In addition, Amenothes took care of the sons of a certain Philokles116 from Hermonthis, one having been transported to the temple of Amun already dead (possibly dying during the journey), while the other died there. Similarly, he also performed the embalmment of the son of a certain Sniblais, one from the Kokhlax of the Pathyrites, who had been transported to the temple of Amun where he died. And finally, Amenothes took care of Herieus, son of Harbechis, the topogrammateus of Pois in the western region of the Koptites, an area which belonged to Lolous-Petenephotes (lines 40–69). Another text, this time written in Demotic, which provides evidence for the division of competence among lector-priests is the oath recorded in O. BM EA 25477 (101BC) where party A claims his right over a certain individual stat115 116

Pestman (1981, 74 note w) suggests that the use of this verb indicates that the person was not able to travel, hence it refers to sick people. Pestman (1981, 74 note x) remarks on the fact that this man with a Greek name had his two sons embalmed in the Egyptian way. In fact, this is not so surprising since the evidence from the documents in the choachytes’ archives shows that some Greek individuals were already adopting Egyptian funerary customs as early as the 3rd century BC (see Chapter 14 § 3). In addition, it is important to note that it is difficult to be certain about the ethnic background of an individual on the basis of his/her name alone at such late stage of the Ptolemaic period (end of 2nd century BC).

the theban necropolis

45

ing that ‘the day in which the lector-priests divided the revenues, Aschlas son of Psentaneutos117 devolved upon me’ (pꜣ hrw (n) pš nꜣ šty.w i҆w i҆ry nꜣ ẖr.w-ḥb r-ḥr=w pḥ n=y ꜣsklꜣ (sꜣ) pꜣ-šr-ta-ḥn=w) (lines 6–9). On the basis of the evidence provided by these texts, it is also possible to understand the oaths recorded in O. BM EA 25669 (2nd century BC) and O. BM EA 26206 (153–142 BC) as referring to a dispute over individuals resident in areas allocated to a specific lector-priest. In the first document, party A, Harpaesis son of [Chonsthotes]118 claims control over the liturgies of a carrier called Psenthotes, whom, he states, devolved upon him at the time of the division made by his (fore)-fathers. In the second document, party A, Zmanres son of Chonsthotes and Arsinoe, claims control over the liturgy of Pamonthes son of Psenthotes whom, he states, devolved upon Patemis son of Zmanres at the time of the division which the council of lector-priests made.119 He states that Psenthotes married120 the mother of Pamonthes, for whom he made a woman-document, and that this son was born from that marriage.121 In both instances, should party A not swear the oath, he is to relinquish his claim over the particular liturgies in the presence of the council of lector-priests of Thebes (nꜣ ẖr.w-ḥb n nw.t) before whom the oath is to be taken. Therefore, these documents indicate that the choice over who would be embalming a deceased person did not fall with the family of the latter, but was decided on the basis of the person’s residence. This contrasts with the territorial organization of the choachytes in that, although they may have been responsible for specific areas within the necropolis, families appear to have been free to choose which choachyte would be responsible for their dead.

117 118

119

120

121

Kaplony-Heckel (1963, 99 note to lines 8–9) notes that in the list of liturgies recorded in P. Berlin P. 3116 there is a man called Petenephotes son of Psentaneutos. The patronymic of party A is suggested on the basis of Pestman’s (1993, 321–322) list of council members, before whom public agreements were made, some of whom also appear in the oaths recorded in O. BM EA 26206 (153–142 BC), O. BM EA 25775 (158–157BC) and O. BM EA 25477 (101 BC). Kaplony-Heckel (1963, 95–96 note 2) notes that the relationship between Zmanres son of Chonsthotes and Patemis son of Zmanres is not immediately clear, and suggests that the former may have been a nephew of the latter. No relation between the two can be established on the basis of the genealogy produced by Pestman (1993, 322). Kaplony-Heckel (1963, 96 note to line 8) identifies Psenthotes and his son Pamonthes as slaves. Such identification was based on the erroneous understanding of the formula ḥms=f i҆rm PN as referring to a marriage between a slave and a free person. The son, she states, would have the same status as the father whom she considered to be a slave. Party A’s claim over the liturgies of Pamonthes son of Psenthotes on the basis of his filiation is reminiscent of a specific clause found in P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78BC), a cession of endowments between two groups of embalmers, regulating the possibility that family members may fall within the competence of both groups. On this see Chapter 3 §3 below.

46

chapter 1

The only document that seems to show evidence for a different type of organization is P. Rylands XI (284BC) in which the lector-priest of the Baboon Pelaias, son of Thotortaios and Tawatenchemet, pledges his entire possessions on the marriage document he drew up in favour of the woman Tauris, daughter of Harsiesis and Tabastis. The properties listed include a share of the deceased belonging to party A in the necropolis of Djeme, and a share of the deceased who belong to the lector-priest of the Baboon Thotortaios, son of Teos, the father of party A. Since the role of the lector-priests was limited to the process of embalming, this is probably a reference to the deceased people who were going to be buried in the necropolis of Djeme, as opposed to those already interred there, the embalming of whom fell within the competence of party A, the lector-priest of the Baboon Pelaias, and for which he received a remuneration. At first, this would seem to indicate that in the 3rd century BC the principle of labor division was different from that suggested by the 2nd century BC documentation, and that it was based not on the place of residence of the deceased but rather on the place of burial. However, it is likely that the discrepancy is due to the wording of the contract rather than being evidence for a different type of organization. This is indicated by one of the passages in the petition recorded in P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116 BC) where, in outlining the agreements between him and his colleague with regard to their territorial competence in the Theban area, the plaintiff explains that it had been agreed he would not ‘take care of the deceased that from Poonpois are taken to Pois,122 on the western side of the Coptites, given that in the said village (Poonpois) there is no cemetery,’ and that his colleague Amenothes would not ‘take care of the dying123 coming from (Pois) the cemetery of Poonpois’ (lines 26–31). It is, therefore, possible to understand the clauses in P. Rylands XI (284 BC) as a reference to deceased people who are going to be buried in the necropolis of Djeme, per-

122

123

The village of Pois, located on the western bank, belongs to Lolous-Petenephotes, while Poonpois (or Poenpois), which Pestman states must obviously be located on the eastern bank (though I am not sure of why obviously), belongs to Amenothes. Given that the cemetery of Poonpois is located at Pois, the two villages, Pestman suggests, may be close, and that the name of the former originates from the latter. It is not known whether there is a link with the name Paihinpamehen (the stall of the milk jug = see Hughes 1973, 54 note i; Reich 1914, 16–17), since, although it is generally assumed that the etymology of the name Pois is Pꜣ-i҆hi҆, the bilingual texts indicate that the latter corresponds to Pais and that it is an abbreviation of Poenpois (Pꜣ-wꜣḥ-n-pꜣ-i҆hi҆), ‘the settlement of the stable,’ which in P. Berlin P. 3116 (Thiessen 1971, 73, a 3) also corresponds to Pais (Pestman 1981, 73 note f); CDD letter I҆, 203. See Pestman 1981, 74 note p, for a discussion of this word and its other possible interpretations.

the theban necropolis

47

haps because they lived in a village with no separate cemetery, without this being evidence for different labour division arrangements.

8

Other Funerary Priests

8.1 Necrotaphoi During the Ptolemaic Period evidence for the use in the Theban area of the title ‘necrotaphos,’ another of the terms employed to identify mortuary priests, is very limited and not entirely unambiguous.124 The term νεκροτ[αφκὴ]ν occurs in P. Louvre Gr. 2339 (c. 134BC), a petition, and legal decision of the epistates, presented against the choachytes by a group of individuals with whom they had made some agreements concerning the deceased in Pathyris.125 The petition makes reference to a νεκροτ[αφκὴ]ν προστασ[ίαν] (line 6)126 stipulated between the plaintiffs Petearoeris son of Teephibis, Snachomneus son of Apathes, Petenephotes son of Apathes, […] son of Esminis, Harsiesis son of ˹Psenthotes˺127 and Patseous son of Ka[…]; and the defendants, the choachytes Horos son of Horos, Pechites son of Harsiesis, Psenthotes son of Amenothes, Amenothes son of Amenothes, Amenothes son of Teephibis, Psenchonsis son of Teephibis, Chonophres128 son of Harsiesis and Thentpis129 son of Harsiesis. According to this agreement the choachytes were to receive ⅓ of a certain sum of money while the other group was to have the remaining ⅔. Unfortunately, due to the fragmentary condition of the papyrus, it is not possible to determine the nature of this agreement, nor by whom and for what purpose was this money paid. However, it is important to note that in this document the plaintiffs are nowhere identified by the title of necrotaphoi, and, therefore, this agreement does not provide evidence for the existence of this group of funerary attendants at Thebes during the 1st century BC.130 Given that the petition is written in Greek, it is only natural that the text should employ the term νεκροτ[αφκὴ]ν to define agreements concerning funerary matters, while it is not necessarily the case that any of the contracting party should, by extension, be identified as necrotaphoi. Consequently, there is no evidence to suggest

124 125 126 127 128 129 130

See also Chapter 5 § 6 below. The epistates ruled in favour of the choachytes. After Pestman 1993, 93. See Pestman 1993, 94 note d. See Pestman 1993, 94 note h. See Pestman 1993, 94 note j. Thus also Derda 1991, 27 note 80; see also Bagnall 2017, 7–13.

48

chapter 1

that during this period there existed at Thebes a class of mortuary attendants, identified by the title of necrotaphoi, who were contracted by the choachytes, and who worked as gravediggers and were responsible for the transport of the mummy to the necropolis, as has been suggested.131 8.2 Entaphiastai Another title attested in the surviving documentation is that of entaphiastes, which, during the Roman Period, appears to have been synonymous with that of necrotaphos.132 The title is used in P. Louvre Gr. 2331 (98 BC), recording a novation of a debt of fourteen artabas of wheat originally owed by Panas to Horos, the respective fathers of the current contract’s parties: AsklepiasSenimouthes, daughter of Senuris and Panas, represented here by her guardian and possibly husband, Harpaesis son of Chonsthotes, an entaphiastes (ἐνταφιαστής) from Thebes, and the choachyte Harsiesis son of Horos. The use of these two titles in the same document would negate the possibility of the title necrotaphos being, in the Roman Period, synonymous with that of choachyte, if we are to understand that the former was, in the Ptolemaic period, also synonymous with that of entaphiastes, since one would expect people of the same profession to have been identified by the same title.133 The title entaphiastes occurs in the archive of the taricheutai Amenneus and Onnophris from Tanis, where it is, apparently, used as a synonym with that of taricheutes.134 The nature of their professional activities is never made explicit in these documents, which thus do not clarify what this occupation actually entailed and in what way it may have differed from that of a taricheutes and of a necrotaphos. In Greek, the title ἐντα̌φιαστής denotes a person who is ‘charged with a burial,’ and derives from the verb ἐντα̌φιάζω meaning ‘to prepare for burial.’135 The latter is clearly the task of the individuals identified as taricheutai in Ptolemaic documents written in Greek, which is, therefore, consistent with their use as synonyms in the Tanis embalmers’ archive. Matching professional titles in Greek with those in Demotic is problematic on many different levels, including the fact that we do not know whether the scribe was familiar with either the correct terminology, or the activities performed by the individuals whose

131 132 133

134 135

See for example Wilcken 1935–1953, № 185; Bataille 1952, 238–239. Derda 1991, 31–33. Given that this is the last Ptolemaic document in which the title of choachyte is attested in the Theban area, it is possible that it is transitional between the introduction of one title and the discontinuation of the other. Armoni 2013, 17. Liddell and Scott 1897, 486.

the theban necropolis

49

titles he was translating. In addition, the documentary sources in which these titles are used do not describe in any detail, if at all, the actual range of activities each of these titles covered. In fact, textual evidence on what the activity of the entaphiastai entailed is limited even for the Roman Period, and thus, it is not possible, at present, to reach any definitive conclusion on the subject.136 136

But see Lumbroso (1906, 163) who remarked on the similarity between the report produced by the entaphiastai of P. Oxy. III 476 (c. AD159–161) and those made by public physicians in P. Oxy. I 51 (AD 173) and 52 (AD 325), and P. Oxy. III 475 (AD182); while Grenfell and Hunt (1903, 160–161) identified the entaphiastai as embalmers in P. Oxy. III 476 (c. AD 159–161). See also Youtie 1964, 22–23 notes 5 and 8; and Koenen 1972, 20–21.

chapter 2

The Edfu Necropolis The documentary sources from Edfu are very limited and consist mainly of funerary-tax receipts on ostraca. Two main groups of funerary ostraca are, at present, known. The first group consists of 22 receipts of payment of a necropolis tax (tni҆.t ḫꜣs.t) dating to the years 234 and 233BC, and written in one of a number of variant formulae.1 The second group consists of nine ostraca that record receipt of payment for a tax paid on individual burials, dating to the years between 144 and 107BC.2

1

The Overseer of the Necropolis and the Lesonis

There is no mention in any of the surviving documents from Edfu of an overseer of the necropolis, although a lesonis is attested in several of them. However, the presence of an individual acting in this capacity, if not thus officially titled, can be surmised from P. Elephantine Gr. 8 (225–224 BC), a letter in Greek written by Pat[… son of] Thotsymthmis to the praktor Euphronios. The latter is being informed that a lector-priest, or taricheutes, Horos, son of Pasas, has contracted to underwrite the collection of the funerary tax for a specified period.3 Such an arrangement is reminiscent of the agreement recorded in P. BM EA 10528 (292–291BC) in which a lector-priest, acting in the capacity of overseer of the necropolis, undertakes to collect both the burial- and transfer-tax for a specific period.4 However, the sum to be paid according to P. Elephantine Gr. 8 is 2800 drachmae, or 140 deben, which far exceeds the five deben paid by the contractor in P. BM EA 10528 (292–291BC). Clarysse understands the sum mentioned in P. Elephantine Gr. 8 (225–224BC) as relating to the total of the deaths within the nome of Edfu in a specific period.5 This would suggest that the main temple at Edfu was responsible for the taxation, and perhaps organisation and control, of all the other necropolises within the nome. If this was the case, it would differ from the organisation of the Theban necropolis since P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC) 1 2 3 4 5

See Table A.36. On these taxes see Chapter 13 § 3. Muhs 2003, 87–88. See Chapter 1 § 1. Clarysse 2003, 21.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_004

the edfu necropolis

51

indicates that the person who farmed out the necropolis taxes was responsible only for the deceased buried in the necropolis of Djeme. However, the same text also suggests that he may have been responsible for the Theban district, or part of it, since party A states ‘I am to go to the district of Thebes with the men whom you will give to me to go out with me’ (mtw=y šm r pꜣ tš nw.t i҆rm nꜣ rmṯ.w nt i҆w=tn r ty.t st n=y r i҆y r bnr i҆rm=y) (line 4), which may indicate that he was responsible for the supervision of funerary matters outside the main Theban necropolis, though their exact nature is unclear.

2

Choachytes and Lector-Priests

There is only some indirect evidence attesting to the presence of these two groups of funerary attendants in the necropolis of Edfu. This is, in some respects, surprising given the nature of the evidence, although it is important to note that even in the Theban area out of a total of about 96 published ostraca, only six identify the tax-payer by the occupational title of choachyte, while in none of them is the title of lector-priest attested. Evidence for choachytes is found in a fragmentary list of priests and their revenues, recorded in P. Elephantine Demotic 9 (before 223BC) (lines 11–13).6 The fragment has been interpreted as a survey of revenues of priests and choachytes, presumably because of the use of the noun sꜥnḫ in lines 4 and 10.7 Evidence for lector-priests is found in P. Elephantine Gr. 8 (225–224BC), discussed above, where Pat[… son of] Thotsymthmis writes to the praktor Euphronios to inform him that the taricheutes Horos, son of Pasas, has contracted to farm out the funerary tax for a specific year.8 No other evidence is at present available on either of these necropolis workers.

3

Territorial Jurisdiction of Edfu Necropolis Workers

Due to the paucity of evidence from this area of the country, all that can be said regarding the organisation of the Edfu necropolis is that the presence of these two groups of funerary attendants, the choachytes and the lector-priests, 6 The documents relate to activity at Edfu but were taken by the last owner of the archive to Elephantine where they were discovered. See Clarysse 2003, 17–19. 7 See Spiegelberg 1908a, 22; and Clarysse 2003, 26. Another choachyte is possibly listed in P. Elephantine Demotic 12, although the reading is far from certain. 8 Muhs 2003, 87–88.

52

chapter 2

suggests that the two professions were kept separate and were performed by different individuals, rather than by the same person as in Lower Egypt. This, in turn, would indicate that the necropolis at Edfu was organised along similar lines to that at Thebes.

chapter 3

The Memphite necropolis Insofar as titles can be used as an indication of the type of organisation in place in a particular area, those attested at Memphis indicate that around the 2nd century BC some changes were implemented in this necropolis with regard to the individuals responsible for the care of the dead. As I have discussed elsewhere,1 the evidence suggests that the title of god’s seal-bearer was used in this area to denote a mortuary priest in general, whose activity corresponded to that of the choachytes and that of the lector-priests of the Theban necropolis. At Memphis, on the basis of the documentation available at present, it is clear that the title only appears around the end of the third and the beginning of the second century BC.2 From around this period the choachytes adopted the official title of god’s seal-bearer, although that of choachyte is still employed, historically, in the description of the endowments to identify the original owners of the endowment transferred.

1

The Overseer of the necropolis

With respect to the organisation of the Memphite necropolis, it is interesting to note the lack of evidence for individuals identified as overseer of the necropolis, although it is difficult to ascertain whether this is the result of accidents of preservation, or if the title was not in use in this area. Among the documents analysed, with the exception of P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC), this title is found only in the Theban area. At Hawara the office seems to have been held by one of the god’s seal-bearers and embalmers who bore also the title of overseer, and it is, therefore, possible that this was the case at Memphis as well. Some indirect evidence for this possibility is found in a number of legal documents written in Greek in which Petesis son of Chenouphis, identified in Demotic contracts as a god’s seal-bearer, holds the title of ‘archentaphiastes for the most great and everlasting gods, the deified Apis and Mnevis.’3 This, it is suggested, may cor1 Cannata 2009. 2 At present the earliest document in which the title of god’s seal-bearer is attested is P. Leiden 381 (226 BC). 3 Wilcken 1927, 453–472, UPZ 106 (99 BC) lines 10–11, UPZ 107 (99BC) lines 11–12, UPZ 108 (99BC) line 10, and UPZ 109 (98 BC) lines 1–2; Thompson 1988, 186 note 103.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_005

54

chapter 3

respond to the Demotic title overseer god’s seal-bearer attested at Hawara.4 In addition, as at Hawara, there is evidence at Memphis for the title overseer of the mysteries borne by one of the god’s seal-bearers who, in P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC), is identified as the ‘god’s seal-bearer (and) overseer of the mysteries of Apis Peteimouthes (…) son of Pais’ (ḫtmw-nṯr ḥry-sšt n ḥp pꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp (…) sꜣ pa-ḥy) (line 8). The evidence from religious texts indicates that the overseer of the mysteries was in charge of the embalming ritual, which implies that the holder of this office had a prominent position among the other funerary priests, and, therefore, it may be possible that he also fulfilled the role of overseer of the necropolis.5

2

God’s Seal-Bearers as Lector-Priests and Choachytes

The role of god’s seal-bearers was the object of a study by Sauneron based on the analysis of a range of tomb reliefs and textual sources spanning the period from the Old Kingdom to the Ptolemaic Period.6 In particular, the analysis of a total of nine tomb reliefs, ranging in date from the 6th to the 18th dynasty, suggested that the function of the god’s seal-bearer was that of an embalmer, or a chief embalmer, who also took part in the ceremonies accompanying the deceased’s river journey to the tomb. Here, following the burial, he performed, together with other funerary priests, the mortuary cult and the libations for the deceased. On the other hand, the textual evidence analysed suggested that the title denoted exclusively an embalmer.7 With regard to the Ptolemaic Period, Sauneron observed that, in general, scholars have remarked on the fact that the title god’s seal-bearer is attested solely in the Memphite area where, it is suggested, he acted as a supervisor of both taricheutes and choachytes.8 Nevertheless, the available documentary evidence relating to the funerary sphere shows that during the Ptolemaic Period the title of god’s seal-bearer was an official title used to denote a mortuary priest whose functions encompassed both those of a choachyte and those of a lector-priest, while the latter two were used as occupational titles. In addition, the surviving documents indicate that

4 5 6 7

Thompson 1988, 186 note 103. See also Chapter 11 § 4. Sauneron 1952, 137–171. Sauneron 1952, 145–146, 155. One exception is a stela dating to the reign of Ramses II in which a god’s seal-bearer takes part in the opening of the mouth ritual (Sauneron 1952, 148). 8 Revillout 1880b, 71–72; Sauneron 1952, 151, 154. However, in accordance with Spiegelberg (1920, 4 note 1), he noted that there is no evidence for this theory.

the memphite necropolis

55

the use of this title varied both geographically and temporally, since it is not attested among legal deeds from the Theban area, while it appears in the Memphite archives only around 226BC, but it is already found at Hawara from at least 365–364BC. The Memphite documents are, at present, divided into three groups, since it is not possible to establish a direct link between the individuals mentioned in them.9 The first two groups comprise documents that were originally part of the choachytes’ archives. In these the contractual parties are always identified as choachytes and the properties transferred as the endowment of the choachyte PN son of PN. The third group includes documents belonging to the god’s sealbearers. Here the contractual parties are identified as god’s seal-bearers, while the properties transferred are identified as the endowment of the god’s sealbearer PN son of PN, and in some cases as the endowment of the choachyte PN son of PN.10 From the close analysis of a number of Memphite contracts it is clear that one of the functions of a god’s seal-bearer was, indeed, that of a lector-priest.11 In P. BM EA 10384 (132BC),12 a contract of lease between the god’s seal-bearer Petosiris, son of Haroeris, and Taimouthes, daughter of Archebis, the liturgies listed appear to have originally belonged to two different family groups. The first group includes: 9

10 11

12

The earliest surviving document from this area is P. Louvre E 2412 + P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305– 304 BC), and forms part of the first group. Although it clearly belongs to the choachytes’ archive, as indicated by the title borne by the contracting parties, it is not possible to suggest a genealogical link with the second group also belonging to this class of mortuary priests. The second group consists of the contracts recorded in P. Brussels E 6033 (276–275BC), P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC) and P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) also known as the choachytes’ archive from the title borne by the contracting parties. The third group includes the contracts recorded in P. Leiden 381 (226BC), P. Leiden I 373b–c (204–203BC), P. Louvre E 2408 (197 BC), P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC), P. Sallier 3 (186–185 BC), P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC), P. Wien ÄS 3874 (149–148 BC), P. Hermitage 1122 (135 BC), P. BM EA 10384 (132BC), P. Leiden 373a (129 BC), P. Forshall 41 (124 BC), P. BM EA 10398 (119 BC), P. Pavia 1120 (118 BC), P. Forshall 42 (97–96? BC), P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78 BC), P. BM EA 10229 (78 BC), P. Florence 8698 (77–76BC), P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75 BC), P. Louvre E 3268 (73 BC), P. Louvre E 3264ter (73BC), P. Louvre E 3264 (65 BC), P. Louvre E 2411 (65 BC) and P. Leiden I 380a–b (65 BC). This third group of documents is known as the god’s seal-bearers’ archive from the title borne by the contracting parties. See Table A.15. Additional evidence is also provided by UPZ 125 (P. Leiden 0) (89BC), a loan document in Greek, where party A is identified as Chenouphis son of Petesis, one of the taricheutes of the great Asklepieion temple near Memphis, taricheutes normally being the Greek rendering of the Egyptian title of lector-priest. Martin 2009, 110–135.

56

chapter 3

– a share of the endowments that belonged to Kolloutes son of Tjaihekaenimu; – a share of the endowments that belonged to Tjaihekaenimu son of Kolloutes; – a share of the endowments that belonged to Psenptais son of Tjaihekaenimu; – a share of the endowments that belonged to the woman Snachomneus daughter of Paches; – a share of the endowments that belonged to Tjaihekaenimu son of Psenptais. These endowments are later identified collectively as the ‘endowment of Tjaihekaenimu son of Kolloutes.’ The contract also stipulated that, should Taimouthes (party B) neglect the endowments ‘by not being there for them or by not performing any work of lector-priest’ during the period of her tenure, she will forfeit the rent paid (lines 19–20). In P. BM EA 10398 (119 BC) the god’s seal-bearer Pasis, son of Teos, ceded to his younger sister Taues a number of properties and liturgies including ‘all lector-priest’s revenue-town(s).’13 In P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78 BC) a group of god’s seal-bearers ceded to another group of god’s seal-bearers the right to the funerary income from ‘the oil and wine merchant Pais son of Amenneus’ and his family.14 The contract included a specific clause concerning the possibility of family members that may fall within the competence of both groups. In this case the entitlement to the income would be decided in ‘accordance with the rules of the lector-priests.’15 In P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) the properties that the woman Taunchis, daughter of the god’s sealbearer Peteimouthes, ceded to her daughter Senamounis, daughter of the god’s seal-bearer Petosiris, comprised a number of shares of ‘lector-priest’s endowments, revenues and revenue-places.’ These are described as belonging to her husband, the god’s seal-bearer Petosiris, son of Ptahmaacheru; to her father, the god’s seal-bearer Peteimouthes, son of Imouthes; and the latter’s younger brother, also a god’s seal-bearer, whose name is not legible on the papyrus.16 Finally, in P. Leiden I 380a–b (64BC),17 a contract of sale for a number of liturgies stipulated between the god’s seal-bearer Teebes, son of Teebes, and the god’s seal-bearer Pati[…], son of Pateris, the funerary revenue transferred is said to pertain the ‘lector-priest’s revenue.’

13 14 15 16 17

Brunsch 1990, 71–77. For the reading of the name Amenneus ( I҆mn-i҆w) see Clarysse 1987, and Martin 2009, 149 note f. Pestman 1963. Spiegelberg 1903; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 737–745. Martin 2009, 154–169.

the memphite necropolis

57

The genealogical evidence provided by some of the Memphite contracts shows that individuals who bore the title of god’s seal-bearer descended in many cases from choachytes’ families. The property of the latter group of priests is still being transferred several generations later with contracts in which the parties are identified as god’s seal-bearers.18 This is the case of P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) in which the god’s seal-bearer Imouthes, son of Ptahmaacheru, divided with his half-sister Smithis, daughter of Tjaihekaenimu, a number of revenues and endowments, including: – a share of the revenues and of the endowment of the choachyte Ph[choiphis] son of Hapimenes (their maternal great-great-grandfather); – a share of the revenues and of the endowments of the choachyte Peteimouthes son of Nechtapis (their maternal grandfather); – a share of the revenues and of the endowment that belonged to the choachyte Pais son of Buirutehties (their maternal grandfather); – a share of the revenues acquired by the choachyte Horos son of Djehormen (their maternal great-great-grandfather).19 Similarly, in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC),20 stipulated between the god’s seal-bearer Petosiris son of Haroeris, and the woman Taimouthes daughter of Harchebis, some of the endowments leased clearly belonged to earlier generations of choachytes and included: – a share of the endowment of the woman Rempnophris daughter of Samous that devolved as a share to the woman Setatiretbint daughter of Horos (…) in the name of the choachyte Horos son of Djehormen, her father; – a share of the endowment of Horos son of Djehormen. Another share of these endowments belonged to the god’s seal-bearer Imouthes son of Ptahmaacheru whose great-great-grandmother was the great-grandmother of Teos, husband of party B in the present contract.21 From a comparative analysis of the extant documents belonging to the choachytes on one hand and to the god’s seal-bearers on the other, the following points can be drawn: 1. They own the same types of funerary structures (such as ḥ.t, kꜣ, ꜥ.wy-ḳs); 2. They own the same types of revenues (such as šty, sꜥnḫ, hwh.t, šmꜥꜣ); 3. The god’s seal-bearers also descend from choachytes’ families; 4. The god’s seal-bearers own endowments once belonging to choachytes; 5. The god’s seal-bearers own lector-priests’ revenues. 18 19 20 21

See Cannata 2009 Fig. I for a genealogical table of these families. De Cenival 1972, 11–65. Martin 2009, 110–135. See Cannata 2009 Fig. I for a genealogical table of these families.

58

chapter 3

That in the Memphite necropolis both professions are performed, at least in some instances, by the same person is clearly indicated by P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) and P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC). In the first document Party A states that everything listed belongs to party B and her people, in accordance with the shares listed together with ‘everything which will be given in their name, every day and every month, pertaining to the šty-revenue-source of lector-priest and choachyte and the religious-service revenue of lector-priest’ (ḥnꜥ nt nb nt i҆w=w ty.t st n rn=w ẖr hrw nb ẖr i҆bd nb ˹n ꜥḳ˺ šty ˹n˺ ẖr-ḥb wꜣḥ-mw wp.t šty ẖr-ḥb) (line 16).22 Similarly in P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC), where party A, the god’s sealbearer Apunchis son of Samous and Teteimouthes, summarises the properties transferred to party B, the god’s seal-bearer Teos son of Pasis and Smithis, using the parallel formula ‘together with everything which will be given in the capacity as lector-priest (and) in the capacity as choachyte.’23 In particular, in P. BM EA 10384 the liturgies leased are clearly divided into two groups, one belonging to an earlier choachytes’ family, that of Horos son of Djehormen, as indicated by the title by which they are identified, and a second group possibly belonging to an earlier family of lector-priests, that of Tjaihekaenimu son of Kolloutes, as suggested by the fact that a share of this endowment belongs to the woman lector-priest Anchet, daughter of Tjaihekaenimu. Such division in two groups is further emphasised by the fact that the document specifies the portion of the rent allocated to each of the endowments.24 That the same person would be serving both as a choachyte and a lector-priest is not impossible since the two professions are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the evidence from the Theban area indicates that, although they may have collaborated during some stages of the entire process, the role of one ended when that of the other started. Furthermore, ownership of choachytes’ endowments has to entail also the performance of such an activity in order for these to produce revenue. A difficulty with this interpretation is that P. Louvre E 2409 (184 BC) is confirmed by Teteimouthes, daughter of Pchoilis and ˹Tairetereru,˺ mother of contracting party A. Here Teteimouthes is identified as the ‘woman choachyte’ at a time when this title, according to the interpretation proposed here, was no longer used to identify the contracting parties.25 A possible explanation may be that, although the use of the title choachyte in the identification of contracting parties was in the process of dying out, it continued to be used by some scribes. 22 23 24 25

Martin 2009, 118. The text is unpublished and my reading relies on the transcription given by Revillout (1880b, 115–116, Pl. IV), which may be not entirely correct. Lines 17–18. Revillout 1880b, 115–116, Pl. IV.

the memphite necropolis

59

Otherwise, it is possible that it was employed here because it was the only title that a woman could hold beside that of sḥm.t (sehemet). The Memphite sources indicate that during the 3rd century BC there were two separate groups of mortuary priests: the choachytes, for whom there are partly preserved archives, and the lector-priests, for whom no archives survive beside perhaps the possibility that the endowments identified as the ‘endowment of Tjaihekaenimu son of Kolloutes’ [P. BM EA 10384 (132 BC)] are indirect evidence for the existence of this group of funerary attendants.26 From around the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 2nd century BC the choachytes here appear to have adopted the official title of god’s seal-bearer, which may have served as their professional title, comparable to that of ‘door-keeper of Amenope’ in the Theban area. Following the adoption of the new title, that of choachyte is employed, historically, only in the identification of the original owners of the endowment transferred. References to endowments of choachytes disappear completely in the 1st century BC possibly because, by then, such endowments had been in the possession of the god’s seal-bearers for a number of generations and were, therefore, named after the latter group. A possible reason behind the adoption of the title god’s seal-bearer and the apparent disappearance of choachytes from the surviving textual record may be the gradual spread of a Fayumic practice to the Memphite area.27 If this was the case, it is possible that the title was: 1. used by lector-priests first and was later adopted also by choachytes as the two groups started to intermarry, hence the use of both within the same generation; 2. adopted as a general term for mortuary priests because the two groups started to intermarry;28 3. adopted gradually over a period of time independently by lector-priests and choachytes, hence the use of both within the same generation.29

26

27 28

29

Of course it also possible that the function of the lector-priests was already performed by the god’s seal-bearers and that the 3rd century BC archives of the latter group have not survived. This is perhaps also indicated by the fact that the same title is adopted in Middle Egypt, although only in the Ist century BC, thus over a century later than in the Memphite area. This is one of the main points in which the Memphite mortuary priests (and possibly those from Hawara) differ from those at Thebes, where both choachytes and lector-priests remain each as a close endogamous group that do not appear to have intermarried. However, in this respect it is interesting to note that the two do not appear as contracting parties in the same contracts. See also Chapter 18.

60 3

chapter 3

Territorial Jurisdiction of the Memphite Funerary Priests

Labour division among the Memphite mortuary priests was based on the origo of the deceased, which means that they were entitled to perform their services for people resident in the areas over which they had been granted authority. In fact, although the endowments are said to be ‘in the necropolis of Memphis’ the entitlement of the mortuary priests to specific liturgies was decided on the basis of the deceased’s domicile. In this respect the organisation shows parallels with the way in which the Theban lector-priests were organised, but differs from that of the Theban choachytes who appear to have been freely chosen by the deceased’s relatives.30 At Memphis both the choachytes and later the god’s seal-bearers operated in the same way. With regard to the choachytes, this is indicated by P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) which lists the ‘revenue-town (called) Tamen in the district of Memphis, (any) person aforesaid [in] (the) temple of the town in the revenue-town (called) [Ta]men, in the [district] of Mem[phis] which is above, (and) the people of the district of Memphis’ (tmy-n-šty tꜣ-mn n pꜣ tš n mn-nfr rmṯ nt ḥry [n] ḥ.t-ntr n pꜣ tmy n tmy [tꜣ]-mn n pꜣ [tš] n mn-[nfr] nt ḥry nꜣ rmṯ.w n pꜣ tš n mn-nfr) (line 4), thus showing that they were entitled to perform their funerary services for the people coming from the localities mentioned. In P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC), although party A bears the title of god’s seal-bearer, some of the endowments transferred are still identified as belonging to choachytes, such as the ‘⅓ share of the revenue from the endowmen[t] of the choachyte Ph[choiphis] son of Hapimenes (…) which is [i]n the necropolis of Memphis. Their specification: the ⅓ share of the šty-revenue-sources (and) the revenue-villages of the people of Taachinsetmeseh and Taresitmehit, being two villages in the district of Wenkhem’ (tni҆.t ⅓ n nꜣ šty.w pꜣ sꜥn[ḫ] n wꜣḥmw pꜣ-[kp] sꜣ n ḥp-mn (…) nt [ḥ]r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr pꜣy=s wn tꜣ tni҆.t ⅓ n nꜣ šty.w nꜣ tmy.w n šty nꜣ rmṯ.w [tꜣ-ꜥẖy]-st-msḥ ḥnꜥ tꜣ-rsy.t-mḥt.t r tmy 2 n pꜣ tš n wn-ḫm) (line 1 Q–T); (and the) ‘⅓ share of the šty-revenue of the people of Taachinheriitem, and the ⅓ share of the šty-revenue-source of the people of the village Tawecheri being two villages on the island of Ptah in the centre of Memphis’ (tni҆.t ⅓ n nꜣ šty.w nꜣ rmṯ.w n tꜣ-ꜥẖy-hr-i҆tm ḥnꜥ tꜣy=t tni҆.t ⅓ n nꜣ šty.w n rmṯ.w n tmy tꜣ-wḫry r tmy 2 ḥr tꜣ mꜣy ptḥ pꜣ w ḥr-i҆b mn-nfr) (line 2 N–O).31 The same document also lists, as part of another choachyte’s endowment, the ‘⅓ share of the 30 31

See above Chapter 1 § 5 and § 7. Yoyotte 1972, 3; De Cenival 1972a, 18 note 34. The same localities are also mentioned in P. Louvre E 3268 (73 BC) line 6 which abbreviates the villages as Taachi(nheriitem), and in P. Louvre E 3264ter (73 BC) line 6 (De Cenival 1972a, note 18, 32 and 33). For these villages and the ‘New land of Ptah’ see Vandorpe 1995, 158–168.

the memphite necropolis

61

šty-revenues-source of the people of the Quarter of the Greeks’ (tni҆.t ⅓ n nꜣ šty.w nꜣ rmṯ.w tꜣ i҆weꜣ.t n nꜣ wynn.w) (line 8 P–Q). The same localities are still listed in some of the documents belonging to the god’s seal-bearers. This is, for example, the case in P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) that lists ‘your ¼ share of my ⅓ share of the four revenuevillage(s) which belong to the aforesaid endowment. Their specification: your ¼ share of my ⅓ share ˹of˺ the village Taachi(nheriitem) (and) Tawecherit, being two villages on the Island of Ptah; together with your ¼ share of my ⅓ share of the Quarter of the Greeks which is in the districts of Memphis; together with your ¼ share of my ⅓ share of the village Taachisetmeseh ˹which˺ is called Taresitmehi(t) in the district of Wen[˹khem˺], which ˹makes˺ four villages’ (tꜣy=t tni҆.t ¼ tꜣy=y tni҆.t ⅓ n pꜣ tmy šty ˹tꜣy˺ ṯmy 4 mtw pꜣ sꜥnḫ nt ḥry pꜣy=w wn tꜣy=t tni҆.t ¼ tꜣy=y tni҆.t ⅓ ˹n˺ tmy tꜣ-ꜥẖy.t tꜣ-wh̭ ry r tmy 2 n tꜣ mꜣy ptḥ ḥnꜥ tꜣy=t tni҆.t ¼ tꜣy=y tni҆.t ⅓ tmy tꜣ i҆wy.t n nꜣ wynn.w ẖr nꜣ sḥn.w n mn-nfr ḥnꜥ tꜣy=t tni҆.t ¼ tꜣy=y tni҆.t ⅓ tmy tꜣ-ꜥẖy.t-˹st˺-msḥ ˹nt˺ ḏ n=s tꜣ-rsy.t-mḥt [n pꜣ t]š wn-[˹ḫm˺] r ˹i҆r˺32 tmy 4) (line 8). In P. Louvre E 3268 (73BC) this Quarter of the Greeks is said to be ‘under the northern districts of Memphis’ (tꜣ i҆wy.t nꜣ wynn.w nt ẖr nꜣ sḥn.w mḥṱ mn-nfr) (line 8).33 Other localities connected with Greek ethnic groups are mentioned in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) which, among the liturgies leased, includes ‘the 1/8 share of the army of the Greeks in Egypt’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 pꜣ mšꜥ nꜣ wynn.w kmy) (line 8), that, it is suggested, may originally have been an army camp for Greek troops and should here be understood as a geographical term.34 Yet another zone of the Memphite area is mentioned in P. Leiden I 380a–b (64BC), which lists the ‘1/6 share of those of the New-land-of-the-river who will die and be brought to the Necropolis of Memphis’ (tni҆.t 1/6 nꜣy=w tꜣ mꜣy yr nt i҆w=f r mwt nt i҆w=w r i҆n.ṱ=f r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr) (line 4), presumably reclaimed land which had retained this as a nomenclature.35 In addition, the evidence from P. Leiden I 380a–b (64BC) indicates that at least one of the temple complexes in the Memphite necropolis, the Anubieion, may have been considered as being a separate revenue-place from those in the city itself since some of the revenues are identified as ‘pertaining to the endowment which is above, in the Anubieion (and the) Peak of Osiris of Rutiset (in) the districts of Memphis’ (msꜣ pꜣ sꜥnḫ nt ḥry n pr-hn-i҆np thny n wsi҆r-rꜣ-i҆s.t nꜣ sḥn.w n mn-nfr) (line 6).36 In

32 33 34 35 36

The text is rubbed off at this point and the reading uncertain, the sign could also read tmt. Yoyotte 1972, 4. Martin 2009, 128 note xxiv. Martin (2009, 128 note xxvi) suggests that Greeks may have been granted rights over this newly reclaimed land. Although the phrase could be understood as being either in co-ordination or in apposi-

62

chapter 3

P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) among the liturgies listed we find ‘the 1/8 share of the house of the scribes of the place-of-writing in the temple-domain of the gods of Hapimenes son of Phchoiphis’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 n pꜣ ꜥ.wy n nꜣ sẖ.w tꜣ s.t-sẖ pꜣ ḥtpnṯr nꜣ nṯr.w ḥp-mn sꜣ pꜣ-kp) (line 10), which may be a reference to the grapheion located in the Anubieion.37 Additional toponyms are mentioned in P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC), but since Revillout omits to give a facsimile of the relevant section of the contract it is not possible to be certain of their exact identity.38 However, what remains unclear is how such a territorial division of competence was implemented. Did choachytes and god’s seal-bearers decide among themselves, or was there an overall organising body, such as the temple, who assigned these areas among the various mortuary priests? Undoubtedly liturgies could be bought and sold, as indicated by P. Louvre E 2409 (184 BC), P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC) and P. Leiden I 380a–b (64BC), or taken on lease as shown by P. BM EA 10384 (132BC), and therefore it would always be possible to extend one’s authority over new areas in this way. The agreement stipulated between two groups of god’s seal-bearers in P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78 BC) indicates that, at least in some instances, such matters would be settled among the mortuary priests themselves, although this document has the appearance of a document of withdrawal drawn up following a lawsuit. The document includes a rather convoluted clause in which it is established that if a woman who belongs within the liturgy of party B has a husband who belongs within the liturgy of party A, the rights to any children they have will lie with party A, in accordance with the rules of the lector-priests (lines 14–15). This would suggest the existence of customs or agreements on which to base a decision over territorial jurisdiction. It is also possible that, as was the case at Hawara and Thebes, oaths and agreements would be stipulated between the various groups of mortuary priests to determine their jurisdiction and that they simply have not survived.

37 38

tion with the compound noun pr-hn-i҆npw (Anubieion), the fact that the Peak of Osiris of Rutiset is in other documents listed alongside other temple complexes, indicates that it is used in co-ordination with the preceding noun. See Martin 2009, note xi. Martin 2009, 129 note xxxv. Revillout 1880b, 115–116, Pl. IV.

chapter 4

The Hawara Necropolis At Hawara the title of god’s seal-bearer and embalmer was used to denote a mortuary priest whose activity corresponded to that of the choachytes and that of the lector-priests of the Theban necropolis. Such an organisation was already in place from at least the 30th dynasty. However, information on the possible organisation of the necropolises in the Fayum, and at Hawara in particular, concentrates largely around the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, while from the Theban area no evidence survives from the last century BC. Therefore, it is possible that some of the differences noticed between the ways in which these necropolises were organised are also due to temporal, as opposed to solely geographical, variations.

1

The Overseer of the God’s Seal-Bearers and Embalmers

From 310BC (P. O.I. 25259) to 217BC (P. Carlsberg 38a–b) the mortuary priests of the Hawara necropolis are identified by the title of ḫtmw-nṯr wyt, or god’s sealbearer (and) embalmer, while from around 198 BC two forms of this title are in use: god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer (ḫtmw-nṯr wyt) and seal-bearer (and) embalmer (ḫtmw wyt). The same individual could be identified by either of the two titles in different documents. Harmais, son of Maresisukos and Taesis, was called ‘god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer in the necropolis of Hawara’ (ḫtmw-nṯr wyt n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḥ.t-wr) in P. BM EA 10605 (98 BC), and ‘seal-bearer (and) embalmer’ (ḫtmw wyt) in P. BM EA 10603 (100 BC), P. Hamburg 4 + 8 (92 BC) and P. Hamburg 5+6 (92BC).1 This indicates either that the change in the title borne reflects a change in the role or function performed, or, more likely, that the difference is merely an orthographical one. In the case of P. Hamburg 10 + P. Cairo 50132–50134a–50136a (198BC) two apparently different spellings are (line 4) and (line 4a). If we accept the tall used sign before ḫtmw as an unusual writing for nṯr, then both variants of the title are used within the same document. However, contra to the suggestion that their function was similar to that of the Theban choachytes, and thus distinct

1 The same individual was also identified as ‘overseer god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer in the necropolis of Hawara’ (mr ḫtmw-nṯr wyt ẖr-ḥb n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḥ.t-wr) in P. Cairo 50128 (114BC).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_006

64

chapter 4

from that of the god’s seal-bearers who worked as embalmers,2 it is clear that this does not represent a different title since they are borne, over time, by the same individuals. The different writing indicates that the title had become fossilised and that it could be written without the nṯr element, which was simply understood. Coincidentally, this change appears to have occurred at the same time as the introduction of the noun overseer (mr) as part of the title god’s sealbearer (ḫtmw-nṯr wyt), which is also attested for the first time in P. Hamburg 10 + P. Cairo 50132+50134a+50136a (198BC). The documents themselves do not provide any clear indication of how this addition affected the role of the god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers, although it seems very likely that it was used to denote a person with a higher status among this group of funerary priests. Such a higher position could be held by more than one god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer at the same time, and was of limited tenure, perhaps annual, although it could be renewed in successive years. This is shown by the fact that in P. Cairo 50128 (114 BC) the position of overseer (of) god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers was held by father and son, while in P. Hamburg 12a–b (118 BC), P. BM 10604 a–b (85 BC), and P. Hamburg 2a–b (83BC) it was held by two brothers. In some respects this office is comparable to that of the overseer of the necropolis attested in the Theban area, a position held for a fixed period of time by one, or more, of the lector-priests.3 It is unclear whether the appearance of the title of overseer (of) god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers is indicative of a change in the organisation of the necropolis, although it seems probable that such an office already existed during the 3rd century BC despite the lack of supporting evidence, since the position may have been held by individuals whose archives have not survived.4 In addition, a small number of documents appear to employ a variant of the title overseer god’s seal-bearer and embalmer, using a tall sign very similar to the noun meaning superior (ḥry), and translated as such in the Glossar,5 where, presumably, it was used as an equivalent of the noun overseer (mr). The examples are found in P. Hamburg 7 (99BC) where the title is written as (line 3) and as (line 11), and in P. Ashmolean D. 10 (1968.10) (98 BC) (line 2) and as (line 3), thus where it is written as 2 El-Shohoumi 2002, 199–200. 3 See Chapter 1 § 1. 4 Despite the risk of arguing ex silentio it is important to bear in mind that the surviving archives do not form a continuous line of evidence from the beginning to the end of the Ptolemaic Period. 5 Glossar 693.

the hawara necropolis

65

apparently writing ḥry ḫtmw-nṯr wyt. The scribe who wrote these two documents also wrote P. BM 10605 (98BC) where, however, he spelled the title as (line 1), (line 2), and (line 2a), or ḥry ḫtmw wyt. ,6 showing the honThe title ḫtmw-nṯr wyt is generally written as orific transposition of the noun nṯr before the noun ḫtmw. Similarly, the title mr ḫtmw-nṯr wyt shows the honorific transposition of the element nṯr before the noun mr as shown in P. Carlsberg 39a (183BC) (line 2) and P. Carlsberg 39b (183BC) (line 3). However, notwithstanding the fact that the orthography of this tall sign does resemble that of the noun ḥry, these are simply writings of the noun nṯr. Although in P. Hamburg 7 (99 BC) the orthography of this sign in some cases resembles that of the adverb ḥry, in P. BM 10605 (98 BC) the same scribe writes the adverb as , thus quite differently from this initial element of the title (see above). In addition, in P. Hamburg 12a (118BC) the title is written as (line 3) while in line 4 of this same rather than the document the noun wyt is written with the tall w more elaborate form used in most of the other documents. Similarly in P. Hamburg 12b (118BC), which writes (line 3) and (line 3a). Therefore, in those instances where the writing of the title shows a tall sign after the noun ḫtmw, this should be seen as an additional divine determinative, while instances where the noun ḥry is seemingly written, represent examples of a more unusual orthography of the noun nṯr.7 From the evidence available at present it is not clear whether the situation in the necropolis of Hawara extended to other parts of the Fayum as well. The fact that the title god’s seal-bearer and embalmer is attested at Tebtunis too (P. Cairo 30623)8 would suggest a certain uniformity in the titles used around this region. However, the titles lector-priest and choachyte are attested in two legal documents from Philadelphia, P. BM EA 10616 (244–243 BC) and P. BM EA 10750

6 Facsimile made from Hughes et al. 1997, Pl. 30, P. O.I. 25388, line 2. 7 A repetition of the divine determinative is commonly found in words that incorporate the noun nṯr, as, for example, in the case of the noun ‘temple.’ This repetition of the divine determinative is also attested from a hieroglyphic-Demotic funerary stela from Edfu, which was inscribed for Pakhom son of Lykos (22 March 18 BC), who bore the titles ḫtm nṯr, ꜥnṱ ‘perfum/unguent-maker’ and ḥry ꜥnṱ ‘chief perfum/unguent-maker.’ The hieroglyphic version of the text on the stela confirms that this additional stroke is not the noun ḥry (which is used in the title ḥry ꜥnṱ), but an additional divine determinative (Stadler forthcoming). See also below Chapter 5 § 5. 8 On the basis of its palaeography, Spiegelberg places the document around the early Ptolemaic Period, no later than the reign of Ptolemy IV and very possibly in that of Ptolemy III (1908, 76).

66

chapter 4

(213BC).9 In the first of the two deeds party B is identified as ‘the lector priest of the mountain, the man of Troe, Pichos son of Teos, his mother being Heribastis’ (ẖr-ḥb n tw rmṯ try pꜣy-kꜣ sꜣ ḏ-ḥr mw.t=f hry-bꜣst.t), while in the second contract, contracting party A is identified as a choachyte. The archive of the Tanis embalmers does not help to shed further light on this topic because all the documents, except one, are written in Greek and the parties identified as either taricheutes or entaphiastes. No titles are preserved on the fragmentary text written in Demotic.

2

God’s Seal-Bearers (and) Embalmers as Lector-Priests and Choachytes

As mentioned above, the title of god’s seal-bearer and embalmer is attested at Hawara from at least the 30th dynasty. This is shown by P. O.I. 17481 (365– 364BC), a marriage document stipulated between the god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer Achomneuis and his half-sister, the woman Peseti daughter of the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Achoapis. This clearly indicates that the beginnings of the use of this title to refer to a specific class of mortuary priests are to be sought in the Late Period, or before, and do not represent a change that took place during the Ptolemaic period as a result of Hellenistic influence.10 This was a professional title used to identify individuals whose occupation was both that of a lector-priest and that of a choachyte.11 That one of the functions of the god’s seal-bearers and embalmers at Hawara coincided with that of the Theban lector-priests is indicated by P. Hamburg 9 (79BC), an oath concerning ownership of some liturgies, in which party A identifies party B as ‘Harmais son of Harmais (his) mother being Tamares, Psyllos son of Harmais, his brother, and Petesouchos, his brother, being three persons from among the lector-priests of the said necropolis (scil. Hawara)’ (ḥr-m-ḥb (sꜣ) ḥr-mḥb mw.t=( f ) ta-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ i҆rm pslꜣws (sꜣ) ḥr-m-ḥb pꜣy=f sn i҆rm pꜣ-ty-sbk pꜣy=f sn r s 3 ẖn nꜣ ẖr-ḥb.w n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t nt ḥry) (lines 6–7). That at least one of these individuals also bore the title of seal-bearer (and) embalmer is shown by P. Hamburg 4 (line 13) and P. Hamburg 8 (lines 12–13) (92 BC) where he is identified as ‘the seal-

9 10

11

Published by Glanville (1932) and Smith (1958) respectively. The title of course existed already during the Pharaonic period, what concerns us here is its attestation and use in documents belonging to individuals that can be clearly identified as having the same role as the mortuary priests of the Ptolemaic period. For a study of the evidence from the Pharaonic Period see Sauneron 1952. On the use of these titles in the Theban necropolis see Chapter 1 §4 and §6.

the hawara necropolis

67

bearer (and) embalmer of the necropolis of Hawara, Harmais son of Harmais (his) mother being Tamares’ (ḫtmw wyt ḥr-m-ḥb (sꜣ) ḥr-m-ḥb mw.t=( f ) ta-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḥ.t-wr). In P. Cairo 50128 (114BC) both party A and B are identified as ‘overseer god’s seal-bearer, embalmer and lector priest in the necropolis of Hawara’ (mr ḫtmw-nṯr wyt ẖr-ḥb tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḥ.t-wr) (lines 9–11), where the title ẖr-ḥb (lector priest) is appended to the others without any indication of whether this should be understood as additional to, or explicatory of, the title god’s sealbearer (and) embalmer. In addition, the Greek docket appended to the contract recorded in P. Rendell (232BC) identifies the burial-income from the endowment transferred as ‘taricheias’ (ταριχείας) (line 3), while the dockets in P. Hamburg 4 (92BC) (line 5), P. Hamburg 8 (92 BC) (lines 1–2), P. Hamburg 5 (92 BC) (line 5) and P. Hamburg 6 (92 BC) (line 1) term it a ‘share of the funerary-income of the burial-ground of taricheutes’ [(δεχάτου) νεκριῶν ταριχευτῶν]. Similarly in P. BM 10604 (85 BC) where the share of the endowment transferred is said to be that ‘⟨˹of the funerary-income˺⟩ of taricheutes of the Labyrinth’ (⟨˹νεκρων˺⟩ ταριχευτῶν τῶν ὄντων ἐν Λαβυρίνθωι) (line 1), and in P. Hamburg 2 (83BC) which defines it as a share of the ‘funerary-income of the taricheutes of the dead’ (γέρως νεκρῶν ταριχευτῶν) (line 1).12 An indication that the profession of the god’s seal-bearers in the Fayum necropolis also encompassed that of choachytes is found in P. Carlsberg 37a–b (220BC), a document-of-calling, and in P. Hamburg 13 (84 BC), a loan agreement. In the first document the god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer Achomneuis, son of Pasis, accused of having caused harm to a mummy, is to take an oath before the god Tesenouphis in the presence of party B, the woman Tasis, daughter of Teos, and wife of the deceased in question, swearing that he has allowed no harm to befall it. Finally, party A states: ‘I will take him to the ḥ.t-tomb of Teos son of Pasis, your father, in the necropolis of Hawara, him being mummified, after he has been placed in my care (lit. hand) mummified’ (i҆w=y ṯ.ṱ=f r tꜣ ḥ.t ḏ-ḥr sꜣ p-si҆y pꜣy=t i҆ṱ n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḥ.t-wr i҆w=f ḳs i҆w=w ty=s r ḏr.ṱ=y i҆w=f ḳs) (lines 7–8). Thus the document clearly indicates that one of the tasks of a god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer was that of burying a deceased person. In the second document, P. Hamburg 13 (84BC), party A, Kelol son of Maresisukos, Pemsais his son, and Harmais his brother, acknowledge receipt of a sum of money as a loan from Nechthyris the agent of the prophet of Sobek who (acts) for Plous a priest (in) the necropolis of Hawara. The document also includes an oath concerning the state of some bodies in the necropolis ‘(as for) those who are buried in the ḥ.t-tomb of Kephalon the son of Ptolemy, the man from Ptolemais

12

The readings of the dockets are those given by Hughes et al. 1997 and by Lüddeckens 1998.

68

chapter 4

Hormou,13 together with those who are here in the necropolis of Hawara today (…), there is no falsehood in the oath (nor) malice to (him) which is among those above-(mentioned)’ (nꜣ nt i҆w=w ḳs ⟨n⟩ tꜣ ḥ.t kpln pꜣ šr ptlwmys ⟨pꜣ⟩ rmṯ ⟨rꜣ-tꜣ⟩ḥny ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt i҆w=w tꜣy14 ⟨n⟩ tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḥ.t-wr pꜣ hrw (…) bn i҆w ḳrf ꜥnḫ ꜥnd nt ẖn=w nt ḥry) (lines 10–16), which suggests that these mummies had been pledged as guarantee on the loan. This in turn indicates that entombed individuals could be pledged as guarantee because they were part of the property of these god’s seal-bearers and embalmers. Both Kelol and his son Pemsais are identified in P. BM 10603 (100BC) as ‘seal-bearer (and) embalmer in the necropolis of Hawara,’ while the latter is attested as ‘overseer seal-bearer (and) embalmer in the necropolis of Hawara’ in P. Hamburg 9 (79BC). If the activity of these people was only that of lector-priests and concerned solely the embalming of deceased individuals, as would appear to be the case in the Theban necropolis, how could entombed individuals be part of their endowments? In other words, if this tomb could be used as a guarantee on a loan it follows that it had to generate an income. Such income could only consist of the payments made by the families of deceased individuals to the god’s seal-bearers and embalmers who looked after the tombs and those buried therein, which is one of the tasks fulfilled in the Theban area by the choachytes.15 As noted above, already from the Late Period in the Hawara necropolis the same individuals worked both as choachytes and lector-priests, and were identified by the official title of god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer. Such a usage seems consistent with the artistic evidence analysed by Sauneron which suggests that the god’s seal-bearers were involved both in the mummification process of the deceased and in the subsequent burial rituals and ceremonies. Therefore, it is possible that this title continued to be employed, in the Fayum, throughout the Pharaonic Period, and that its use during the Ptolemaic Period represents a holdout from earlier times, resulting, perhaps, from the relative remoteness of this area less subject to changes affecting the rest of the country before the Greek domination.16

13 14 15 16

Although this could be translated simply as ‘canal man,’ it seems preferable to restore it as the name of the town. For this reading see Vittmann 1999, 281; Glossar 604. On the custom of using liturgies as pledges see Chapter 7. However, given the limited evidence available, it cannot be excluded that there was a hiatus in this use of the title god’s seal-bearer, and that it was reintroduced, possibly during the Late Period, as the two groups of funerary attendants were perhaps merged into one.

the hawara necropolis

3

69

Other Funerary Priests

3.1 Choachytes There are only few examples from Hawara for the existence and use of the title choachyte. The first example is found in P. O.I. 25261 (221BC), an acknowledgment of repayment of a loan, in which party A is the choachyte of Pharaoh Marres (Amenemhat III), Marres son of Nechetpara and Taremetjet[…]. In this case the title corresponds to that of door-keeper in the Theban area, and refers to that group of people who were employed in the cult of a specific god(s) or, as in this case, in that of a deified deceased Pharaoh. Another example is found in a deed from Philadelphia, P. BM 10616 (244–243 BC), where the title is used in the contract’s heading introducing the parties. It seems possible that this is another instance of an individual identified by the title choachyte whose occupation corresponded to that of the Theban door-keepers. The last example is found in P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC), a letter concerning some misconduct, in which the writer apparently objects to the fact that the matter was not investigated ‘in accordance with (my being) a choachyte’ (line 18).17 The context is not entirely clear, but the use of this title in the letter may perhaps be explained by the less formal character of the document, and may be an indication of the existence of the profession carried out by people who in official documents were identified as god’s seal-bearers.18 3.2 Stolistai Another class of priests attested at Hawara is that of the stolistai who, as the Greek noun indicates, were responsible for the dressing of the god’s statues in temples, and, it is suggested, also served as funerary attendants who wrapped the mummified body of a deceased person.19 In the hieroglyphic version of the Synodal decrees they are identified as ḥry-sštꜣ (heryseshta), or overseer of the mystery.20 In the embalming ritual of the Apis Bull (P. Wien ÄS 3873, Late Ptolemaic Period) this individual plays the role of the god Anubis and is the person in charge of the ritual itself, as well as being responsible for the embalming of the head. Interestingly, in the Embalming Ritual recorded in P. Boulaq 3 this function is fulfilled by a god’s seal-bearer (ḫtmw-nṯr) under the supervision of the overseer of the mysteries.21 In this case the god’s seal-bearer, as well as the 17 18 19 20 21

Jasnow 2004, 267. On this text see below Chapter 4 § 5. Pestman 1990, 95 note 2. Hall 1986, 63–65. Smith 2009, 230 col. 7; Vos 1993, 37; Vos 1978, 262, 264. See also Chapter 11 §4 below.

70

chapter 4

lector-priests, were subordinate to the latter, thus indicating that the difference in the titles is also reflective of the different status held by the various funerary attendants within the mummification process.22 Greek documents also indicate that the embalmers were subordinate to the stolistai, which is consistent with the fact that, as overseers of the mystery (ḥrysštꜣ), they had a higher status than the other embalmers. In PSI 857 (108 BC23) the son of a deceased individual writes to the stolistai of the Labyrinth requesting that they charge three of their assistants, Harmais son of Maresisukos, Siepmus and Se[so]osis, with the embalming of his father, Zenon.24 The understanding of the text hinges on the word therapeias (θεραπείας), which Edgar suggests refers to the embalming of a body rather than to the medical treatment of a patient. The same is also indicated by the possible identification of one of the named individuals with a known god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer in the necropolis of Hawara.25 That the embalmers named in PSI 857 (108 BC) were god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers is also shown by P. BM 10604 (85 BC), a contract of sale and cession of properties stipulated between two brothers, the overseer seal-bearer (and) embalmer Psyllos and the overseer seal-bearer (and) embalmer Petesouchos, sons of Harmais and Terpos. In the Greek subscription appended to the contract the share of the endowment sold is identified as a share ‘⟨˹of the burial income˺⟩ of taricheutes of the Labyrinth’ (⟨˹νεκρων˺⟩ ταριχευτῶν τῶν ὄντων ἐν Λαβυρίνθωι) (line 1). Another Greek document that indicates the stolistai were involved in the funerary industry is S.B. I 5216 (1st century BC)26 in which an Alexandrian chief physician, Athenagoras, requests

22

23

24

25

26

However, the same person could hold both titles as shown by P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC), from Memphis, where the same individual holds the title of Overseer of the Mystery and that of God’s seal-bearer. The date is suggested by Pasek (2007, 365–366) on the basis of the identification of the individuals mentioned with known God’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers of the Hawara necropolis. The document had previously been included among the papers part of the Zenon archive. However, according to Edgar (1939, 76–77), the handwriting is that characteristic of the later Ptolemaic period, thus, he suggests, the document should be dated either to 196– 195 BC in the reign of Ptolemy V, or to 172–171BC in the reign of Ptolemy VI. According to Roberts et al. (1952, 28), the latter date would seem preferable on the basis of a parallel between the name of one of the taricheutai in the present text and in P. Rylands 577 (146 or 135 BC) where the petitioner, a taricheutes, is the son of a certain Harmais. See also Derda 1991, 22. Harmais son of Maresisukos may be the same individual as the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Harmais son of Maresisukos which is contracting party A in P. BM EA 10605 (98 BC). The letter is dated to regnal year 14, Athyr 25, which Pestman suggests may be year 14 of

the hawara necropolis

71

the stolistai of the Labytinth to release the body of one of his men who was wrongly buried in the necropolis of Hawara, and send it to Ptolemais Hormou, at the entrance of the Arsinoite nome.27 3.3 Men of Anubis Another title attested in documents from Hawara, as well as in those from Memphis and Middle Egypt, is that of Man of Anubis. An example is found in P. Ashmolean D. 16 (1968.12) (69–68BC) in which the contractual parties A are identified as the ‘Dancer of Heliopolis, Man of Anubis in the shrines of Bastet and the shrine of Anubis.’ Three brothers, Harmais, Onnophris and Phatres, sons of the like-titled ˹Pahu,˺ sell six liturgical days in the shrine of Anubis to the seal-bearer (and) embalmer Marres, son of Harthothes. The sellers state: ‘you have caused our heart to agree to the price for our half day-[service, its half being ¼, being half day-service again in every month which makes 6 days’ service every year in the service as man of Anubis in the shrine aforesaid, it being built, it being equipped with] beams and door, which is in [H]awara (and) which is written above, together with its religious services, its purificatory offerings,28 together with its share of their štyrevenues (and) their festival offerings (from) the countryside, the town, the river, [the district, (and) any place, together with its share of the ꜥwꜥylinen, the endowed lands, together with all its share of any property which will ˹be received˺] for them, together with that which will be given in their name’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=n n pꜣ ḥḏ pꜣy=n gs hrw [šms tꜣy=f pš ¼ r gs hrw-šms ꜥn ẖr i҆bt nb nt i҆r hrw-šms 6 ẖr rnp.(t) nb n pꜣ šms n rmṯ i҆npw n tꜣ štꜣ.t nt ḥry i҆w=s ḳt i҆w=s grg n] sy sbꜣ nt n ḥ.[t]-wr nt sẖ ḥry ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f šms.w nꜣy=f ꜥrš.w ḥnꜥ tꜣy=f tny.t nꜣy=f šty.w nꜣy=f ẖny.w (n) sḫt tmy pꜣ yr [pꜣ ꜥt mꜣꜥ nb ḥnꜥ tꜣy=f tny.t nꜣ ꜥwꜥy nꜣ ꜣḫ.w n sꜥnḫ ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f tny.t nb nkt nb nt i҆w ˹šp=w˺] r-r=w ḥnꜥ tꜣ nt i҆w=w ty st rn=w).29 lines 2–4

27 28 29

Ptolemy X (101BC) or Ptolemy XII (68 BC), although the year 101 BC seems a more probable date (Pestman 1990, 95 note 13). See also Chapter 4 § 4 below. On the ‘religious services’ and the ‘purificatory offerings’ see Chapter 7 §1. The restoration is based on the deed of cession recorded on the same papyrus roll, which corresponds to P. Ashmolean D. 17.

72

chapter 4

The formula used is very close to that employed in Theban contracts concerning the sale of liturgical days in various shrines.30 A comparison between P. Ashmolean D. 16 (1968.12) (69–68 BC) and the documents from the Theban area suggests that the profession of the Men of Anubis may have been similar to that of the Theban door-keepers employed in cultic services at various shrines. If this was the case, P. Ashmolean D. 16 (1968.12) (69–68 BC) indicates that individuals normally employed in the service of the deceased could also perform cultic functions at shrines dedicated to a god given that the buyer is a seal-bearer (and) embalmer. By contrast, in the Theban area there is no attested cross-over between the two professions, although this does not mean that there was any law or regulation preventing the Theban choachytes from working as door-keepers attached to divine cults. It is also suggested that some of the individuals bearing the title of Men of Anubis may have been involved in the deceased’s mortuary cult,31 although no evidence for this is found in the documents analysed here.

4

Territorial Jurisdiction of the Hawara Funerary Priests

The evidence indicates that a territorial division of competence was in place at Hawara, and that different god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers had jurisdiction over a specific territory, as clearly shown by various types of agreements stipulated between individual god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers or groups of them. In P. Ashmolean D. 18 (1968.13) (70–60BC) a group of 11 god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers take an oath concerning their territorial jurisdiction over the settlements of Ptolemais Hormou, Syron Kome, and Kerkesoucha Orous in the Polemon district, and swear that they will refrain from going to the said places to do the work of lector-priest, and from allowing any man do the said work in their names. This suggests they had been working in these villages without being authorised to do so, and have now been made to swear an oath so as to prevent them from infringing on others’ jurisdiction, although the document does not state in whose favour the oath was made, nor who was responsible for bringing them to ‘justice.’ It is interesting to note that they swear the oath together, seemingly acting as a group, rather than as individual lector-priests, although it is unclear whether they actually did work collectively, or if they were brought together simply because of having perpetrated the same offence. 30 31

For a number of these contracts see Botti 1967. Clarysse and Thompson 2006b, 182 and note 347.

the hawara necropolis

73

Some indirect evidence for a territorial division may be found in the Greek letter recorded in S.B. I 5216 (1st century BC). The letter was written by Athenagoras, a chief physician from Alexandria, who sent it with Nikias and Krokos, also from Alexandria, to the stolistai of the Labyrinth at Hawara.32 The letter concerns one of his men, Heraclides, who had apparently died in the area of Hawara while on a journey there, and was wrongfully buried in its necropolis. In particular, the sender refers to the death as having occurred ‘in your district’ (ἐπὶ τῶν τόπων) (line 4), which is probably to be understood as the district over which the stolistai had jurisdiction. That the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers had control over areas outside this main necropolis is also shown by a number of contracts concerning their funerary properties.33 In P. O.I. 25262 (292 BC), a donation deed, the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Achomneuis son of Peteneneteris, transfers to his son, the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Petosiris, rights to shares of endowments he owns not only in Hawara, but also in the necropolis of Pabunim and that of ˹ Waherker.˺ In P. BM 10603 (100BC) the seal-bearer and embalmer Pemsais, son of Kelol, pledges on the marriage document he drew up in favour of the woman Tamestasytmis, daughter of the seal-bearer and embalmer Harmais, his share of the endowment he owned in the necropolis of Hawara as well as those he had in five other towns.34 Similarly, in P. BM 10605 (98 BC) the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Harmais,35 son of Maresisukos, pledged on the marriage document he drew up for the woman Terpos, daughter of Pelaias, his shares of the endowment he owned in the necropolis of Hawara and those in the necropolises of Ptolemais Hormou, Syron Kome, Kerkesoucha Orous, Psenharyo, and Pasehhoriirties, five settlements on the outskirts of the district of 32

33

34

35

In the address, on the verso of the document, the letter does not specify that the stolistai, to whom it was addressed, are those of the Labyrinth, which indicates that it was personally delivered by Nikias and Krokos, rather than sent there (Pestman 1990, 95 note 14). P. O.I. 25262 (292 BC), P. BM EA 10603 (100 BC), P. BM EA 10605 (98BC), P. BM EA 10606 (93 BC), P. Hamburg 4 + 8 (92 BC), P. Hamburg 5 + 6 (92BC), P. BM EA 10604 (85 BC) and P. Hamburg 2 (83 BC). Although the document is damaged, the passage can be restored on the basis of P. BM 10605 (98 BC): ‘[the endowment of seal-bearer and embalmer in the necropolis of the Sobek town(s) of Ptolemais Hormou, Syron Kome, Psobthon Haryoteos, Pasehhoriirau], and Kerke[soucha Orous called] Patushenara, being 5 town(s)’ ([pꜣ sꜥnḫ ḫtmw wyt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t tmy sbk rꜣ-tꜣ-ḥny pꜣ-sbt-nꜣ-i҆šwr.w pꜣ-sbt-ḥr-ḫb-sꜣ-ḥr-wḏꜣ pꜣ-sḥ-ḥr-i҆.i҆r-ꜥw] pꜣ-grg-[˹sbk˺ ḏ.ṱ n=f ] pꜣ-tw-šn-ꜥrꜣ r tmy 5) (line 5) (Pasek 2007, 381 note 10). In P. Cairo 50128 (114 BC) Harmais, son of Maresisukos, is identified as ‘the overseer, a god’s seal-bearer, embalmer and lector priest of the necropolis of Hawara,’ while in the present document he is simply called ‘god’s seal-bearer and embalmer of the necropolis of Hawara.’

74

chapter 4

Herakleides in the Arsinoite nome. A few years later the same individual made two separate donation deeds in favour of each of his two sons, Petesouchos and Psyllos, recorded in P. Hamburg 4+8 (92BC) and P. Hamburg 5 + 6 (92 BC) respectively, and concerning the same shares of endowments in the necropolis of Hawara and in those of Ptolemais Hormou, Syron Kome, Kerkesoucha Orous, Psenharyo, and Sele. P. Hamburg 4+8 (92 BC) specifies that the latter settlements are located on the outskirts of the district of Herakleides in the Arsinoe nome, while the Greek subscription in both deeds reads: ‘the funerary-income of taricheutes in Hawara and Ptolemais Hormu on the outskirts of the Herakleides district’ (γέρως νεκρῶν ταρικε(υτῶν) τῶν ὄντων περὶ Αὑῆριν καὶ Πτο(λεμαίδα) Ὄρμου τῶν ἔζω τόπ(ων) τῆς Ἡρα(κλείδου) με(ρίδος)) (lines 1–2). Some god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers appear to have had jurisdiction as far south as Herakleopolis, as indicated by P. BM 10606 (93BC). The latter is a marriage document that the seal-bearer36 (and) embalmer ˹Mare˺phaues, son of Nechsouchos, drew up in favour of the woman Tasouchis, daughter of the seal-bearer and embalmer Sochonopis, pledging as guarantee his shares of the endowment of seal-bearer and embalmer of the people of Tameten, which is in the district of Herakleopolis Magna, and his share of the endowment of seal-bearer and embalmer of the settlements of Perbit, Tafai, Nabikuharpochrates(?) and the areas opposite them, beside those he owned in the necropolis of Hawara. The same seal-bearer and embalmer also had endowments in areas to the north of Hawara. This is indicated by the Greek subscription in P. Hamburg 2 (83BC), recording his sale and cession of a number of funerary properties to his younger brother Maron, which identifies them as ‘the funerary-income of the taricheutes of the dead which is in the Labyrinth and in the area known as Persea’ (γέρως νεκρῶν ταρικευτῶν τῶν περὶ τὸν Λαβύρινθον καὶ τὸν δη(λούμενον) Περσέ(αν) τόπ(ον)) (line 1). The Demotic contract specifies that these endowments are located in the necropolis of Hawara and in those of Mendes and of Pawawa. The distance between the various necropolises in which different god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers had jurisdiction raises the question of how their work was organised, since the possibility must have existed that their presence was required in different necropolises at the same time. The available sources, however, do not provide any information on this subject. It is possible that they only provided some services in these more distant areas, for example being in charge solely of the burial of the deceased, while being involved with both the mummification and burial of

36

The title is only seal-bearer (ḫtmw) not god’s seal-bearer (ḫtmw-nṯr) (Lüddeckens 1998, 164 note 4a).

the hawara necropolis

75

deceased individuals in the principal necropolis to which they were attached. It is also possible that when acting in the capacity of embalmers they operated in groups, which would have allowed those residing at Hawara to travel to the other necropolises, and which would also explain the presence of a number of oaths taken by groups of god’s seal-bearers and embalmers in favour of others. In addition, there is some indirect evidence that suggests a zoning of the Hawara necropolis itself, each area being under the jurisdiction of a specific god’s seal-bearer and embalmer. Evidence for this is found again in P. Carlsberg 37a–b (220BC). From both documents it is clear that the deceased was mummified, presumably in the place where he died, by his son, also a god’s seal-bearer and embalmer. The dead man is then brought to Hawara where he is to be buried in the tomb of his wife’s father. However, the wife has to arrange for the burial with a god’s seal-bearer and embalmer of the Hawara necropolis, rather than the son arranging for his father’s burial himself, thus indicating that the various mortuary priests were in charge of different areas. In addition, the fact that, following her accusations to the mortuary priest, the wife does not engage another god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer to have her husband buried, may indicate that there was a territorial division within the necropolis itself, with the tomb where the deceased was to rest laying within the jurisdiction of this specific mortuary priest, and that another could not have stepped in to do the burial himself. This in turn raises the question of whether the mummification was carried out at the place of decease, or in the necropolis where the individual would ultimately be buried. The evidence of P. Carlsberg 37a–b (220BC) suggests the former, although this may not be a representative example. In P. Carlsberg 37a (220BC) the accused god’s seal-bearer and embalmer declares: ‘I am to call before Tesenouphis the god, in your presence on account of the burial of Pasis son of Pnepheros, his mother being Tasos, who is dead, (and) whom you had mummified (through the) god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Paesis son of Pasis aforesaid, his mother being Tasis, from the island-of-the-hound, (and) whom you had brought to Hawara’ (mtw=y ꜥš ḥꜣ.t tš-nfr pꜣ nṯr i҆.i҆r-ḥr=t ẖr tꜣ ḳs.t n p-si҆y sꜣ pꜣ-nfr-ḥr mw.t=f ta-swr nt mwṱ r-ty=t ḳs ⟨s⟩ ḫtmw-nṯr wyt p-n-i҆s.t sꜣ p-si҆y nt ḥry mw.t=f ta-si҆y n tꜣ mꜣy n pꜣ whr r-ty=t i҆n=w s r ḥ.t-wr) (lines 5–7). The fact that the dead man is said to have been brought to Hawara indicates that his mummification was performed elsewhere. However, the son of the deceased person was a god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer, which may mean that different arrangements had been made because of this. It is possible that the decision on where the mummification took place depended on how far from the place of normal residence, or of final burial, the decease occurred, as is perhaps suggested by the fact that in P. Lille 29 (223BC) there is specified the exact distance from the settlement that the other members of the association will travel in

76

chapter 4

order to fetch their dead colleague. On the other hand the evidence of the letter recorded in S.B. I 5216 (1st century BC) indicates that a person dying in a certain area did not automatically give authority to the mortuary priests working in that area to bury him or her there. The chief physician Athenagoras requests in the letter that the stolistai of the Labyrinth at Hawara, who wrongfully buried the corpse of Heraklides in the necropolis there, release it without charge and convey it to Ptolemais Hormou, at the entrance of the Arsinoite nome.37 Pestman remarks on the fact that no undertaker can bury someone from outside his district, and therefore area of jurisdiction, without being clearly authorised to do so, and the fact that they were to release the body without receiving payment for it indicates that they had buried the body without authorisation.38 However, in the letter the body is said to be lying in the cemetery, which could mean that the deceased had been embalmed and temporarily placed in the cemetery (they could hardly leave the corpse unmummified and lying around the place where he died). The fee to which the letter makes reference could thus represent the compensation for both the mummification and burial. The fact that compensation is not offered for this service could suggest that they were not authorised to mummify and/or bury the deceased, even though the death had occurred within their area of jurisdiction, but it could equally have been omitted because other arrangements, of which no mention is made in the letter, had already been made.39

5

The Organisation of the Hawara Necropolis

One of the documents that may provide some additional information on the organisation of the Hawara necropolis is P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC), a letter of complaint, which understanding is still imperfect. The following table presents the two most recent transliterations and translations of this document followed by my own:40

37 38 39

40

Pestman 1990, 94–95. Pestman 1990, 95 notes 4, 8. It is possible, for example, that arrangements for the payment of these expenses had been made in the letter sent by the Alexandrian stolistai to those in Hawara, hence the omission from the present missive. The following transliterations and translations of the text are based on 1 = Jasnow 2004, 1a = Pasek 2007 (transliteration) and 2012 (translation), 1b = my own.

77

the hawara necropolis

Line Transliteration

Translation

Recto Harmouis ˹son of˺ [… is the one] who says: I do not desist from ˹greeting˺ Ephonychos (son of) Petenepheros, the temple scribe, Harmai, (Sohn) des Mare, d[er Choachyt], ist derjenige, der sagt: Ich bin nicht fern von den Grüßen des Efonch, (Sohn) des Petenefie, des Tempelschreibers. ḥr-mꜣy ˹sꜣ˺ [… pꜣ]41 nt ḏ bw-i҆r=y i҆r Harmouis ˹son of˺ [… is the one] who says: I do not wš nꜣ [sm]y.(w) n i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ (sꜣ) pꜣ-ty- stop ˹greeting˺ Ephonychos (son of) Petenepheros, nfr-ḥr pꜣ sẖ ḥ.t-nṯr the temple scribe,

ḥr-mꜣy ˹sꜣ˺ [… pꜣ] nt ḏ bw-i҆r=y i҆r wš nꜣ ˹smy˺ r i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ (sꜣ) pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥr pꜣ sẖ ḥ.t-nṯr ḥr-m-ḥb (sꜣ) mꜣꜥ-rꜥ ˹p˺[ꜣ wꜣḥ-mw pꜣ] nt ḏ bw-i҆r=y i҆r bnr nꜣ [sm]e.w n i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ (sꜣ) pꜣ-ty-nfr-yꜣ pꜣ sẖ ḥ.t-nṯr

1

1a

1b

2

[t]y m-bꜣḥ pr-ꜥꜣ sbk i҆rm nꜣ nṯr.w nt ḥtp i҆rm=f [i҆.i҆r]=k gm pꜣ s 2(?) n pꜣy gy i҆r mt ḏ ˹ty˺ m-bꜣḥ pr-ꜥꜣ ˹mꜣꜥ˺-[rꜥ-sꜣ]-sbk i҆rm nꜣ nṯr.w nt ḥtp i҆rm=f b[n] gm nt i҆w=w n pꜣy gy i҆r mt ḏ [t]y m-bꜣḥ pr-ꜥꜣ ˹[mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-sꜣ-s]bk˺ i҆rm nꜣ nṯr.w nt ḥtp i҆rm=f s[t] gm pꜣ s 5 n pꜣy gy i҆r mt ḏ

[he]re before pharaoh, Sobek, and the gods who dwell with him. [Yo]u find the two(?) men in this manner of acting since Hier vor Premaresisobk und den Göttern, die mit ihm ruhen finde ich nicht das, was in dieser Art des Handeins ist sagend: [he]re before pharaoh ˹[Maresisu]kos˺ and the gods who dwell with him. The five men were found in this manner of arguing, because

3

i҆.i҆r=y ḫꜣꜥ ḥꜣ.ṱ r bš pꜣ sẖt n rmṯ m-sꜣ ḫpr ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t tp ꜣḫ.t sw 12 fy=w

3a

i҆.i҆r=y ḫꜣꜥ ḥ(ꜣ.ṱ)⟨=y⟩ r bš pꜣ sẖt n rmṯ nt i҆w=s ḫpr ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t tp ꜣḫ.t sw 12 fy=w

it is to remove the obstruction of a man that I set my mind. Now in year 20, first month of the inundation season, day 12, they brought Ich lasse mein Herz entblößen das Hindem der Mumie, das im Gezählten (Jahr) 20, Monat 1 der Achetjahreszeit, Tag 12 geschehen ist, als sie gebracht haben

2a

2b

41

There is not enough space for the restoration suggested by Pasek 2007.

78

chapter 4

(cont.)

Line Transliteration

Translation

3b

i҆.i҆r=y ḫꜣꜥ ḥꜣ.ṱ r bš pꜣ sẖt n rmṯ nt i҆w=s42 ḫpr ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t tp ꜣḫ.t sw 12 fy=w43

I set my mind to remove the obstruction of a man which happened in regnal year 20, first month of the inundation season, day 12 (when?) was brought

4

[pꜣ] ḥtr i҆ir҆ -ḥr pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk pꜣ nṯr sẖ=y ḫrw i҆ir҆ -ḥr pꜣ mr ḫꜣs.t r bn-i҆w mt n ḥꜣ.ṱ=y ˹pꜣ˺ ḥtr ⟨sbk⟩ i҆ir҆ -ḥr pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk pꜣ nṯr sẖ=y mi҆.t i҆ir҆ -⟨ḥr⟩ pꜣ mr ḫꜣs.t r bn-i҆w mt n ḥꜣ.ṱ=y

4b

[˹pꜣ˺]44 ḥtr45 i҆i[҆ r-ḥ]r pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk pꜣ nṯr sẖ=˹y˺46 ḫrw47 n ˹…˺48 pꜣ mr ḫꜣs.t r bn-i҆w mt n ḥꜣ.ṱ=y

[th]e payment before the prophet of Sobek, the god. I wrote a petition before the overseer of the necropolis, there not being anything in my heart die Abgabe ⟨des Sobk⟩ vor den Propheten des Sobk, des (großen) Gottes. Ich habe eine Abschrift an den Nekropolenvorsteher geschrieben, von der gilt: es gibt keine Angelegenheit, die nach meinem Wunsch ist. [the] tax before the prophet of Sobek, the god. I wrote at the request of ˹…˺ (to?) the overseer of the necropolis, there not being anything in my heart

5

[sp]-2 ḏ i҆w=y (r) ty.t i҆w nkt r pꜣ i҆p n pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk i҆ir҆ pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk ꜥš r-ḥr=y r i҆r mt nb

[at] all that I should cause that property come to the account of the prophet of Sobek. The prophet of Sobek promises to me to do everything.

4a

42 43 44

45 46 47 48

The writing is a very abbreviated one and the reading not certain, but it cannot be the writing for m-sꜣ because this occurs further down and its orthography is very different. The presence of the ‘strong arm determinative’ does not seem correct for the verb ‘fy,’ no examples of this writing are listed in the Glossar. There are two oblique strokes under ḥtr, one clearly part of the writing for the verb ḏ and the other possibly an f thus a suffix pronoun. The scribe at times writes this suffix pronoun below the line, as in line 2 (i҆rm=f ), but in this case the stroke seems to be written just before the noun ḥtr. Although the scribe has omitted to write the ‘strong arm determinative’ the reading of this noun as ‘tax’ seems to be the more appropriate in the context of the letter. The reading of this sign as the first person pronoun is not certain. A comparison between the noun m.t in line 4 and the word here in line 6 suggests that the two are not the same word, the reading ḫrw seems correct. The surviving traces do not appear to support Pasek’s reading. Perhaps it is a name as suggested by Clarysse (2005) and Depauw (2006, 343).

79

the hawara necropolis (cont.)

Line Transliteration

Translation

5a

[m-sꜣ] ḏ i҆w=y ty.t i҆w nkt r pꜣ rt n pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk i҆.i҆r pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk ꜥš r-ḥr=y i҆r mt nb

5b

[m-s]ꜣ49 ḏ i҆w=y ty.t i҆w nkt r pꜣ i҆p50 n pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk i҆.i҆r pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk ꜥš r-ḥr=y r i҆r mt nb

Danach ließ ich (meine) korrekte Amtsführung des Nekropolendienstes zur Prüfung durch den Propheten des Sobk gelangen. Der Prophet des Sobk hat zu mir gerufen, um jedes Wort zu tun. after that I should cause (that) property come to the account of the prophet of Sobek. While the prophet of Sobek promises to me to do everything.

6

[i҆w]=f i҆r i҆ḫ ḏ rḫ tw=y i҆w nkt r pꜣy=f i҆p ḫpr=y ˹ty˺ [n] ḥ.t-wr.t wbꜣ pꜣ bꜣk

[(But) he] does what, saying(?): “I cause (normally) that property come to his account.” I happened to be here [in] Hawara responsible for the [afore]said work. [i҆w]=f i҆r i҆nḫ ḏ rḫ tw=y i҆w nkt r pꜣy=f [Und] er leistete einen Eid sagend: “Wisse! Ich rt ḫpr=y ˹ty˺ n ḥ.t-wr.t r wbꜣ pꜣ bꜣk unterziehe (deine) korrekte Amtsführung des Nekropolendienstes ihrer Überprüfung.” Ich war hier in Hawara wegen der Arbeit, [i҆w]=f 51 i҆r i҆ḫ ḏ rḫ tw=y i҆w nkt r [H]e does what? Saying (to) know (that) I cause pꜣy=f i҆p ḫpr=y ˹ty˺ [n] ḥ.t-wr.t wbꜣ property to come to his account. I came ˹here˺ [in] pꜣ bꜣk Hawara for the work (afore)-

6a

6b

7

[rn]=f ḫpr [tꜣ wꜥ]b.t n pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥr n [p]ꜣ ḥm-nṯr nꜣ nṯr.w n [mn]-nfr(?) n i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t sw 6 ṯ [rn]=f ḫpr [pꜣ ḫ]ny n pꜣ-ty-nfr-yꜣ n ˹pꜣ˺ ḥm-nṯr nꜣ nṯr.w n [mn]ḫ n i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t sw 6 ṯ

7a

49 50 51

There happened [the purifica]tion of Petenepheros, [th]e prophet of the gods, in [Mem]phis(?) in the second month of ꜣḫ.t, day 6. There took [genannt]en. Es trat die Störung des Petenephies, des Propheten der wohltätigen Götter, im Monat 2 der Achetjahreszeit, Tag 6, ein,

The traces do not, in my opinion, support the reading [sp]-2. The writing is quite clearly that for the noun i҆p, while the determinative is certainly not the correct one for the noun rt proposed by Pasek. I am not sure the surviving traces can be read as the third person singular suffix pronoun since the scribe seems to write this below the line as a vertical stroke (see line 2) rather than with a curve, although the latter is the case in the writing of the name Ephonychos (i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ) in line 1.

80

chapter 4

(cont.)

Line Transliteration 7b

[rn]=f 52 ḫpr [pꜣ ẖ]ny53 n pꜣ-tynfr-ḥr n54 ˹pꜣ˺ ḥm-nṯr nꜣ nṯr.w n [mn]ḫ55 n i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t ˹sw 6˺56 ṯ

8

[s nꜣ wꜥ]b[.w …] rḫ ḳm(?) ty w[bꜣ] pꜣ lwḥ wꜥb n tꜣ [ḫꜣs].t i҆w=y (r) ḏ r nkt ꜥšꜣy [i҆.i҆r nꜣ wꜥb.w tꜣ ḫꜣs.t i҆w]=y rḫ ḳm ty ⟨pꜣ nt⟩ w[bꜣ] pꜣ lwḥ wꜥb n [tꜣ] ḫꜣs.t i҆w=y ḏ r nkt ꜥšꜣy

8a

8b

9

Translation -said (when) there happened the disturbance / muddle of Petenepheros (one?) of the prophet(s) of the beneficent gods in the second month of the ꜣḫ.t season, day 6. Took

[him the pri]est[s …] able to […] here du[e to] the impropriety of purification in the [necro]polis. I (will) speak concerning many things [der vor die Wabpriester Nekropole gebracht wurde. Ich] werde hier etwas vorbringen können bezüglich desjenigen, der für (die Untersuchung) des Sakrileges in der Nekropole die Verantwortung trägt. Und ich werde bezüglich vieler Angelegenheiten sprechen, […] rḫ ḳm ty w[b]ꜣ pꜣ lwḥ tny57 n [tꜣ […] able to explain(?) here f[o]r the accusation (of ḫꜣs].t i҆w=y ḏ r nkt ꜥšꜣy the) tax of [the necro]polis (and) I will speak about many things [… p]ꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk m-sꜣ ḫpr [i҆]w(?) k.t tny.t ḫꜣs.t [(n)-tr.t … sꜣ mꜣy]-ḥs i҆rm [… sꜣ …]

52 53 54 55 56 57

58

[… th]e prophet of Sobek. But afterwards it happened [that there ca]me(?) another tax of the necropolis [from/in the hand of58 … son of Mi]usis together with [… son of]

The reading is not certain. The word seems to be spelt with only one n since the space would not be enough to restore another one. The initial letter could be either the third or the fourth h. The sign does seem to be the writing for the preposition n. Thus Clarysse 2009. Although a date is what one might expect, the signs do not seem to entirely support the reading sw 6. The surviving signs do not seem to entirely support the reading of wꜥb, tni҆.t seems a more likely and equally plausible reading, and also more in keeping with the following line where it mentions again the tax. This restoration is contradicted by the statement made further down where they are reassured that they will not be obstructed.

81

the hawara necropolis (cont.)

Line Transliteration

Translation

9a

[nt i҆w=y i҆n=w i҆.i҆r-ḥr p]ꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk nt i҆w=s ḫpr [i҆n]=w k.t tny.t ḫꜣ[s.t n-tr.t mꜣꜥ-rꜥ sꜣ mꜣy]-ḥs i҆rm s[yꜣ] (sꜣ)

9b

[… p]ꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk nt i҆w=s ḫpr ˹[i҆y]=w k.t tny.t˺ ḫꜣ[s.t … sꜣ mꜣy]ḥs i҆rm s[…] (sꜣ)

[die ich bereits gegenüber] dem Propheten des Sobk vorgebracht habe. Das ist geschehen, als sie einen anderen Nekropolenanteil [durch Mare, (Sohn) des Miu]si, Sia, [… th]e prophet of Sobek, which(?) happened ˹[there ca]me(?) another tax˺ of the necro[polis … son of Mi]usis and [… son of]

10

˹sṱꜣ=w-wty˺ mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-sꜣ-sbk (sꜣ) ẖnm[…] r s 3 nt ẖ[n nꜣ] ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ nt ꜥḥꜥ wbꜣ pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥr [rꜣ]by [i҆rm] mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-sꜣ-sbk (sꜣ) ẖnmm- ˹ḥꜣ.t˺ r s 3 nt [ẖn nꜣ] ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ.w nt ꜥḥꜥ wbꜣ pꜣ-ty-nfr-yꜣ

10a

˹Stoetis,˺ Maresisukos (son of) H̱ nm-[…] making 3 men who are a[mong the] lector-priests who are responsible for Petenepheros. (Sohn) des [La]bai, und Maresisobk, (Sohn) des Chnumes, welche drei Personen un[ter den] Festrollemezitatoren ausmachen, und die für Petenefie die Verantwortung getragen haben, zugewiesen haben. […˹L]obais˺ Maresisukos (son of) H̱ nm-[…] making 3 men who are a[mong the] lector-priests who are responsible for Petenepheros

10b

[…˹l]wby˺ mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-sꜣ-sbk (sꜣ) ẖnm[…] r s 3 nt ẖ[n nꜣ] ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ59 nt ꜥḥꜥ wbꜣ pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥr

11

[s]t i҆r n p[ꜣ b]ꜣk n pꜣ mr ḫꜣs.t n pꜣ s 3 [Th]ey do th[e w]ork of the overseer of the necropi҆[s …] [nꜣ nt] i҆w=w (r) rḫ i҆r=w i҆s ⟨st⟩ olis, namely the 3 men. Be[hold! …] [… As for the i҆r n-i҆m=w things which] they will be able to do them, behold, ⟨they⟩ do them! [i҆w]=tn i҆r n p[ꜣy=w b]ꜣk n pꜣ mr [Und] ihr werdet ihre Arbeit für den Nekropolenḫꜣs.t n pꜣ s 3 i҆s [pꜣ] s [3 nꜣ nt] i҆w=w vorsteher anstelle der drei Personen durchführen. rḫ i҆r=w i҆s i҆r[=w] n-i҆m=w Siehe, es sind die drei Personen, die sie ausführen können. Siehe, sie führen sie bereits durch.

11a

59

For the translation of this title as lector-priest, see CDD letter H̱ , 56.

82

chapter 4

(cont.)

Line Transliteration

Translation

11b

[s]t60 i҆r n p[ꜣ b]ꜣk61 n pꜣ mr ḫꜣs.t n pꜣ s 3 ˹r˺ [… p]ꜣ s 5 rḫ i҆r=w i҆s i҆r=w n-i҆m=w

they do the work for(?) the overseer of the necropolis as/namely the 3 men [… th]e 5 men are able to do them, see, they do them

12

[r]-ḏbꜣ ḫpr nꜣ wꜥb.w nt wbꜣ pꜣ pr-nfr i҆w=w ꜥš r-r=w ḏ i҆.i҆r mt bn-i҆w rmṯ sḫ r-ḥr=tn (n) mt [r-ḏ]bꜣ ḫpr nꜣ wꜥb.w nt wbꜣ pꜣ pr-ḏt i҆w=w ꜥš r-r=w ḏ i҆.i҆r mt bn-i҆w rmṯ sḫ r-ḥr=tn (n) mt

12b

[r]-ḏbꜣ ḫpr nꜣ wꜥb.w nt wbꜣ pꜣ pr-nfr i҆w=w ꜥš r-r=w ḏ i҆.i҆r mt bn-i҆w rmṯ sḫ r-ḥr=tn (n) mt

[Now] it happened that the priests who attend the Good House were assuring them, saying: “Do a thing! No man will obstruct you (in) [any] Weil es die Wabpriester, die für die Balsamierungshalle die Verantwortung tragen, sind, sie rufen wegen ihnen sagend: “Mach das Wort”! Kein Mensch hat Gewalt über euch hinsichtlich des Wortes, because the priests who are at the ‘house of rejuvination’ promise them “Perform (lit. a matter), no man will obstruct you in (the) matter

13

[nb n p]ꜣ tꜣ r-ḏbꜣ ḫpr pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk pꜣ nṯr ẖn ꜥḫl šꜥ-mtw sbk pꜣ nṯr ꜥꜣ nḥm=f šꜥ ḏ.t [rn]=f ˹pꜣ˺ tꜣ r-ḏbꜣ ḫpr pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk pꜣ nṯr ẖn nꜣy=f ꜥḫr šꜥ-mtw sbk pꜣ nṯr ꜥꜣ nḥm=f šꜥ ḏ.t [rn]=f 62 [p]ꜣ tꜣ r-ḏbꜣ ḫpr pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk pꜣ nṯr ẖn63 ꜥḫr šꜥ-(m)tw sbk pꜣ nṯr ꜥꜣ nḥm=f šꜥ ḏ.t

thing [in th]e world.” But the prophet of Sobek, the god, is in a state of wrongdoing until Sobek, the great god, saves him for eternity. [genannten, des] Landes. Weil der Prophet des Sobk, des (großen) Gottes, in der Verfehlung bleibt, bis Sobk, der große Gott, ihn für immer rettet. aforesaid, at all.” Because the prophet of Sobek, the god, is in sin until Sobek, the great god, saves him for eternity,

12a

13a

13b

60

61 62

63

It makes more sense to restore the 3rd person plural pronoun rather than the 2nd person plural, as Pasek does, since the writer is clearly still talking about the individuals listed in the previous line. The presence of the ‘strong arm’ determinative suggests the reading of the word as ‘duty, tax,’ but this would not agree with the preceding verb i҆r. The restoration is suggested by the presence of a long oblique stroke in the space between the lines, although it is true that the scribe in general seems to write the 3rd person singular suffix pronoun more vertically. What Pasek reads as the possessive pronoun is in reality the determinative of ẖn and it is the same as in line 16 where he does take it as such.

83

the hawara necropolis (cont.)

Line Transliteration 14

14a

14b

15

15a

[n]ꜣy(?) tꜣ mt mr ḫꜣs.t ḫꜣꜥ i҆ir҆ -ḥr pꜣ sẖ ḥ.t-⟨nṯr⟩ sẖ=y m-sꜣ rmṯ n ⟨pꜣ⟩ nt i҆r pꜣy=s bꜣk [i҆w=n] m-sꜣ tꜣ mt mr ḫꜣs.t r ꜥḥꜥ i҆ir҆ -ḥr pꜣ sẖ ḥ.t-nṯr sẖ=y m-sꜣ rmṯ n ⟨pꜣ⟩ nt i҆r n pꜣy=n bꜣk

If(?) the matter of the overseer of the necropolis [i]s(?) placed before the temple scribe, I will write against(?) a man to ⟨the⟩ one who does its business. [Wir sind] hinter dem Wort des Nekropolenvorstehers, um vor dem Tempelschreiber zu stehen. Ich habe hinter die Mumie geschrieben wegen dem, der für unsere genannte Arbeit eintritt. [i҆w=w m]-sꜣ tꜣ mt mr ḫꜣs.t ḫꜣꜥ64 i҆ir҆ - [(and) they have a cla]im (on) the matter of the overḥr pꜣ sẖ ḥ.t-nṯr sẖ=y m-sꜣ rmṯ n nt i҆r seer of the necropolis placed(?) before the temple n pꜣy=s bꜣk scribe, (and) I wrote as a man who does its work,65 [b]n-i҆w ḥtr m-sꜣ=y n pꜣ(sic) mt pꜣ tꜣ bn-i҆w pꜣ rmṯ mḥt pꜣy=k ḥtr m-sꜣ pꜣ ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ s 3 nt sẖ ḥry [rn=f bn]-i҆w ḥtr m-sꜣ=y n pꜣ(sic) mt pꜣ tꜣ bn-i҆w pꜣ rmṯ mḥ pꜣy=k ḥtr m-sꜣ pꜣ ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ s 3 nt sẖ ḥry

15b

[b]n-i҆w ḥtr m-sꜣ=y n pꜣ(sic) mt pꜣ tꜣ bn-i҆w pꜣ rmṯ mḥt pꜣy=k ḥtr m-sꜣ pꜣ ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ s 3 nt sẖ ḥry

16

[… i҆bt 2] ꜣḫ.t sw 25 […] (sꜣ) sṱꜣ=wwty nt ẖn nꜣ ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ n pr-nfr i҆w r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t

64

65

Translation

[N]o fee is due from me for a thing of the earth. The man will not seize your fee except for the 3 lectorpriests who are written above. [Kei]ne Abgabe (des Sobk) ist auf mir hinsichtlich irgendeines Wortes des Landes. Die Mumie erfüllt nicht deine Abgabe hinter den Festrollenrezitatoren, den 3 oben geschriebenen Personen. [there is n]o claim for tax on me (or) for anything at all. The man will not seize your tax except for (instead of?) the 3 lector-priests who are written above. [… (in) month 2] of the ꜣḫ.t season, day 25 […] (son of) Stoetis, who is from the lector-priests who are responsible for the Good House, came to the necropolis

The writing of this verb is different from that of the verb ꜥḥꜥ which occurs both as part of the compound noun ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ and as a verb for example in line 10. Perhaps we should restore the 3rd person plural suffix pronoun. Or perhaps ‘I wrote after a man to ⟨the⟩ one who does its work’ (sẖ=y m-sꜣ rmṯ n ⟨pꜣ⟩ nt i҆r n pꜣy=s bꜣk) restoring the determinative article and maintaining the preposition n.

84

chapter 4

(cont.)

Line Transliteration 16a

16b

17

17a

17b

18

18a

18b

Translation

[ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t i҆bt 2] pr.t sw 28 [syꜣ] [Im Gezählten (Jahr) 20, Monat 2 der Per]etjahres(sꜣ) rꜣby nt ẖn nꜣ ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ nt ꜥḥꜥ n pr-ḏt zeit, Tag 28 ist Sia, (Sohn) des Labai, der unter den i҆w n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t Festrollenrezitatoren ist und in der Balsamierungshalle steht, in die Nekropole gekommen [ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t i҆b]t 2 ꜣḫ.t sw 28 […] (sꜣ) [In regnal year 20, mont]h 2 of the ꜣḫ.t season, day ˹lwby˺ nt ẖn nꜣ ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ nt ꜥḥꜥ n pr-nfr 28 […] (son of) ˹Lobais,˺ who is among the lectori҆w r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t priests who stand in the ‘house of rejuvination,’ came to the necropolis […] nꜣ 35 n wꜥ wyṱ r bw-i҆r=s ḫpr i҆w=y i҆ir҆ -ḥr nꜣ wꜥb.w r pr-nfr i҆n=y

[…] the 35 (day festival) of wrapping, whereas it does not happen that I come before the priests to the Good House. I brought [r.ḏbꜣ.ṱ tꜣ] 35.t n wꜥ wyṱ r bw-i҆r=s [aus Anla]ss des 35. Tages der Balsamierung, das ḫpr i҆w=y i҆.i҆r-ḥr nꜣ wꜥb.w r pr-ḏt i҆n=y noch nicht stattgefunden hatte, als ich zu den Wabpriestern der Balsamierungshalle gekommen bin. Ich habe gebracht […] nꜣ 35 n wꜥ wyṱ r bw-i҆r=s ḫpr […] the 35 (days ceremony) of single (lit. a/one) i҆w=y i҆ir҆ -ḥr nꜣ wꜥb.w r pr-nfr i҆n=y wrapping, whereas it does not happen. I came before the priests at the ‘house of rejuvination,’ (and) I brought […] nꜣ mt.w rn=w i҆r-ḥr=tn bnpw=tn(?) ḥꜥt-ẖ.t(?) i҆rm=y r-ẖ wꜣḥ-mw m-sꜣ pꜣ wn n ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ pꜣy(?)

[…] the aforesaid, matters before you(pl.). You(pl.) did not investigate(?) with me in accordance with (my being) a choachyte. But it is(?) the door-keeper of a lector-priest [n=w] nꜣ mt.w rn=w i҆r-ḥr=tn bndie genannten Angelegenheiten vor euch. Bezüglich pw=tn ḥ(ꜣt)=w i҆rm=y r-ẖ.t wꜣḥ-mw ihrer Wünsche wart ihr nicht mit mir einer Meint i҆w=s pꜣ wn n ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ r-ḥry nung gemäß des (Brauches) des Wasserspenders (Choachyten), von dem gilt: es ist der Schreinträger (Pastophor) des obigen Festrollenrezitators. [m-sꜣ?] nꜣ mt.w rn=w i҆r-ḥr=tn bn[after?] the said matters before you, do not (?) with (pw)=tn ḥꜣ.ṱ-ẖ(?) i҆rm=y r-ẖ wꜣḥ-mw me as (a) choachyte who is the door-keeper among nt i҆w=s(?) pꜣ wn n ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ r-ḥry the lector-priest(s) above,

85

the hawara necropolis (cont.)

Line Transliteration

Translation

19

[…] nꜣ mt.w nt i҆w=w i҆n n-i҆m=w i҆ir҆ ḥr=k i҆ir҆ [pꜣ] nṯr nḥm pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk i҆w=y (r) i҆n=w i҆ir҆ -ḥr=f ꜥn m-sꜣ [nt i҆w=f i҆r] nꜣ mt.w nt i҆w=w i҆n ni҆m=w i҆ir҆ -ḥr=k i҆ir҆ pꜣ nṯr nḥm pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk i҆w=y i҆n=w i҆ir҆ -ḥr=f ꜥn m-sꜣ […] nꜣ mt.w nt i҆w=w i҆n n-i҆m=w i҆ir҆ ḥr=k i҆ir҆ [pꜣ] nṯr nḥm pꜣ ḥm-nṯr sbk i҆w=y i҆n=w i҆ir҆ -ḥr=f ꜥn m-sꜣ

[…] As for the matters which they are bringing them before you, should the god save the prophet of Sobek, I (will) bring them before him also after[Denn er macht] die Worte, die sie gebracht haben vor dich. Wenn der (große) Gott den Propheten des Sobk nicht rettet, werde ich sie noch einmal vor ihn bringen. Danach […] the matters which they bring before you, if [the] god saves the prophet of Sobek, I will bring them before him again. After

[nꜣ]y(?) i҆w=y (r) ḏ nꜣy r-r=s bn-i҆w ḥtr ḫpr m-sꜣ=y hb r-ẖry ˹ḫpr˺ i҆w=y ḏ nꜣy r-r=s bn-i҆w ḥtr ḫpr m-sꜣ=y hb r-ẖry […] i҆w=y ḏ nꜣy r-r=s bn-i҆w ḥtr ḫpr m-sꜣ=y hb r-ẖry

[ward]s(?). I (will) say these things concerning it. No fee will be due from me. Send down werde ich dieses in Bezug auf es sagen. Es ist keine Abgabe auf mir. Schick es hinunter […] I will say these concerning it: no tax is due from me. Write/Send down

1 1a

nꜣ ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ r ḫpr ˹wbꜣ˺ nꜣy ẖr-ꜥḥ.wꜥ r ḫpr ˹wbꜣ˺ pꜣ[y=n bꜣk]

1b

nꜣ ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ r ḫpr ˹wbꜣ˺ pꜣ[…]

the lector-priests to become ˹responsible for˺ zu diesen Festrollenrezitatoren, die [stehen für unsere Arbeit]. (to) the lector-priests to become ˹responsible for˺ […]

2

tꜣ mt mr ḫꜣs.t n ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t i҆bt 2 […]

2a

tꜣ mt mr ḫꜣs.t n i҆w=tn i҆r [pꜣ] b[ꜣk]

2b

tꜣ mt mr ḫꜣs.t n ˹ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t i҆bt 2˺ […]

3

ḥtr r nꜣ wꜥb.w ˹n pr-nfr˺ […]

19a

19b

20 20a 20b

Verso

the matter of (the) overseer of the necropolis in year 20, second month […] (Was) das Wort des Nekropolenvorstehers (anbetrifft) bezüglich: Ihr werdet [die] Ar[beit] durchführen. the matter of (the) overseer of the necropolis in ˹regnal year 20, second month˺ […] Exert pressure(?) upon the priests of the Good House(?)

86

chapter 4

(cont.)

Line Transliteration

Translation

3a

pꜣ] ḥtr n nꜣ wꜥb.w ˹nt˺ w[bꜣ pꜣ] pr-ḏt mtw=tn

3b

ḥtr r nꜣ wꜥb.w ˹nt n pr-nfr˺ mtw=tn

[Die] Abgabe ist für die Wabpriester, die für die Balsamierungshalle die Verantwortung tragen. Und ihr seid tax to/against the priests who are in the ‘house of rejuvination,’ and you are (to)

4 4a 4b

˹nḫt.ṱ˺ m-sꜣ […] r tm ti҆.t ḫpr ˹nḫt.ṱ˺ m-sꜣ [nꜣ ẖr-ꜥḥꜥ.w] r tm=w r ti҆.t ḫpr ˹nḫt.ṱ˺ m-sꜣ […] r tm ti҆.t ḫpr

Protect me after […] so as not to permit to happen stark hinter den Festrollenrezitatoren, damit sie nicht verhindern können, dass entstehen wird protect me/him(?) after […] so as not to permit to happen

5 5a

pꜣ nt ḥwꜣ r ˹pꜣ˺ ḥm-nṯr sbk šꜥ ḏ.t pꜣ nt ḥwꜣ n [pꜣ] ḥm-nṯr sbk šꜥ ḏ.t

5b

pꜣ nt ḥwꜣ r ˹pꜣ˺ ḥm-nṯr sbk šꜥ ḏ.t

that which is evil for ˹the˺ prophet of Sobek forever. das, was (die) Ausdehnung des Propheten des Sobk ist, für immer. that which is evil for ˹the˺ prophet of Sobek forever.

6 6a 6b

[…] ḫpr i҆.i҆r=k i҆wṱ[=y i҆rm=w] (?) i҆w=y ḫpr […] ḫpr

[…] to happen Du bist zwisc[hen mir und ihnen. Ich werde […] to happen

7 7a 7b

i҆ir҆ -ḥr w[ꜥb …] wpy(?) i҆ir҆ -ḥr wꜥb [ḥr-mꜣy-]ḥs (sꜣ) s[yꜣ] i҆ir҆ -ḥr w[ꜥb …]

before a pri[est …] to judge(?) vor dem Wabpriester Harmiu]si, (Sohn) des S[ia] before a pri[est …]

8 8a 8b

pꜣ ꜥ.wy n wꜥb i҆rm(?) nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w pꜣ ꜥ.wy ˹rmṯ mꜣy-ḥs˺ [i҆rm] nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w pꜣ ꜥ.wy ˹n w[ꜥb] i҆rm˺ nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w

the house of a priest with(?) his children bezüglich des Hauses der Mumie des Miusi und seiner Kindern sein, the house/hand(?) ˹of a priest and˺ his children

9 9a 9b

šꜥ ḏ.t tw=y ˹tbḥ˺ n-i҆m=s šꜣꜥ ḏ.t tw=y [i҆r bꜣk] n-i҆m=s šꜣꜥ ḏ.t tw=y […] n-i҆m=s

forever. I am requesting(?) it. für immer. (Denn) ich [mache die Arbeit] daran. forever. I am […] it.

10 10a

my hb⟨=w⟩ n=y (n) pꜣy=k wḏꜣ my hb n=y (n) pꜣy=k wḏꜣ

Let ⟨one⟩ write to me concerning your health. Bitte schreib mir bezüglich deiner Unversehrtheit.

87

the hawara necropolis (cont.)

Line Transliteration

Translation

10b

my hb⟨=w⟩ n=y (n) pꜣy=k wḏꜣ

May ⟨it be⟩ written to me (about) your health.

11 11a 11b

ḫꜣꜥ s r ḥꜣ.ṱ=y r i҆r pꜣy=s i҆n-nfr ḫꜣꜥ=s ḥ(ꜣ.ṱ)=y pꜣ nt [i҆w=f ] i҆r pꜣy=n mnḫ ḫꜣꜥ s r ḥꜣ.ṱ=y r i҆r pꜣy=s i҆n-nfr

Place it upon my heart to do its good Mein Herz überlässt es demjenigen, der ihre Vollkommenheit macht. Place it upon my heart (= trust me?) to do its good

12

m-šs sẖ n ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t sw 25

12a

m-šs sẖ n ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t sw 28

12b

m-šs sẖ n ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t sw 28

exceedingly. Written in year 20, second month of the inundation season, day 25. Geschrieben im Gezählten (Jahr) 20, Monat 2, der Achetjahreszeit, Tag 28. exceedingly. Written in regnal year 20, second month of the inundation season, day 28.

13

bn-i҆w mt i҆w=y i҆n.i҆w.k n-i҆m=s

13a 13b

bn-i҆w mt r i҆w=y i҆n.i҆w.k n-i҆m[=s] bn-i҆w mt i҆w=y i҆n.i҆w.k n-i҆m[=s]

There exists no matter concerning which I am coming, Es gibt kein Wort, wegen dem ich kommen werde There is no matter concerning which I am coming,

14 14a 14b

gꜣ šꜥ mtw=k hb n=y gꜣ šꜥ mtw=k hb n=y gꜣ šꜥ mtw=k hb n=y

or until you send to me. oder bevor du mir schreiben wirst. or until (before?) you write to me.

[i҆.i҆r-ḥr i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ (sꜣ) pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥr] pꜣ sẖ ḥ.t-nṯr

[to Ephonychos son of Petenepheros] the temple scribe

A number of questions arise from this text. In the first place, why did the sender write to the temple scribe? Was he writing to him because of his position as representative of the temple? At Thebes, for example, temple scribes received payment of funerary taxes on behalf of other officials. Certainly the wording of the letter’s ending, and the fact that the sender proposes a course of action to the recipient, asking him to exert pressure over the priests of the pr-nfr, suggests that he was not the son of the dead man. Furthermore, the sender informs the scribe that he has petitioned the overseer of the necropolis, an official in charge of the organisation of the necropolis, according to the evidence from

88

chapter 4

Thebes, and to whom funerary taxes were paid.66 The sender also states that the prophet of Sobek, to whom the tax was paid, assured him that he would do ‘everything,’ presumably suggesting that he would pay the money to the rightful recipients. Line 15 suggests that this fee was intended as a payment for the lector-priests and that they were, therefore, the rightful recipients. However, the sender appears to state that the necropolis tax was requested again from him, possibly by the lector-priests themselves or by the relevant authorities. This in turn raises the question of the identity of the sender. Why was he asked again for payment of this tax? The evidence from Thebes indicates that funerary taxes were paid, on behalf of the family, by the mortuary priest in charge of the deceased. This suggests that the sender was a mortuary priest in charge of the deceased Petenepheros. In addition, the fact that he seems to have been accused of regularly making unlawful payments to the prophet suggests that he was acting in a professional capacity, rather than as a relative of the deceased. The sender also indicates that there was ‘impropriety during the purification of the deceased,’ and that ‘the priests of the pr-nfr told the lectorpriests to get on with the work.’ This suggests that the lector-priests stopped working because they had not been paid, which probably resulted in further decomposition and damage to the body. This would explain the lapse of time between the payment of the fee, around the time of death, and the beginning of the final wrapping ceremony. Table 1 shows the timeline of the events as described in the letter and as they should have occurred during the normal mummification process.67 If death occurred around day 12 in the first month of the inundation season, the mummification process proper should have started on day 16 of the same month, that is, four days after death. A first stage in this process would have lasted for about ten days or so, and then the next one, known as the pr-nfr, would have started around day 28 of the same month. This would have lasted for about 16 days when the next and final stage begun, that of the 35-days wrapping ceremony. The latter should have started on day 14 of the second month of the inundation season, which means that the embalmment would have ended on day 19 of the third month of the inundation season, that is, 35 days later. Instead, the whole process appears to have been delayed by about 16 days given that the 35-days wrapping ceremony does not appear to have started until day 28 of the second month of the inundation season. If this interpretation is cor-

66 67

On this subject see Chapter 13 § 3 and Chapter 15 § 3. On the mummification stages see further Chapter 11 §3.

89

the hawara necropolis table 1

Timeline of the events described in P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC)

Month

Days

Events described in the letter

Timeline of mummification process

First month of inundation

Day 12

Payment was brought to the prophet of Sobek

Death of Petenepheros?

Second month of inundation

Day 16

Day on which the mummification proper should have started

c. Day 28

Day on which the pr-nfr stage should have started

Day 6

‘muddle’ of Petenepheros

Day 14

Day 28

Third month of inundation

Day 19

Day on which the 35-days wrapping ceremony should have started 35-(days ceremony) of wrapping begins? Day of burial

rect, the fact that the embalmers stopped working suggests that the payment was intended to cover both the tax amount and the actual cost of the mummification of the deceased. P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC) is the only document, outside the Theban area, in which the title of overseer of the necropolis occurs and, therefore, it remains unclear whether this should be taken as evidence for a change in the organisation of the Hawara necropolis during the last century BC, or if the fact that it is not attested outside Thebes is simply the result of accidents of preservation. As noted above, a comparable office appears to have been held by one of the god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers who bore also the title of overseer.68

68

See Chapter 4 § 1.

90

chapter 4

Consequently, it is possible that, as was the case with the title of choachyte,69 the use of the title of overseer of the necropolis in this letter is due to the less formal character of the document. Another individual mentioned in the letter is the prophet of Sobek to whom the tax was apparently paid, although it is not clear whether he should be identified with the overseer of the necropolis, or if he was another official connected to the funerary sphere. From the petitions in the archive of the Tanis embalmers it appears that the temple had some involvement in the activities of the embalmers operating within a certain area, and that the income from this activity was managed by the prophet of Sobek in Krokodilon polis. The object of these petitions was the right to embalm and bury the deceased from Tanis, rights that had originally belonged to a certain Psenephmous, son of Paos, from nearby Philadelpheia. The latter died during the great revolt in the reign of Ptolemy IV, and his embalming rights were divided among three funerary workers of Philadelpheia. Interestingly, it appears that the embalmers received an annual fixed sum of 4000 drachmae, rather than being paid by the families of the deceased in their care. However, this situation may have been out of the norm since it is possible that the disputed embalming rights had been claimed by the temple, following the death of Psenephmous, which would, therefore, have received part of the profits.70 Nevertheless, the letter recorded in P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC) does indicate that the prophet of Sobek had some involvement in the organistion of the Hawara necropolis, although its exact nature is not entirely clear from the available evidence. 69 70

See Chapter 1 § 4. Armoni 2013, 16, 21–22.

chapter 5

The Necropolises in Middle Egypt The picture emerging from the analysis of documents from Middle Egypt, limited, geographically, to Oxyrhynchus, Deir er-Rifeh, Siut, Sharunah and Akhmim, is not an entirely clear one, mainly due to the paucity of surviving evidence, and the fact that what is available is dispersed both spatially and temporally. In particular, it is not entirely clear whether the organisation of these necropolises was always distinct from that of other parts of the country and only later modelled onto that of Hawara, or if it shared parallels with the Theban necropolis at first, and then underwent changes due to the spread of influence from the Fayum southwards. The titles attested during the period under analysis are: ẖr-ḥb, ḳs, rmṯ ẖr-nṯr, ḫtmw-ꜥḥꜥ=f-n-nṯr, ḫtmw-nṯr, ḫtmw-nṯr wyt and necrotaphos, which use appears to vary both temporally and geographically within this region. For the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC the only titles attested are those of lectorpriest and embalmer, while there is no evidence for the existence of individuals performing the function of the Theban choachyte. Lack of evidence does not necessarily imply that these individuals did not exist, since it is entirely possible that no archives belonging to them have survived. However, it is equally possible that such a function was always performed by the same individuals, the lector-priests, as was the case at Hawara, although under a different professional title. During the 1st century BC the mortuary priests of Middle Egypt adopted the professional title of god’s seal-bearer, although they continued to describe their activity as that of a lector-priest. The evidence suggests that, at this time, they may also have worked as choachytes, at least with respect to the burial of a dead person, although there is no evidence with respect to their performance of the mortuary cult of the deceased. At first, the surviving sources suggest that there was a certain geographical variation in the use of titles for mortuary priests in this part of the country. This would not be entirely surprising since the area of Middle Egypt is a rather vast one, and local variations are likely to have been present. However, in view of the evidence from Lower Egypt, and the temporal change in the titles borne by the mortuary priests at Memphis, it seems possible that what is apparently a geographical variation is in reality a temporal change. The lack of evidence for the use of the title god’s seal-bearer at Siut could thus be attributed to a lack of evidence dating to the first century BC when the latter title seems to come into use at Sharunah. This may be linked to the change in the titles used by the mor-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_007

92

chapter 5

tuary priests, witnessed at Memphis during the 2nd century BC, and resulting from the spread of funerary practices from the Fayum northward to Memphis and southward to Middle Egypt. The adoption of the title of god’s seal-bearer in this part of the country suggests that, as was the case at Memphis, internal changes were gradually and constantly taking place within the mortuary sphere, and that the later appearance of new titles to identify the necropolis workers is to be understood as a resulting development of this process.1

1

The Head of the Necropolis

No evidence is available with respect to officials that acted as head of the necropolis, such as the overseer of the necropolis and the lesonis. The only indication available on the presence of individuals responsible for the enforcement of rules within the necropolis is the mention in P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79 BC) of ‘the people (?) the law’ (nꜣ rmṯ.w (?) pꜣ hp) (line 2), although it does not specify any further professional title they may have held. If an overseer of the necropolis was present among these individuals, one would expect him to be mentioned, since he would be in charge of the necropolis organisation and supervision.

2

Lector-Priests and Embalmers

From the area around Siut and Deir er-Rifeh there is evidence for the use of two titles, that of ẖr-ḥb or lector-priest, and that of ḳs or embalmer. In the proceedings of a family lawsuit brought before the Laocritae in Siut, the defendant is identified as a lector-priest, as are his father and his brother.2 The same title is also used to identify their profession, as indicated by the list of a number of offices and properties recorded in P. BM EA 10591 (170 BC) which include: ‘the ⅓ share of the work as lector-priest in Siut, of which the other ⅔ share belongs to me (scil. Twt)’ (tꜣ tny.t ⅓ n tꜣ wp.t n ẖr-ḥb n sywt nt i҆w wn-mtw=y tꜣ k.t tny.t ⅔) (col. Bvii line 10), and the ‘⅓ share of my (scil. Twt) ¼ share of the work as lector-priest (in) Shaiueshetep and its (neighbouring) areas’ (tꜣ tny.t ⅓ n tꜣy=y tny.t ¼ n tꜣ wp.t n ẖr-ḥb š-i҆w=s-ḥtp i҆rm nꜣy=f mꜣꜥ) (col. Bvii line 11). The same title is attested in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC), an agreement concern-

1 Cannata 2009; see also Chapter 18. 2 Thompson 1934.

the necropolises in middle egypt

93

ing the provision of cloths and other items, for the mummification process, in which both parties are identified as ‘lector-priest in the necropolis of Taanch of Siut’ (ẖr-ḥb n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n tꜣ-ꜥnḫ n sywṱ) (lines 10–11). The same document also mentions the title ḳs as part of the compound noun rmṯ i҆w=f ḳs, literally ‘a man who embalms’ (line 19). Papyrus fragments from mummy cartonnage found at Deir er-Rifeh, near Siut (Greek Lycopolis), provide evidence for the concurrent use of the titles of lector-priest and embalmer. This is the case in P. UC 32223 (2nd cent. BC), a Demotic household record drawn up for administrative purposes, and consisting of 21 columns in various states of preservation, which lists a large number of people arranged by profession and by household. The individual entries are headed by a professional title followed first by the names of the individuals bearing such a title, and then by the total number of persons, as well as the total of males among them. Thus column xiii lists: ‘Lector-priest(s): ˹Petearmotes˺ (son of) […], Sen-[…] his woman, Petophois son of Totoes, Tapsais his woman, Tau[…], the woman of Chapochrates, (being) five persons (of whom) two male’ (ẖr-ḥb ˹pꜣ-ty-ḥr-mtn˺ (sꜣ) […] tꜣ-šr.t-[…] tꜣy=f rmṯ.t pꜣ-ty-wp(-wꜣw.t) sꜣ twt tꜣ-pꜣ-šꜣy tꜣy=f rmṯ.t tꜣ-w[…] tꜣ rmṯ.t ꜥnḫ-pꜣ-ẖrṱ rmṯ 5 (wp-st) ḥwṱ 2). lines 321–329

Column xiv of the same document lists: ‘Embalmers: Nepheros son of Pabechis, Ire(t)djel[…], Horos son of Har[…], Tathotes his woman, Psenosiris son of Petophois, Pe his woman, Pachnoumis son of Pais, Ta-[…] his woman, Har-tj[…] son of Psen-[…], ˹T˺rase his woman, Timinis son of Pais, Tlolous his woman, Thotomous son of Imouthes, Senchnoumis his woman, […] (son of) Thotomous, Senarbekis his woman, X Pabechis son of […], X Tabekis his woman, X Ephonychos son of Har-[…], (being) 19 persons (of whom) ten male’ (ḳs nꜣ-nfr-ḥr sꜣ pa-bi҆k i҆r.(t)-ḏl-[…] ḥr sꜣ ḥr-[…] ta-ḏḥwṱ tꜣy=f rmṯ.t pꜣ-šr-wsi҆r sꜣ pꜣ-ty-wp(-wꜣw.t) pe tꜣy=f rmṯ.t pa-ẖnm sꜣ pa-ḥy ta-[…] tꜣy=f rmṯ.t ḥr-ṯ-[…] sꜣ pꜣ-šr-[…] ˹tꜣ˺-rš tꜣy=f rmṯ.t t-mn sꜣ pa-ḥy tꜣ-rlw tꜣy=f rmṯ.t ḏḥwṱ-mꜣꜥ sꜣ i҆ym-ḥtp tꜣ-šr.t-ẖnm tꜣy=f rmṯ.t […] (sꜣ) ḏḥwṱ-mꜣꜥ Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr-pꜣ-bi҆k tꜣy=f rmṯ.t X Pa-bi҆k sꜣ […] X Ta-bi҆k tꜣy=f rmṯ.t X I҆w=f-ꜥnḫ sꜣ Ḥr-[…] rmṯ 19 (wp-st) ḥwṱ 10).3 lines 345–365 3 Clarysse and Thompson 2006a, 540–565.

94

chapter 5

Some of these individuals are also listed in P. UC55871 (2nd cent. BC), a record of male individuals grouped by occupation, but without reference to household: ‘Lector-priest(s): Petearmotes [son of …], Petophois son of Totoes, total two. Embalmers: Nepheros son of Pabechis, Psenosiris son of Petophois […]’ (ẖr-ḥb pꜣ-ty-ḥr-mtn [sꜣ …] pꜣ-ty-wp(-wꜣw.t) (sꜣ) twt r 2 ḳs nꜣ-nfr-ḥr sꜣ pabi҆k pꜣ-šr-wsi҆r sꜣ pꜣ-ty-wp(-wꜣw.t) […]).4 Fragment 2, column iv, lines 179–185

However, there is no further published evidence from these areas concerning the titles of the mortuary priests, especially during the 1st century BC, and it is, therefore, not possible to determine whether a change in the titles used occurred here as seems to have been the case at Hutnesu, modern Sharunah.5

3

Man of the Necropolis

Another title found in documents from Middle Egypt is rmṯ ẖr-nṯr, which is used in combination with the other titles borne by the various mortuary priests, and is unattested from other parts of the country. In P. Mallawi 602/7 (101 BC) this title is used in the identification of the two contracting parties: the ‘necropolis man, a seal-bearer who attends the god, in the necropolis of Taachitar[…], Harpaesis, son of Thoteous and Esoeris, together with the like-(titled) Thoteous, son of Harpaesis, and Krysis, his son’ and ‘the necropolis man, a god’s seal-bearer in the necropolis in the north of Herakleopolis Magna (˹Ḥ.t-nnnsw˺), Horos, son of Heremdjertief and Senpsais.’ H̱ r-nṯr, literally ‘god’s domain’ or more generically ‘necropolis,’ occurs in a number of religious texts such P. Berlin P. 8351 (1st century AD) (col. II line 1), (col. IV line 18), P. Strasbourg 3 (1st century AD) (verso, col. x + V line 4),6 and P. Louvre N. 3279 (Late 1st century BC–1st century AD),7 while it is also found in other types of documents where it is used in apposition to the noun rmṯ. The title rmṯ ẖr-nṯr has been variously translated as ‘ghost,’ ‘one belonging to god,’ ‘deceased person’ and as ‘necropolis man.’8 In Demotic it occurs, among others, in the following documents: 4 5 6 7 8

Clarysse and Thompson 2006a, 566–579. See Chapter 5 § 5 below. Smith 1993, 24, 28, 30, 33, 40 note b with further references, 113, Pls. 2, 3 and 11. Goyon 1966, 39 note 4. Glossar 247, 386; CDD letter H̱ , 58–60.

the necropolises in middle egypt

95

P. BM EA 10622 (137BC)9 P. Mallawi 602/7 (101BC)10

P. Cairo 30692 (Ptolemaic Period)11 P. Cairo 30758 (Ptolemaic Period)12 P. Louvre E 2229 (Roman period)13 This title may be synonymous with the compound noun rmṯ ḫꜣs.t, which employs the more common noun for ‘necropolis,’ thus meaning either ‘man of (the) necropolis’ or ‘foreigner,’ and/or with rmṯ (n) i҆mnt, ‘person of (the) west,’ that is, a deceased person. It is also possible that both rmṯ ẖr-nṯr and rmṯ ḫꜣs.t were used to denote magicians who frequented the cemeteries and were believed to have the power to summon the deceased and compel them to carry out their orders.14 This is probably the case in the self-dedication recorded in P. BM EA 10622 (137BC) where the title occurs as part of a list of harmful beings and evils from which the supplicant seeks protection. On the other hand, a translation of this title either as ‘deceased person’ or ‘ghost’ may not always be entirely correct. In P. Cairo 30692 (Ptolemaic Period) and P. Cairo 30758 (Ptolemaic Period) Setne has already had an encounter with a dead man who is identified as ‘great man’ (rmṯ ꜥꜣ) and who, therefore, has to be distinguished from the ‘man of (the) necropolis’ (rmṯ ẖr-nṯr) that he encounters later.15 In both these texts the emphasis seems to be on the fact that the ‘man of (the) necropolis’ can either recite(?) spells, or help Setne find a tomb. It seems possible, therefore, that the individuals thus titled were believed to have particular (magical) powers or knowledge that would distinguish them from other individuals, and that these powers would be retained after death and could be still used by their owners. Finally, the fact that this title is used in a contract, P. Mallawi 602/7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Thompson 1941, 69–71, Pl. XII, line 12. Zaghloul 1991, 261–262 note b, Pl. 75, lines 1 and 2. Spiegelberg 1908, 112–115, Pl. LI, line 11; Zauzich 1976, 79–80 and note a. Spiegelberg 1908, 145–148, Pl. LVIII, line 5; Zauzich 1976, 79–80 and note a. Johnson 1977, 60, 67, 78 note 2/11, Pl. 11, col. 2 line 19. Smith 1987, 117 note c; Smith 2005, 161 note e with further references. I am indebted to C. Adams for this information and for our discussion on this subject. See also Adams 2007, 6–19. In P. Louvre E 2229 (Late 1st century BC–1st century AD), in view of the late date of the text, the compound was probably used attributively.

96

chapter 5

(101BC), as a title borne by a living person suggests that it could also be used as a general designation for individuals who worked in the necropolis without further specification as to their actual occupation. It may be just possible that these people worked as magicians or wise-men as well, but the documents analysed provide no evidence at all on this possibility. Another title deriving from the compound noun ẖr-nṯr is that of ẖr.ṱ-nṯr, a nisbe which, at first, denoted a ‘necropolis workman’ and later acquired the more specific connotation of ‘stone-mason.’16 Although the latter is in some cases borne by individuals who held a priestly title as well, or that were connected with the temple, this title is to be distinguished from that of ‘man of (the) necropolis,’ since the former is clearly written, in Demotic, with a ‘stone’ determinative and is generally preceded by a determinative article.17 In Demotic the title ẖr.ṱ-nṯr occurs, among others, in the following documents:18 P. Rylands IX (512BC)19 P. BM EA 10612 (175BC)20 Satet temple graffito (Elephantine) (168–164BC)21 P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC)22 New York Historical Society Mummy-label 572 (Roman Period)23

16

17

18

19 20 21

22

23

For a discussion of this title see Aufrère 1991, 76–77; Vittmann 1998, 543 note to line 15; Vittmann 1997, 273 note bb; Vleeming 1993, 58–59; Gardiner 1938; Capart et al. 1936, 174 note 1,8. See, for example, the New York Historical Society mummy-label 572 where the named individual bears the title of ‘prophet of Imouthes’ (Reich 1932), and the stela of Iuefamun (Hamburg private collection) where the individual is identified as a ‘stone-mason in the temple of Amun’ (Altenmüller 1981). The title is attested in a range of texts from different periods, such as P. Reinhardt (10th cent. BC) (Vleeming 1993), Stela Louvre C 101 (Saite Period) (Malinine 1975) and a number of the Mother of the Apis stelae (Smith 1992). Griffith 1909, 102–103, Pl. XL, col. XVIII line 15 and 16 respectively; Vittmann 1998, Vol. I, 88, 178–179. Andrews 1990, Cat. 30, 73–74, Pl. 61, line 18. Vittmann 1997, 264, 273 note bb, Pl. 37, line 7. Vittmann reads the title as ẖrṱ.w but the fact that in P. BM EA 10612 (175 BC) the tall sign is transposed to the front indicates that it is to be read as nṯr. Abd el-Aal 2003, 20–21, Pl. 4, line 10. In P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC) the title is borne by a man listed among other individuals who are part of the liturgies object of this contract. In this case, no clear connection is evident with the titles of the funerary workers analysed here, and could very well be a stone-mason without any link with the necropolis organisation. Reich 1932, 167–170, Pl. 70c, line 4 and 6 respectively. Reich had originally read the title as ḫw.

the necropolises in middle egypt

4

97

Seal-Bearer Who Attends the God

P. Mallawi 602/7 (101 BC), from Hutnesu, provides evidence for yet another title, that of ḫtmw-ꜥḥꜥ=f-n-nṯr, ‘seal-bearer who attends the god,’ written as and unattested in any of the documents analysed from other parts of the country.24 Zaghloul suggests that the meaning of this title cannot be very different from that of ḫtmw-nṯr, or god’s seal-bearer.25 That they held a similar office is, indeed, indicated by the fact that party A, the seal-bearer who attends the god, sells to party B, a god’s seal-bearer, a funerary endowment. This being the case, the title could be understood as a local variant peculiar to the place of origin of this individual and of the necropolis to which he was attached, the location of which is unknown. However, it seems strange that the scribe should use two different titles if there were no real difference between the two offices. Another possibility is that this is a scribal error, although the writing of the second element of the title is written quite clearly, as can be see from the facsimile above. Beside the presence of this unattested title, the document presents a number of other difficulties. As noted by Zaghloul, the name of the town to which necropolis party B is attached is seemingly that of Herakleopolis Magna, Demotic Ḥ.t-nn-nsw , which lies about 60 km north of the expected Hutnesu (Ḥ.t-nsw) modern Sharunah where the Mallawi papyri were found.26 Although the evidence from Hawara shows that mortuary priests could own liturgies some distance away from their main place of residence,27 this seems too great a distance to travel and would have prevented the performance of regular funerary services at either necropolises.28 In fact, it is more likely that the scribe mistakenly wrote the place name Herakleopolis Magna instead of Hutnesu, whence some of the other documents originated. The same confusion between the two town names occurs also in P. Rylands IX (512 BC) (col. XIII line 6). In the latter case the reading of the town as Hutnesu is confirmed by its association with another place, Hartai, in the 17th Egyptian nome, but whose exact location is uncertain.29 24 25 26 27 28

29

For the names and full titles of the contracting parties see Chapter 5 §3 above. Zaghloul 1991, 262 note c. Zaghloul 1991, 256; see also below. See Chapter 4 § 4 above. Of course, it could be that the owner of the document was originally resident at Herakleopolis and then moved to the town of Hutnesu, although without knowing the location of the necropolis of Taachiar[…] , to which he was attached, it is not possible to expound further on this possibility. Vittmann 1998, 484–485 line 15; Chauveau 1986, 29 note 42.

98

chapter 5

According to Zaghloul, P. Mallawi 602/7 (101 BC) and the remaining seven documents now in the Mallawi Museum30 were discovered rolled up inside a jar amongst the debris that covered the floor of a subsidiary chamber in a reused Old Kingdom rock-cut tomb at El-Kôm el Ahmar Sawâris (Sharunah).31 This seems also strange given that no apparent link exists between the various individuals mentioned in the documents, and perhaps also in view of the temporal gaps between many of them.

5

God’s Seal-Bearers

The documents from Sharunah also provide evidence for the use of the title ‘god’s seal-bearer’ in this area of Middle Egypt. The title is attested for the first time in P. Mallawi 602/11 (109BC) and is used from then on either alone or in conjunction with other titles.32 As noted above, this designation is used in combination with that of ‘necropolis man’ in P. Mallawi 602/7 (101 BC) and that of ‘lector-priest’ in P. Mallawi 602/9 (100BC), while in P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79 BC) the parties are identified simply as ‘god’s seal-bearers.’33 On the other hand, the title is not used in P. Mallawi 602/10 (111 BC), nor in any of the documents from the earlier Ptolemaic Period, which suggest its gradual adoption by the mortuary priests of Middle Egypt around the end of the second and the beginning of the first century BC, possibly as a result of the spread of a Fayumic practice in this area. The title was employed in this part of the country in the same way as it was at Memphis and Hawara, to identify a mortuary priest whose office encompassed the functions performed in the Theban area by lector-priests and choachytes separately. This is clearly shown by P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79 BC), an apportionment deed drawn up by 11 god’s seal-bearers in favour of another colleague, in which the activity to be performed is identified as ‘the offices of lector-priest of Psenharyo in the town of Psenharyo’ (nꜣ wp.wt n ẖr-ḥb ḥr-wḏꜣ pꜣ tmy ḥr-wḏꜣ) (line 1), while they appear to have also been responsible for taking the deceased to his tomb.34 30

31 32 33

34

P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC), 602/6 (92 BC), 602/7 (101BC), 602/8 (no date given), 602/9 (100 BC), 602/10 (111 BC) and 602/11 (109 BC). For the dating of the latter document see Chauveau 1991, 133. Zaghloul 1988, 137–138; see also Chapter 16 § 2 below. The title is attested in P. Mallawi 602/7 (101 BC), P. Mallawi 602/9 (100 BC), P. Mallawi 602/6 (92 BC) and P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79 BC). Information on the use of the title ‘god’s seal-bearer’ in P. Mallawi 602/11 (109BC) and P. Mallawi 602/6 (92 BC), both unpublished, is given by Zaghloul (1991, 257–258), although he does not state whether they are used in conjunction with any other title. Photographs were published for only four out of the five sections which make up this doc-

the necropolises in middle egypt

99

The variant title ‘god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer’ is found on stela BM 711 (100? BC) written in the hieroglyphic and Demotic scripts. Budge gives Akhmim as place of provenance of the stela, which origin is accepted by Munro, perhaps on stylistic grounds, although no further information is available on the exact place of discovery.35 The use of the title god’s seal-bearer at Akhmim is not, in itself, surprising since it is consistent with the suggestion that the adoption of this title by the mortuary priests of Middle Egypt may have been the result of the spread of a Fayumic practice southwards. However, the use of the combined title of ‘god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer’ is attested only at Hawara and, to my knowledge, does not occur is any other document from Middle Egypt. Although it is possible that its use at Akhmim is simply evidence for scribal variation, it is equally possible that the individual was only buried there, or had a memorial stela set up in this area perhaps because of family links, and that he (had) worked at Hawara where he bore this combined title.36 A similar situation may be that attested from the hieroglyphic-Demotic stela of Pakhom, son of Lykos (22 March 18BC), from Edfu, who bears the title of ḫtm nṯr, as well as those of ꜥnṱ ‘perfum/unguent-maker’ and ḥry ꜥnṱ ‘chief perfum/unguent-maker.’37 Given that the title of ḫtm nṯr is otherwise unattested from Edfu, it is possible that the use of this title indicates that he (had) worked at Hawara in such a capacity and, consequently, was thus titled on his funerary stela set up at Edfu.

6

Necrotaphoi

The title appears to have been in use from around the end of the Ptolemaic period, throughout the Roman domination and as late as the Byzantine era, although the majority of documents in which it occurs date to the Roman period. As noted above, the evidence from the Ptolemaic Period on this group

35 36

37

ument, and their resolution is too low to allow, in most instances, a secure translation of the text. Vleeming 2004, 626; Budge 1909, 273 No. 1017; Munro 1973, 203; Derchain-Urtel 1989, 83. Personal reasons are also suggested by Derchain-Urtel as an explanation for the use of this title at Akhmim. However, although she notes that the title is also attested in the Fayum, she suggests that this may be evidence for the diffusion of a Memphite practice to Akhmim (Derchain-Urtel 1989, 245), thus omitting to note that this combined title occurs only in the Fayum and not at Memphis. That this title was not in common use at Akhmim is also suggested by the fact that it does not appear in the database produced by Depauw comprising over 800 objects originating from this area. I thank M. Depauw for allowing me access to his database. I thank M. Stadler ( forthcoming) for kindly sharing information about this stela with me.

100

chapter 5

of funerary workers is very limited and not entirely unambiguous. The earliest document in which this title may be attested is P. Sorbonne inv. 331, dating to the second half of the third century BC. The text is a fragmentary list of names, in some cases followed by the individuals’ occupation, possibly prepared for taxation purposes, as in the case of fragment xxxvii line 393 which has been read as: [νεκρ]οτάφος Ὦρος […].38 However, because the relevant section is in a lacuna and the reading of the title of necrotaphos, suggested by the text’s editor, is only one of a number of possible restorations, this document cannot be taken as firm evidence for the existence of this profession at the beginning of the Ptolemaic period.39 The first published Ptolemaic document in which the title is clearly attested is P. Rylands 65 (57BC), possibly from the town of Oxyrhynchus, in which is recorded the judicial sentence of the Chrematistai court concerning an agreement made by all the necrotaphoi belonging to an association.40 The necrotaphoi present a petition to an official complaining about some people, possibly colleagues of theirs, explaining that all the necrotaphoi had made an Egyptian document in regnal year 14 (of an unspecified king) in which they had divided among themselves certain shares of their work. These stipulations have now been disregarded by Petosiris, Paris and their associates, who have carried away a number of corpses. In view of the fact that the accused did not appear before the judges, the latter decided in favour of the necrotaphoi who brought the plaint, stipulating that the provisions of the Egyptian contract, which they all had made voluntarily, would remain valid.41 Unfortunately it is not clear whether the accusation of having carried away corpses should be understood literally as referring to the taking charge of bodies to be embalmed, and thus to the activity of embalmers, or only figuratively and thus referring to the appropriation of liturgies. Consequently, the document does not allow to determine whether the title necrotaphos was used either as a professional designation for individuals working as both lector-priests and choachytes, or as a title designating exclusively one of the two categories of mortuary priests. From the documents recovered in the Oasis of Dush it appears that the profession was hereditary and that it was maintained within the same family. The right to exercise this profession was conveyed through donation and sale deeds. Examples of the former are P. BM EA DCCVIII (AD 247) and its copy, P. BM 38 39 40 41

Boyaval 1973, 240. Thus also Derda 1991, 27 note 76; see also Clarysse and Thompson (2006, 180) who read ‘Horos son of P…is […]’. Johnson et al. 1915, 7 note 2; Derda 1991, 27–28. Johnson et al. 1915, 7.

the necropolises in middle egypt

101

EA DCCX (AD267), recording a donation by Aurelius Petosiris of ¼ of his activity as necrotaphos to Aurelius Petechons,42 and P. BM EA DCCXI (AD 244–248) with which two brothers authorise another man to make public before the authorities in Alexandria the cession made in their favour by their father of both his immovable property and his activity as necrotaphos.43 The latter shows that, at least in some instances, the necrotaphoi owned considerable wealth, thus suggesting that their activity could be quite lucrative. An example of sale is the fragmentary contract recorded in SB I 4653 and 4654–4655 (AD 244), with which two individuals transferred to the freedman Polydeukes half of their activity as necrotaphoi.44 The necrotaphoi were responsible for the burial of the deceased as clearly shown by the fact that they were the addressees on a number of mummy labels, such as SB I 5538, 5766, 5767 and SB VI 9211. They were also in charge of the transport of the body, presumably to its burial place, as shown by P. BM EA DCCXVII (AD498), a letter by Melas to Silvanus and Sarapion concerning the delivery of their brother’s body, Phibion, and the payment of transport expenses for 340 drachmae; and P. BM EA DCCXIII (c. AD127), another letter, with which a man informs another person that the body of a woman, who had been sent to the oasis by the authorities, has been handed over to the necrotaphoi.45 However, it remains uncertain whether they also performed the mortuary cult for the deceased since in some cases, during the Roman Period, this appears to have been the responsibility of slaves and freedmen as indicated by P. Rylands II 153 (AD138–161) and BGU VII 1655 (AD169). In addition, the evidence indicates that in some instances the necrotaphoi also worked as pastophoroi as shown by the mummy label SB 5538 where the necrotaphos Pseneoueris is also identified as a pastophoros of Buchis at Hermonthis.46 Moreover, P. Rylands 65 (57 BC) indicates that the necrotaphoi formed an association, as had the choachytes in the preceding periods. The documents from Dush also indicate that, although they all operated within the necropolis of Kysis, the necrotaphoi were not all residents of the town of Kosis. Some lived in nearby settlements, such as Mothis (P. BM EA 42 43 44 45 46

Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 68, 104–105; № 70, 108–109; for this and all the other documents from the Dush Oasis see now Bagnall 2017. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 71, 110–114. Bingen 1964, 163–164; Sayce 1894, 301–304. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 77, 121–123; № 73 115–116. Spiegelberg 1901a, 340; Wilcken 1908, 254; Preisigke 1913–1915, 589. It should be noted, however, that the choachytes were only door-keepers of Amenope, while there also existed another group of door-keepers who were in the service of the gods, but did not have any links with the funerary industry (see Chapter 1 § 4).

102

chapter 5

DCCXV, AD308), while others resided within the necropolis (P. BM EA DCCXVII, c. AD498).47 As many as 20 necrotaphoi are attested as operating within this necropolis at the same time, including some women. Evidence for this is found in P. BM EA DCCXV (AD308) (P. Grenfell 75), recording the acknowledgment by the necrotaphe Tapaous of receipt of payment from the necrotaphos Kasianus son of Kasianus for her services as nurse in the latter’s house,48 and in P. BM EA DCCXVI (AD295) (P. Grenfell 76), a divorce document stipulated between Soulis and Senpsais both of whom are identified as necrotaphoi.49 The evidence from the Oasis of Dush, the only at present available, suggests that there was at least some overlap between the profession of a choachyte and that of a necrotaphos. In addition, the fact that taricheutai are still attested in the Roman Period in contexts where it is clear that they were embalmers, as for example in P. Amherst 125 (Late 1st century AD),50 argues against the possibility that this was a professional designation for individuals working as both lector-priests and choachytes,51 and suggests that the title of necrotaphos did not refer to all funerary attendants in general, but rather that it defined an activity that corresponded largely to that of the Theban choachytes. However, this contrasts with the information provided by an unpublished contract in Greek, which, originally, was probably part of the group of papyri found in a reused Old Kingdom rock-cut tomb at El-Kôm el Ahmar Sawâris (Sharunah), and was later acquired by Leuven University.52 According to this contract, the necrotaphoi were apparently responsible for both the mummification and the burial of the deceased, and thus, it is suggested, the title was equivalent to that of god’s seal-bearer.53 Another possibility is that the Greek title necrotaphos was not a literal translation of the Demotic title (which remains unknown), but rather was used to denote a person who worked as funerary attendant, irrespectively of the exact functions (choachytal or embalming) he or she explicated in the performance of their activity. The evidence from Memphis, Hawara and Sharunah shows that the title of lector-priest remained in use throughout the Ptolemaic Period regardless of the changes that affected other titles. It is possible that the appearance of the 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 75, 118–119; № 77, 121–123. The same was also true of the Nile Valley as indicated by SB I 4651 and 4653. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, 118–119. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, 119–121. Grenfell and Hunt 1901, 150. As did the Memphite God’s seal-bearers and the God’s seal-bearer and embalmers of Hawara, for which see Chapter 3 and 4. Clarysse 2007, 185, 188. Clarysse 2007, 189.

the necropolises in middle egypt

103

title necrotaphos is to be seen as another element in that series of changes that affected the funerary sphere during the Ptolemaic Period, spreading from the Fayum first northward, and then southward, and seemingly resulting in the disappearance of individuals bearing the title of choachyte. In Middle Egypt, however, the absence of any evidence for the use of the title choachyte remains unexplained, although it is possible that the paucity of documents surviving from this area is the reason for their apparent absence from the record.

7

Territorial Jurisdiction of the Funerary Priests in Middle Egypt

The surviving documentary evidence from Middle Egypt indicates that its mortuary priests formed a consortium which decided collectively on the apportionment of liturgies among themselves and that such a division was formalised by contracts. P. Mallawi 602/10 (111 BC) from Hutnesu, P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC) from Psenharyo, and P. Rylands 65 (57BC) possibly from Oxyrhynchus, provide evidence for the drawing up of apportionment deeds in which are listed the families and individuals forming part of the endowments belonging to each mortuary priest. P. Mallawi 602/10 (111 BC), a judicial sentence passed by the Laocritae court sitting in the courthouse in the temple of Hathor at Hutnesu, reports the statement made by the plaintiff, the lector priest Petenoubis son of Horos, who declares: ‘We divided our places of revenue of Hutnesu on the northern side with our fellows with a deed of cession for each companion among us’ (i҆w=n pš n nꜣy=n ꜥ.wy.w n šty ḥ.t-nsw pꜣ ꜥt mḥṱ i҆rm nꜣy=n i҆ry.w n sẖ wy r i҆ry n-i҆m=n) (lines 5–6). Similarly, P. Rylands 65 (57BC) records the judicial sentence passed by the Chrematistai court regarding a petition made ‘by all the necrotaphoi belonging to the association’ in which they made an official complaint against some colleagues of theirs who had disregarded the agreements set down in a contract concerning the division of certain shares of their work.54 An example of such a deed is represented by P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC) drawn up in favour of Pathres, son of Harpaesis and Teuoris, by 11 other mortuary priests. Following the inheritance by Pathres of his parents’ share in a number of liturgies, the mortuary priests draw up an apportionment deed specifying what portion, out of 14 shares, belonged to each of the contractual parties, comprising a total of 12 individuals. The document then details the names, patronymic and, in some cases, the professions of the people that are included in each of these shares, although it is not always clear whether these are tomb

54

Johnson et al. 1915, 7 note 2; Derda 1991, 27–28.

104

chapter 5

owners, occupants or both. Indirect evidence for the apportionment of liturgies is found in P. BM 10561 (157BC) in which the parties agree that ‘(As for) the [˹priest˺] of Wepwawet who will die (and) the one who shall be ḳs,55 together with his 35 [days ceremony, ˹we will give˺] to the lector priest in whose charge he is [x amount of cloth (for the)] 35 [˹days ceremony …]’ (pꜣ [˹wꜥb˺] wp-wꜣwt nt i҆w=f mwt ḥnꜥ pꜣ nt i҆w=w ḳs=f s ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f 35 […] r pꜣ ẖr-ḥb nt i҆w=f n-ḏr.ṱ=f […] 35 […]). Although parts of this passage are in a lacuna, it is clear that the priests of the temple of Wepwawet fell within the competencies of specific lector-priests. In addition, a number of documentary sources from Siut indicate that its mortuary priests were not restricted to a single necropolis, but could also practice their profession in nearby cemeteries, as indeed was the case in the rest of the necropolises analysed. This is shown by P. BM EA 10575 (181 BC), which lists a share of ‘the work as lector priest of Shaiueshetep and its (neighbouring) areas’ (tꜣ wp.t n ẖr-ḥb š-i҆w=s-ḥtp i҆rm nꜣy=f mꜣꜥ.w) (line 3). In addition, individual mortuary priests could increase their endowments by purchasing liturgies from their colleagues. In P. BM EA 10575 (181 BC), recording the apportionment deed made by Petetumis for his son Tuefhapi, party A transfers a share of ‘the work as lector-priest in the necropolis of Siut (…), which I bought (…) from the woman Senuris daughter of Eba’ (tꜣ wp.t ẖr-ḥb n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t sywt (…) r-i҆n=y ḏbꜣḥḏ (…) n-tr.t sḥm.t tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr ta ebꜣ) (lines 2–3). Similarly in P. Mallawi 602/7 (101BC) that records the sale of an endowment between funerary attendants. Finally, endowments could also be purchased at official auctions as indicated by P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC), where Party B is entitled to some shares in the ‘name of the woman Teuoris, daughter of Teos, your mother (…), which she bought at the auction of pharaoh’ (rn sḥm.t tꜣ-whr.t ta ḏ-ḥr tꜣy=k mw.t (…) [r]i҆n=s ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ ḥr pꜣ ꜥyš n pr-ꜥꜣ) (line 1). 55

The verb ḳs here refers to a stage of the mummification process for which see Appendix 1.

chapter 6

Female Funerary priests As can be expected, evidence for women working as funerary attendants in the Ptolemaic Period is very limited and not entirely unambiguous. Evidence from earlier periods of Egyptian history does indicate a certain involvement, albeit limited, of women in the funerary industry. A number of them are, for example, attested as ḥm.t-kꜣ or funerary priestesses, a function that may have been similar, to some extent, to that of the Ptolemaic choachytes, although it is suggested that the title possibly had a broader meaning than we currently attribute to it.1 In addition, there is one instance, from the Old Kingdom, of a woman bearing the title of overseer of the female doctors, which suggests that women exercised this profession, although further evidence for it is lacking.2 There is also some pictorial evidence that suggests a certain involvement of women in some stages of the mummification process. A representation in the tomb of Queen Meresankh III at Giza (Old Kingdom), for example, shows what appear to be two female attendants standing at the head and foot end of a funerary bed and performing some activity around this bed.3 On the other hand a depiction on a coffin (First Intermediate Period?) shows a reversal of roles in that there are two male attendants standing at the head and foot end of the funerary bed, on which the deceased rests, while a woman is attending to the body.4 This may suggest that perhaps women were involved in the mummification process of female deceased, as, especially in the case of women of a certain status, it may have been felt more appropriate to have female attendants attending her in death as others had in life. Clearly, the fact that women may have worked in the funerary sphere in these earlier periods of Egyptian history does not necessarily mean that they did so in the Ptolemaic Period, although it does set an important precedent.

1 2 3 4

Allam 1985; Fischer 2000, 26. Fischer 2000, 27. Altenmüller 2000. Lapp 1986.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_008

106 1

chapter 6

Choachytes

Women are often encountered as contracting parties in documents belonging to the choachytes’ archives where they are identified by the title of woman (using the titles sḥm.t or rmṯ.(t)) or choachyte (wꜣḥ-mw). At Thebes, in contracts written on papyrus female parties are identified by the generic title of woman (sḥm.t) regardless of their marital status.5 By contrast, the term is only rarely used in documents written on ostraca where the word generally used in Demotic is rmṯ.(t), translated as ‘wife’ or ‘woman,’ and gyne (γυνή) in Greek, also with the meaning of ‘woman.’6 In addition, it appears that the use of the term rmṯ.(t), rare in earlier Egyptian texts, increased during the Ptolemaic period.7 This, it is suggested, may have been due to the introduction of new personal taxes not present in previous periods of Egyptian history, and for which administrative practices had to be developed. By contrast to the pre-Ptolemaic period when taxes were collected in kind by the temple administration, during the Ptolemaic period taxes were paid in money and were collected by tax-farmers, private individuals contracted by the government to exact taxes in a specific area, and for a specific period of time.8 The increase in the use of this term, therefore, may be either the result of a need to find a Demotic equivalent for the Greek gyne, or represent the adoption of a more colloquial term as part of the administrative terminology.9 In her study of the position of women in documentary texts of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, O’Brien suggested that the change in the way in which a woman was identified in contracts and in receipts may be indicative of Hellenistic influence and the result of the different ways in which women were seen in the Greek and in the Egyptian society. Her study shows that the use of titles by women was more frequent during the Pharaonic than in the Ptole5 Although it is not possible to determine with certainty whether only married women were able to buy and sell property, it seems unlikely that this was the case given that in P. Louvre E 2410 (120 BC), for example, party B is a young girl of 11 years of age, who is identified as the sḥm.t Sachperis the younger, daughter of Osoeris and Nechouthis, thus suggesting that the noun was used as a generic title (O’Brien 1999, 75–76 and note 124). Her age can be gauged from P. Berlin P. 3113 (c. 130 BC) which gives a list of dates of birth and death, and shows that she was born on the 2nd October 132 BC (Pestman 1993, 145, 228). Although it could be suggested that her parents on this occasion acted on her behalf, the fact that she could be named as a contracting party indicates that it was legally possible for a young, unmarried woman to engage in economic transactions. 6 O’Brien 1999, 74, 60–61. 7 O’Brien 1999. 8 O’Brien 1999, 66. 9 O’Brien 1999, 66–67.

female funerary priests

107

maic period. She points out that whereas during the Late Period women in some instances used the title of choachyte, from the beginning of the Ptolemaic period they are mainly identified as sḥm.t in contracts, and as rmṯ.t in the tax receipts issued by the Greek administration.10 The evidence from legal documents shows that women had the same rights of ownership of funerary properties and liturgies as men. This is clearly indicated by the large number of contracts which see them as buyers or beneficiaries, sellers or both.11 What is perhaps unclear, and certainly still debated, is whether they actually exercised the profession themselves, or if they employed the services of a man, be it a relative or a hired labourer, to perform the religious services for the deceased in their care. Among the surviving documents there are only six examples of women being identified by the title choachyte.12 However, indirect evidence for women practicing this activity is provided by the burial tax receipt recorded in O. Berlin 9699 (254–253 BC) paid by the woman ˹Taesis˺ identified as the choachyte (tꜣ wꜣḥ-mw). Similarly in O. BM EA 5740 (246–245 BC) and O. BM EA 5753 (246– 245BC) both paid by Tabis daughter of Parates, who is possibly to be identified with Tabis, the woman (rmṯ.t) of Cherbes, who paid the burial tax recorded in O. BM EA 5767 (246–245 BC) and O. BM EA 5756 (245–244 BC). Women are also recorded as payers in the tax receipts O. Cairo 12469–12476 (256–255 BC) paid by Tchoilis daughter of Psammetichos, and in O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 920 (243– 242BC), paid by Senminis the woman (rmṯ.t) of Pachysis. It is of course possible that these women were acting on behalf of their fathers or husbands. This may be the case in O. Cairo 12469–12476 (256–255BC) paid by Tchoilis. In lines 5–7 the text reads ‘to you belongs the burial, while the choachyte ˹(paid?)˺ its tax of overseer of the necropolis’ (mtw=t tꜣ ḳs r pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw ˹?˺ pꜣy=f ḥḏ mr ḫꜣs.t).13 The fact that in the first instance the scribe employs a third person feminine suffix pronoun (mtw=t) which is then followed by a title with masculine determinative article (pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw) may indicate that the choachyte was a man on whose behalf she made the payment, although it would not explain why the burial is said to belong to her. Within the remaining extant documentation there is only one ostracon that suggests the possibility of representatives acting on behalf of a choachyte. This seems to be the case in TT32 (264 BC) which reads:

10 11 12 13

O’Brien 1999, 91–95. See Table A.16. See Table A.17. For a discussion on the reading of the compound sḥm.t wꜣḥ-mw see Vinson 2000, 103–104. I am unable to read the word following the title ‘choachyte,’ the reading given is suggested by the context but it is not grammatically correct.

108

chapter 6

‘Amenrosis (son of) Totoes `the representative of Petearpres son of Es˹minis˺´ is the one who says to Chonsu˹maa˺ son of ˹Wepi˺men: you have given to me ½ kite (…) for Pa[…] son of ˹Padjuh˺ as tax of the overseer of the necropolis (…), while I will not be able to interfere with (have a claim against?) Psenenteris son of Panouphis in his name, on account of the tax of overseer of the necropolis’ (i҆mn-rwš (sꜣ) twt`pꜣ rt n pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ ns-˹mn˺´ pꜣ nt ḏ (n) ḫnsw-˹mꜣꜥ˺ sꜣ ˹wpy˺-mn tw=k n=y ḥḏ-ḳt ½ (…) n pꜣ-[…] sꜣ ˹pꜣ-ḏwh˺ n ḥḏ mr-ḫꜣs.t (…) i҆w bn-i҆w=⟨y⟩ rḫ sḫ ⟨r⟩ pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w sꜣ pa-nfr (n)-rn=f n ḥḏ mr-ḫꜣs.t). lines 1–6

Chonsu˹maa˺ son of ˹Wepi˺men is not attested in any of the other documents in the archives, and it is possible that he may have brought the payment to the relevant authorities on behalf of Psenenteris son of Panouphis, a choachyte who is known from a number of other documents.14 Given that burial tax receipts are paid in the vast majority of cases by men who are unquestionably choachytes (either because they are identified as such or known from other documents to have been door-keepers of Amenope), it is unreasonable to question the possibility of women working as choachytes, on the basis of their gender alone, when they are attested as taxpayers in the same way as men. Further indirect evidence is provided by P. BM EA 10827 (273–272 BC), P. Marseilles 298–299 (235BC) and P. Amherst 58a (153 BC). In the first document the door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes Snachomneus, son of Parates and Timounis, donates a number of liturgies to his niece, the woman Tabis, daughter of Pamenis and Sachperis. The beneficiary is also granted access to another tomb beside those inherited: ‘you may go to the s.t-tomb of Merti the washerwoman, and the people of the master Amenrosis’ (mtw=t15 šm r tꜣ s.t n mrṱ tꜣ rḫṱ ḥnꜥ nꜣ rmṯ.w n pꜣ ḥry i҆mn-rwš).16 line 2

The second document, P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC), is a contract of sale of liturgies stipulated between the door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes 14

15 16

Of course it is possible that accidents of preservation are responsible for the fact that this individual is unknown from any other sources and that the two worked together (Vleeming 1994a, 361 note dd). The witness-copies B and E write mtw=w in place of mtw=t (Andrews 1990, 44 note 16). Andrews 1990, 44–45.

female funerary priests

109

Amenothes, son of Psemminis and Manmin, and the woman Tamin, daughter of Paiga and Taimen. Following the list of liturgies alienated, the seller specifies: ‘you may go to the s.t-tomb of Paibis son of Harnouphis, the prophet of Hathor (and) you may go to the s.t-tomb of Pamenis son of ˹Sesua˺ and their people; and you may go to the tomb-shaft of the royal joiners17 and their people; and you may go to the s.t-tomb of the master Nati and his people; and you may go to the s.t-tomb of Harwa in the name of (on account of) the overseer of the craftsmen and his people, and Petenephotes the priest of Montu, and (to) the s.t-tomb of Harimouthes son of Searthos which is by the s.t-tomb of Tuamunweten the washerman together with the s.t-tomb of Thotortaios son of Paibis, the ‘great-one of Thoth’18 and his people; (and) you may go to the s.t-tomb of Plous the goldsmith, (in which?) you have 3 people; and (to) the s.t-tomb of Parates son of Pais and his people’ (mtw=k (sic.) šm r tꜣ s.t n pa-hb sꜣ ḥr-nfr pꜣ ḥmnṯr ḥ.t-ḥr mtw=k (sic.) šm r tꜣ s.t pa-mn sꜣ ˹sswꜣ˺ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w rmṯ.w mtw=k (sic.) šm r pꜣ šḳꜣ n nꜣ mtḥ-nsw ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w rmṯ.w mtw=k (sic.) šm r tꜣ s.t n pꜣ ḥry nꜣṱ ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f rmṯ.w mtw=k (sic.) šm r tꜣ s.t n ḥrwꜣ rn pꜣ ḥry ḥm-ḫt ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f rmṯ.w ḥnꜥ pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp pꜣ wꜥb mnṱ ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t n ḥr-i҆y-m-ḥtp sꜣ ṯ-ḥr-pꜣ-tꜣ nt i҆.i҆r tꜣ s.t n tw-i҆mn-wtn pꜣ yꜥy ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s sꜣ pꜣ-hb pꜣ wr-ḏḥwṱ ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f rmṯ.w i҆w=k (sic.) nꜥ r tꜣ s.t n pa-rw pꜣ ḥm-nb i҆w=k (sic.) mḥ rmṯ s 3 ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t pa-rṱ sꜣ pa-ḥy ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f rmṯ.w).19 lines 7–9

Another example is found in P. Louvre N 3263 (215 BC) in which the choachyte Amenothes, son of Psammetichos and Touaxis, donates to his daughter Taiuiii a share of a house in Thebes and the revenues from a number of tombs and the deceased deposited therein. The same clause as in the previous documents (mtw=t šm r … ‘(and) you may/will go to …’) (line 8) is added after the list of tombs donated, thus indicating that the beneficiary would be performing the mortuary services for the named tombs herself.20 A similar case is found in P. Amherst 58a (153 BC) in which is recorded the list of liturgies bequeathed to the woman Taesis by her father Horos. The document, part of which is written in indirect discourse, specifies that Taesis ‘may go 17 18 19 20

Also attested in P. Berlin P. 3112, the term is not found in the Glossar. For this expression see Vittmann 1980, 137 note 8. For the variations between this and the cession document see Vittmann 1980, 129 lines 7– 8. Muhs 2010, 443–444; Muhs 2010/11.

110

chapter 6

to the s.t-tomb of the land-measurers on account of (or because of) Amenothes son of Thotortaios’ (mtw=s šm r tꜣ s.t n nꜣ ḫꜣy.w ḥr i҆mn-ḥtp sꜣ ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s), and that ‘she may go to the s.t-tomb of Tateletem on account of him’ (mtw=s šm r tꜣ s.t n Ta-tꜣ-ltm ḏbꜣ.ṱ=f ) (lines 11–14), that is, because of Panoubis the blessed one who is temporarily placed there.21 The clause mtw=s šm r tꜣ s.t n PN, ‘she may go to the tomb of PN,’ is used in these documents to indicate that a mortuary priest has the right to access a specific tomb because he or she might have deposited there some of the mummies in his or her care. A similar clause is also found in P. Philadelphia XVIII (241BC), a donation deed from a brother to his sister, and in P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC), a contract of sale of a tomb. In the first document the seller specifies: ‘I am going to the said s.t-tomb on account of ˹Taratis˺ the daughter of Pabya’ (i҆w=y nꜥ r tꜣ s.t rn=s ḥr ˹ta-rṱ.t˺ tꜣ šr.t n pa-byꜣ) (line 2), while in the second instance party A states: ‘you are going inside […]’ (i҆w=k nꜥ r ẖn […])22 (line 4). However, in arguing the case against women practicing this profession, it is stated that ‘it is possible to interpret these statements not that the woman was allowed access for the express purpose of carrying out choachytal duties but precisely because she was their owner and had the right of access to her property (for whatever reason).’23 Similarly, it is also suggested that access was granted in order to maintain the right of ownership of the property, and not necessarily for the purpose of performing liturgies for the deceased placed there.24 Yet, as members of the choachytal community, women also owned a share in the Theban house.25 This is clearly indicated by the agreements recorded in P. Amherst 62b (127BC), P. Amherst 60a (125BC), P. Louvre E 2410 and 2418 (120BC), P. Berlin P. 3118 (116BC) and P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113BC). In P. Amherst 62b (127BC), an hn-agreement between the door-keeper Montuemhat, son of Herieus and Senchonsis, and the woman Taues, daughter of Chonompres and Taues, who may be his wife, it is decided that Taues will renounce the claim she has on Montuemhat and in return will receive a third of his share in the Theban house, which is said to be owned by Montuemhat and the choachytes (nt i҆wṱ=y i҆rm nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw.w).26 In P. Amherst 60a (125 BC), a division of an inheritance with a hn-agreement (bꜣk n hn), Pechites, son of Harsiesis, recorded his decision regarding his properties and heirs, Pasemios, Panas, Harsiesis, Horos

21 22 23 24 25 26

Pestman 1993, 443. Although the passage is damaged its meaning can be gathered from the context. Johnson 1998, 1409 note 72. O’Brien 1999, 108 note 37. On this house see Chapter 9 § 1. Pestman 1993, 98.

female funerary priests

111

and the woman Senamounis, each of whom received a portion of the share of Pechites in the Theban house.27 P. Louvre E 2410 and 2418 (120 BC), a sale (sẖ-ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ) and a cession (sẖ n wy) document respectively, record the sale of one of the rooms and 1/35 of the Theban house.28 The contract was stipulated between the door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes Nechouthes, son of Hasoeis and Taiui-iu, and the woman Sachperis the younger, daughter of Osoeris and Nechouthis.29 P. Berlin P. 3118 (116 BC) is another hn-agreement, in this case stipulated between the children of Horos son of Horos, and which records statements made by Horos as well as that of each of his children, Osoeris, Nechthmonthes, Petosiris and their sister Taues. In the document the heirs agree that the shares of the rooms they own in the Theban house will be divided among them by casting lots for them (lines 21–22). Another document concerning the inheritance of Horos son of Horos is P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113 BC), the last to be drawn up by Horos before he died about 18 months later,30 and which shows that his daughter Taues inherited a portion of her father’s 1/7 share of the Theban house jointly owned by the choachytes. Women also appear in the list of expenses undertaken by the children of Horos son of Horos at his death, recorded in P. Florence 3667 (111 BC).31 On the recto, the document lists the expenses undertaken for the embalming and burial of Horos, while on the verso there are some lists and accounts relating to the mortuary cult of another choachyte, Harsiesis, who had died some forty years previously (c. 150BC).32 The name of the woman Taues, daughter of the deceased, appears alongside that of her brothers in relation to their personal contributions towards the necessary funerary expenses. In this instance she clearly was acting as a relative of the deceased rather than in a professional capacity, since the list concerns the payments made by the members of the family. However, clearer evidence is provided by column IV on the verso of the papyrus which begins with the statement: ‘the reckoning (of) the rations for ˹Har˺-[si]-esis due from the choachytes’ (pꜣ i҆p nꜣ ꜥḳ.w n ˹ḥr˺-[sꜣ]-i҆s.t r ꜥ.wy nꜣ wꜣḥ-

27 28 29

30 31 32

Pestman 1993, 116–117. Although Senimouthes, wife of Pechites, was also listed among the heirs she was only assigned a share of the liturgies during her lifetime (Pestman 1993, 117). Zauzich 1968, 48. Pestman suggests it is possible that her father, Osoeris, was acting on her behalf since in P. Berlin P. 3118 (116 BC) he declares he has received the said room, with his brothers, from Nechouthes son of Hasos. In addition, P. Leiden 377 (102BC) may suggest that Nechouthes and Sachperis were husband and wife, a detail that, according to Pestman, may have some connection with the present document (Pestman 1993, 146). Pestman 1993, 181. As also pointed out by O’Brien 1999, 105. Pestman 1992, 208.

112

chapter 6

mw.w) (line 2), followed by a list of people and their contributions. In line 10 the document includes the name of the woman Senpoeris, specifying that she has given 5 rations, while line 17 begins with the words tꜣ šr.t n […]. The rest of the line is in a lacuna so that it is not possible to determine whether this should be read as the beginning of a feminine name, or literally as ‘the daughter of PN.’ Pestman notes that although these people are identified as choachytes, they were not acting as such but rather as relatives of the deceased.33 Nonetheless, whether this was the case or not, what is of relevance here is the fact that these two women are being identified as choachytes thus adding evidence to the possibility of some of them actually practicing this profession. A woman also appears in another list of accounts, possibly relating to choachytal activity, recorded in O. Uppsala 624 (Ptolemaic period). The document mentions ‘the revenue money’ (pꜣ šty ḥḏ) (line 2), which Wångstedt understands as referring to the income from choachyte’s work.34 The text also lists a number of names, followed by amounts of money, including that of the woman Senthotes (line 6). Evidence for the participation of women in the choachytal community is also found in one of the texts setting out the regulations of the choachytes’ association of Amenope, recorded in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC). One of the arguments often used against the possibility of women actually working as choachytes is their absence from the list of members of the association of Amenope.35 Nevertheless, Text D of this document, dated to 18 April 108 BC, which opens with the statement ‘the matters agreed upon by the choachytes’ (nꜣ mt.wt r-mtr nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw.w r-r=w) (line 1), also prescribes that: ‘the person among us who will withdraw in order not to act in accordance with what written above will give 1 talent to the association, 1 talent to the shrine of Montu of Medamud, (and) 1 talent before Djeme, (be it) man (or) woman (my italics), among the young persons (and) all the choachytes’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n mtw=f sṱ r tm i҆r r-ẖ nꜣ nt sẖ ḥry i҆w=f ty krkr wꜥ r tꜣ 6-nt i҆w=f ty krkr wꜥ r pr-mnṱ pr-mnṱ-mꜣtn i҆w=f ty krkr wꜥ m-bꜣḥ ḏmꜣ ḥwṱ.w sḥm.wt nꜣ ḫm-ḫl.w nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw tr=w). lines 4–7

33 34 35

Pestman 1992, 217. Wångstedt 1962, 20 and note to line 2. But see, for example, the Ghoran association (P. Lille dem. 98, 245 BC) in which male and female office holders are listed separately, thus indicating the association was divided into two separate ones, but their financial accounts were kept together (Monson 2006, 228).

female funerary priests

113

The passage indicates that women were bound by the same rules as their male counterparts, even if their names were not listed in the first document (Text A). Nevertheless, it is suggested that ‘since this passage can be understood as referring to fines applicable to all members of the choachytal community, not merely officiating choachytes, it cannot be taken as proof that women could carry out the cult.’36 Yet, the text clearly states that the fines are imposed against those individuals who will refuse to act in accordance with what has been established before. These are regulations binding the members of the association with respect to the provision of funerary materials for the embalming of deceased individuals, and the ministration of medicaments to deceased members of the association who agree: ‘not to give [cloth] to a man of Djeme who is dead, not to give ḥbs-cloth (or) i҆nw-cloth to a man who stands in (the) ˹house of rejuvenation,˺ (nor) a bed, (nor) a cover, not to administer (embalming)-medicaments to (the) dead of our house, not to turn down(?) a young person (scil. apprentice?) who lives here in Djeme’ (r tm ty.t [ḥbs] r-ḥr rmṯ ḏmꜣ i҆w=f mwt r tm ty.t ḥbs i҆nw n rmṯ i҆w=f ꜥḥꜥ r ˹pr-nfr˺ glk prḫ r tm ḥwy pẖr.(t) r mwt n pꜣy=n ꜥ.wy r tm lk ḫm-ẖl i҆w=f ꜥnḫ ty n ḏmꜣ). Text D lines 1–4

Similarly, text C of this same document prescribes, amongst other things, that:37 ‘they will not go to the ḳs.w, and (the) 35 (days) (of) the šty-ceremony besides those on the heart of (scil. chosen by) the choachyte of the house (and) besides the person whom the choachyte of the house will request’ (bn=w šm r ḳs.w ḥnꜥ 35 tꜣ šty m-sꜣ nꜣy.w ḥr-ḥꜣ.ṱ pꜣ wꜣḥ–mw pꜣ ꜥ.wy m-sꜣ rmṯ mtw (scil. nt i҆w) pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw ꜥ.wy tbḥ=f ); Text C lines 2–4

and that ‘no man at all within the association will bring doctors (scil. embalmers) to the association of Amenope besides the choachyte who goes to (the) ḳs, (the) wꜥb (and the) 35 (days ceremony) to give cloth (and a) bed (for) his

36 37

Johnson 1998, 1408 note 71. On these passages see further Chapter 11 § 3.

114

chapter 6

šty-ceremony’ (i҆w bn.w rmṯ pꜣ tꜣ ẖn tꜣ 6-nt i҆n swnw r tꜣ 6-nt I҆mn-i҆py mtw38 bnr wꜣḥ-mw mtw=f šm r ḳs wꜥb 35 r ty ḥbs glg pꜣy= f šty). Text C lines 10–12

It is clear that these regulations do not apply to individuals who happen to be related, either by blood or by marriage, to a mortuary priest, or who have inherited funerary properties from their relatives. Rather, they concern all those persons who worked as choachytes and were responsible for the performance of liturgical services for the deceased in their care. The contracts recorded in P. Turin Suppl. 6077 A–B–C (108 BC) (a lease of land,39 a rental of a house and a lease of days of endowment respectively40) are often cited as evidence against the case of women working as choachytes. The contracts were stipulated between the door-keeper of Amun in Djeme Pichos, son of Psemminis and Senmouthis, and his younger sister, the woman Tateathuris. In the documents the brother agrees to guard the house for his sister and to carry out her cultic duties. Thus, it is concluded that, ‘although the woman owned income-producing property,’ she ‘hired men’ to do the work.41 However, these examples need not be taken as evidence for the inability of a woman to work outside the house, or that a woman could not, or did not, work as a choachyte, rather they show that it was possible for a woman to lease out her liturgical days. In this respect, it should perhaps be noted that, although accidents of preservation could account for the lack of evidence, there is not even a single document within the choachytes’ archives concerning the lease of women’s liturgies to another person. In addition, such an argument fails to take into account the receipt of lease of liturgical days recorded in P. Turin Suppl. 6103 (111BC) stipulated between Snachomneus, son of Chonsthotes, and the woman Tanouphis, daughter of Psemminis. In the document Snachomneus acknowledges receipt of payment from Tanouphis for 8 days of endowment (pꜣy hrw n sꜥnḫ 8) which she leased from him. Late Period documents indicate that some women also bore the title of choachyte and that in at least one case did work within the funerary sphere.42 In P. Louvre E 3228c (685BC), a document of withdrawal after judgment, Party

38 39 40 41 42

A comparison between the writing for mtw and that for m-sꜣ in lines 2 and 3 above suggests that this is also the reading of mtw here in line 11. This same land was later leased to another man as recorded in P. Turin Suppl. 6107 (107 BC) (Botti 1967, 197–200, Pl. XLVIII–XLIX). Botti 1967, 135–144, Pl. XXX–XXXII. Johnson 1998, 1407–1408. For the following documents see Table A.7.

female funerary priests

115

A, a man and his first wife, declare that they are far from party B, the choachyte Petobastis son of Petemenope, with respect to an amount of money paid by the latter for the acquisition of (the liturgy services for) a cultivator. The latter had been ceded to Petobastis by party A together with his sisters, the woman Nesnehemenu daughter of Chauris, and her sister the woman Hetpheus who is identified as the choachyte of the woman Meriesamun daughter of Djekara. In P. Wien D12004 (660 BC), a document of division of inheritance between two brothers and three sisters, and in P. Wien D12003 (647BC), a document of withdrawal after judgment concerning a dispute between the same people over the same inheritance, all three women are identified as (the) choachyte, (the) woman PN daughter of PN (wꜣḥ-mw sḥm.t). In P. Bibl. Nat. 216–217 (517BC) the contracting party A is identified as (the) woman choachyte (sḥm.t wꜣḥ-mw) Tasentenher daughter of the choachyte of the valley (wꜣḥ-mw n tꜣ i҆n.t) Esminis and Lolous, while in P. BM EA 10120A (517BC), P. Bibl. Nat. 223 (516 BC), P. Turin 2123 (512BC), P. Turin 2125 (506 BC), P. Louvre E AF9761 (494 BC) and P. Turin 2127 (491BC) she is simply identified as the woman Tasentenher daughter of the choachyte of the valley (wꜣḥ-mw n tꜣ i҆n.t) Esminis and Lolous. In P. Turin 2123 (512BC), a document recording the donation of a building plot in the necropolis, the neighbouring land on the northern side is said to belong to the woman choachyte (sḥm.t wꜣḥ-mw) Lolous daughter of Namenechiset. Her daughter is identified as the woman Lolous daughter of the choachyte of the valley (wꜣḥmw n tꜣ i҆n.t) Psennesis, son of Herirm, and Tasentenher in P. BM EA 10120B (517BC) and P. Turin 2126 (498BC), while she is titled (the) woman choachyte (sḥm.t wꜣḥ-mw) in P. Bibl. Nat. 217 (517BC) and P. Louvre E 3231a (497 BC). Even though she is not always identified as a choachyte, the fact that in the latter document she is the beneficiary of a land endowment as a foundation for the mortuary cult of the woman Teteipwer, daughter of the god’s-father Horos and Teuoris, indicates that she actually exercised this profession. Consequently, the fact that women are not often identified by the title of choachyte in documents of the Ptolemaic period needs not be taken as firm evidence for their not exercising the profession. In fact, notwithstanding the fact that, unlike women, men bear an official title, that of door-keepers of Amenope, it should be noted that in a total of about 213 documents directly relevant to their activity, or in which they are identified by their occupational title, men bear the title of choachyte in only 16.4% of the cases. On the other hand in a total of about 73 documents in which women appear as contracting parties, or are identified by an occupational title, they bear the title of choachyte in 9.6% of the cases. Thus, by comparison with the use of titles for males, the omission of the title choachyte to identify a woman cannot be taken as definite proof of them not exercising the profession.

116

chapter 6

With respect to the necropolis of Edfu, as noted above, documentary sources are very limited and consist mainly of funerary ostraca.43 Evidence for a female choachyte is found in P. Elephantine Demotic 9 (before 223 BC), a fragmentary list of priests and their revenues, where one of the choachytes listed in this document is a woman, thus suggesting that they may have practiced this profession in the necropolis of Edfu too. Admittedly the evidence is extremely limited, but, given the paucity of sources from this necropolis, the fact that a female choachyte is listed at all may be, in itself, quite telling. On the other hand, women are often encountered as contracting parties in Memphite documents where they are identified by the titles woman (sḥm.t), choachyte (wꜣḥ-mw), and possibly, in one case, lectore-priest (ẖr-ḥb).44 The designation woman (sḥm.t) is used throughout the period under analysis to identify female parties regardless of their marital status, while the title choachyte (wꜣḥ-mw) is attested only from 305–304 to 256BC, and it is confined to the first two groups of documents surviving from this area.45 This change in the way in which women are identified in contracts is linked to the apparent disappearance from the record of individuals working as choachytes and the appearance of god’s seal-bearers. In fact, once the professional title of god’s seal-bearer is adopted by all funerary attendants in the Memphite necropolis, and despite the fact that the title of choachyte is from time to time still used historically, women are no longer identified by such a title. This is consistent with the evidence from Thebes where, as discussed above, some women bore the occupational title of choachyte but never the professional one of door-keeper of Amenope borne by men. However, as at Thebes, Memphite women clearly had the same legal entitlement to own and dispose of funerary properties and liturgies as men. This is clearly indicated by the large number of contracts which see them as owners, buyers, beneficiaries or sellers.46 The question is again whether they exercised the profession themselves, or if they employed the services of a man to perform the funerary services to which they were entitled by virtue of their endowments. The only clear indication that agents may be employed by women is provided by P. Leiden I 379 (256BC), a division document drawn up by the choachyte Petosiris, son of Imouthes and Djehorbastet, in favour of his sister, the woman choachyte Teteimouthes. In the document party A states: ‘I will not be able to stand before you and your representatives to share in the houses (and) the endowments which are above, in accordance with you[r ¼ 43 44 45 46

See Chapter 2. On the latter title see Chapter 6 § 2 below. On this subject see further see Chapter 3 § 2 above. See Table A.18.

female funerary priests

117

share] which is above, from today onwards’ (r bn i҆w=y rḫ ꜥḥꜥ ḥꜣ.ṱ=t i҆rm nꜣy=t rt.w r pš ẖn nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w nꜣ sꜥnḫ.w nty ḥry r-ẖ tꜣy[=t tni҆.t ¼] nty ḥry n-ṯ pꜣ hrw r ḥry) (line 6). However, this clause is one of the regular legal formulae used in deeds of this period and cannot be taken as evidence for the hiring of labourers by women to perform funerary services on their behalf.47 P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) clearly indicates that not all women who owned endowments performed the work themselves. In this document party A, god’s seal-bearer Amenothes son of Ptahmaacheru and Taues, declares to his half-sister, the woman Smithis daughter of Samous and Taues, that ‘(with respect to) that which is paid for a deceased person or a young deceased person together with the (burial)-places of the people whose names are written above, (and) the one who will come in their name, (and with respect to) that which is paid (to) any man at all in my name, without me having paid you for your half share in accordance with what written above, I will give you 100 silver (deben) (…) for the deceased person within five days from the said day’ (pꜣ nt mḥ ḳs ḳs.t ḫm-ẖl i҆w=s nꜣ tmy.w nt ḥry ḥnꜥ ꜥ.wy.w n nꜣ rmṯ.w nt i҆w pꜣy=w rn sẖ ḥry pꜣ nt i҆w=f r i҆y rn=w pꜣ nt mḥ=w rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ (n) rn=y r bn-pw=y mḥ=t n tꜣy=t tny.t pš r-ẖ pꜣ nt sẖ ḥry i҆w=y ty n=t ḥḏ 100 (…) r pꜣ ḳs ẖn hrw 5 n pꜣ ssw rn=f ) (line 11 C–E).48 Had the woman carried out the work herself, her brother would not have needed to pay her a share of what he would receive as payment for his funerary services. On the other hand, clear indication for women’s entitlement to take endowments on a lease is found in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC), stipulated between the god’s seal-bearer Petosiris and the woman Taimouthes.49 With respect to the Hawara necropolis, the evidence indicates that women had the right to inherit funerary endowments, although no contracts, amongst those analysed, concern the donation to, or purchase by, women of such endowments. Their right to inheritance of funerary assets is evident from P. Rendell (232BC)50 where, following a list of the endowments donated, party A

47

48

49 50

See, for example, P. BM EA 10384 (132 BC), stipulated between a god’s seal-bearer and a woman, which prescribes that in any dispute that may arise between the two contracting parties, it will be the statement of party A’s representative that will prevail (line 22). For this translation of ḳs see Cannata 2007 and Appendix 1. The compound noun ḫmẖl could also be translated as ‘servant’ (see Clarysse and Thompson 2006b, 284–285 and note 203; CDD letter Ḫ, 94) so that the clause in the contract should be understood as making a distinction between a deceased free person and a non-free person. I have chosen to translate this compound as ‘young person’ since there is no clear evidence for the existence of liturgies that were paid specifically for the mortuary cult of servants. On this see further Chapter 6 § 2 below. The date is that of the Greek docket.

118

chapter 6

specifies: ‘To you belongs (…) all property which belonged to the woman Haonchis, daughter of the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Marres, her mother being ˹Nebettahy,˺ my mother (and) your mother’ (mtw=k (…) nkt nb nt mtw sḥm.t ḥrꜥnḫ sꜣ.t n ḫtmw-nṯr wyt mꜣꜥ-rꜥ mw.t=s ˹nb.t-tꜣ-ḥy˺ tꜣy=y mw.t tꜣy=k mw.t) (lines 7– 9). The same is suggested by the fact that the document is confirmed by the woman Haonchis, daughter of the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Marres, her mother being ˹Nebettahy,˺ mother of party A and B, and by the woman ˹Nebettahy,˺ daughter of the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Petosiris, her mother being Haonchis, sister of the two contracting parties (lines 10–12). Similarly, in P. Hamburg 2 (83BC), a sale and cession deed, the funerary endowments transferred by party A included ‘⅓ 1/15 share of everything, all property belonging to them, and that which will come in their name and which devolves upon me in the name of Taneusis the mother of our father’ (tny 1/3 1/15 nt nb nkt nb nt mtw=w nb ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt i҆w=w i҆y rn=w nt pḥ r-ḥr=y rn tꜣḥn tꜣ mw.t pꜣy=n i҆ṱ) (line 7). However, there is no specific evidence to indicate whether they actually performed these funerary services themselves or not.

2

Embalmers

Documents from Thebes, Memphis, and to some extent from Siut and Deir erRifeh, suggest the possibility that some women may have worked as embalmers. In documents from the Theban area there are two instances of a woman being identified by the title doctor (swnw), and one case when the person bears the title of female embalmer (ḳs.t).51 The latter is attested in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC), although, as discussed above, such a translation has been disputed on the basis of the Greek rendering of the masculine form of the title ḳs (embalmer) in P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (UPZ 180a) (113BC) (col. III line 3). Nevertheless, the palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the Demotic title shows that there is not enough evidence to warrant a reinterpretation of the title ḳs as leatherworker.52 In addition, the fact that there are two examples of women being identified by the title doctor (swnw), who, as already discussed above, were probably also involved in the mummification process, adds weight to the suggestion that, at least some, women took an active role in this process, although this may not have been a widespread practice.

51 52

See Table A.19. Cannata 2007, and Appendix 1.

female funerary priests

119

As noted above, there is one case from Memphis where a woman may have held the title of lector-priest (ẖr-ḥb).53 The latter is attested in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC), stipulated between the god’s seal-bearer Petosiris and the woman Taimouthes. A share of the endowments leased, identified collectively as the ‘endowment of Tjaihekaenimu son of Kolloutes,’ is said to belong to the woman lector-priest Anchet, daughter of Tjaihekaenimu. The same document also provides clear indication that women were entitled to take endowments on a lease. The deed concerns the renewal of a lease of funerary properties originally stipulated in September 144 BC and jointly administered for 9–10 years by party B and her husband, the god’s seal-bearer Teos, son of Pasis and Smithis. In 132 BC, 12–13 years after the drawing up of the original document, the lease is renewed for a further 3 years, though the properties are now managed jointly by party B and her son Pasis son of Teos.54 However, as noted above, the contract stipulates that, should Taimouthes neglect the endowments ‘by not being there for them (or) by not performing any work of lector-priest’ during her period of tenure, she will forfeit the rent paid (r tm ḫpr wbꜣ=w r tm i҆r=w wp.t nb ẖr-ḥb) (line 19). Thus, although the properties are held jointly between her and her son, it is she who is contractually bound to perform the funerary services concerned. In addition, the lease entitles Taimouthes to the revenues ‘pertaining to the šty-revenuesource of lector-priest and choachyte and the religious-service šty-revenue of lector-priest, from year 39 (…) until the completion of three years’ (n-m-sꜣ šty ẖr-ḥb wꜣḥ-mw šms šty ẖr-ḥb ṯ ḥꜣ.t-sp 39 (…) šꜣꜥ pꜣ mnḳ n rnp.t 3.t) (line 16), thus indicating that she would be working both as a choachyte and a lector-priest. Additionally, in P. BM EA 10398 (119BC) the god’s seal-bearer Pasis, son of Teos, cedes to his younger sister Taues a number of properties and liturgies including ‘all lector-priest’s revenue-town(s).’55 Similarly, in P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) the properties which the woman Taunchis, daughter of the god’s sealbearer Peteimouthes, cedes to her daughter Senamounis, daughter of the god’s seal-bearer Petosiris, include a number of shares of ‘lector-priest’s endowments, revenues and revenue-places.’56 The evidence for female mortuary priests in Middle Egypt is again quite limited and not conclusive, although it does indicate that, as in other parts of the 53 54

55 56

The signs are partly in a lacuna and the reading uncertain, although it is a possibility. See also Martin 2009, 122–123 notes dd and xx. The reason for this renewal may have been the death of party B’s husband. There appears to have been a hiatus between the joint tenure of Taimouthes and her husband, and the start of the new lease in 132 BC, and it is possible that she continued to manage the properties on her own perhaps because her son’s young age (Martin 2009, 127–128 note xxiii). Brunsch 1990, 71–77. Spiegelberg 1903, 4–6; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 737–745.

120

chapter 6

country, women were entitled to own and dispose of funerary properties. In P. BM EA 10575 (181BC), recording the apportionment deed made by Petetumis for his son Tuefhapi, it is specified that the office of lector priest in the necropolis of Siut was purchased in 198BC from the woman Senuris daughter of Eba (lines 2–3). Additional evidence is provided by P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79 BC), an apportionment deed concerning the division of funerary properties among various god’s seal-bearers, in which party B is said to have inherited shares not only from his father, but also from his mother (line 1). The fact that these shares were kept separate from those of her husband may indicate that she actually worked as a lector-priest, although it is equally possible that the woman had inherited them from her family and were, therefore, listed separately when handed down to her son. Further evidence may be provided by P. UC 32223 (2nd cent. BC), a fragmentary Demotic household record from cartonnage material discovered at Deir er-Rifeh. As noted above, the document lists a large number of people, organised according to profession and household, with the individual entries headed by a professional title. Of relevance here are column xiii (lines 321–329) and column xiv (lines 345–365) in which are listed lector-priests and embalmers.57 Given that this record appears to be arranged by household, as well as by profession, it is not possible to take the presence of female individuals in the list as evidence for them practicing either profession, since they may be mentioned simply as part of the household. However, in line 328 a woman is listed by herself, although she is still identified as ‘the woman of PN,’ which raises the possibility that the other women listed could be understood as also holding the title of lector-priest or that of embalmer. In trying to determine whether women worked as funerary priests or not, it is important to distinguish between their legal entitlement to exercise the profession, and their actual practice of such an activity. With regards to the first issue, there is nothing in the extant documentation to suggest that they did not have the legal right to work as such, whilst it is clear that they enjoyed the same rights of ownership of funerary property as the male members of the necropolis workers community.58 With respect to the second issue, taken together, the evidence does suggest that at least some women effectively worked as choachytes.

57 58

For these lines see Chapter 5 § 2 above. See also P. van Minnen (1998, 201–203) who argues that, despite the apparent lack of evidence, women did learn a trade outside the home in Roman Egypt, and that the limited number of apprenticeship contracts for freeborn females is due to the fact that they often learnt from their relatives at home rather than indicating that women were only prepared for marriage and childbearing, that is, domestic work.

female funerary priests

121

Despite their absence from the list of the association’s members, why would these women have been able to own liturgies, to buy and alienate them, only to be then replaced in the service itself by a male member of the household or an employee as has been suggested? Clearly these women married within the choachytal community and it is, therefore, likely that husband and wife would have collaborated with each other in the performance of the religious services for the deceased in their care. Personal circumstances would have called for different arrangements. Thus a woman may not have been able to work during pregnancy or while nursing a young baby, whilst a childless widow may not have had any choice but to personally perform the liturgical service for the deceased in her care. To some extent, the same argument applies to the possibility of women working as embalmers, although the evidence is even more limited and not entirely unambiguous. Clearly some collaborated with their husbands as indicated by P. BM EA 10384 (132BC), from Memphis, and P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–117BC), from Thebes. In the latter document the defendant Petenephotes ~ Lolous is accused by his colleague, Amenothes, to have taken away, together with his wife, deceased individuals who fell under his competence (lines 18–20).59 Although this is not proof of the woman actually working as embalmer, it does clearly indicate that the couple collaborated together in the activity of the husband. 59

Pestman 1981, 64.

chapter 7

Services, Income and Taxation of Funerary Priests Liturgies represented the funerary priests’ assets and as such they could be pledged as securities on legal deeds, including marriage agreements and loan contracts.1 This is the case in P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC), stipulated between Patemis, son of Pchorchonsis and Eschonsis, and his wife Taketem, daughter of Lolous and Tainetem. Patemis borrows from his wife a sum of 3 deben, undertaking to pay her back within three years, and pledging as guarantee on the deed his possessions which included both real estate and a number of liturgies. A few years later the man draws up a cession document (sẖ n wy) in favour of his wife, P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC), with which he transfers to her ownership of his properties, although it is not clear from this document whether the deed was made because of the inability of Patemis to pay back the debt he contracted with his wife in 249BC, or if this contract relates to a successive debt.2 On the subject of pledges, it is interesting to note how reliance on the writings of classical authors has led Bataille, and other scholars in turn, to state that a person’s deceased relative could be given as a guarantee on a loan, although, they note, it is unclear whether the actual body would have been consigned to the creditor or not (!) (See fig. 1).3 On this subject, Diodorus Siculus writes: ‘they also have a custom of tendering the bodies of their deceased parents as security for loans; but the deepest disgrace attends one who fails to discharge the debt, and at death he himself is denied a funeral’ (Diodorus Siculus I 93). Similarly Herodotus, who states that: ‘in the reign of this king (scil. Asychis), money being scarce and commercial dealings straitened, a law was passed that the borrower might pledge his father’s body to raise the sum whereof he had need. A proviso was appended to this law, giving the lender authority over the entire sepulchre of the borrower, so that a man who took up money under this pledge, if he died without paying the debt, could not obtain burial either in his own ancestral tomb, or in any other, nor could he during his lifetime bury in his own tomb any member of his family’ (Herodotus II.136).

1 This is the reason why so much of the evidence for funerary practices originates from marriage agreements, among others. 2 Pestman 1961, 152. 3 Bataille 1952, 224–225; Chauveau 2001, 140.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_009

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

figure 2

123

‘Pledging granddad’s mummy on a loan’ modified from Blackman and Bell 1988

Such statements may have originated from a misunderstanding by these classical authors of the choachytes’ practice of pledging their rights to the liturgies (not to the body), hence the payments received for their care of deceased individuals, as a guarantee on their fulfilment of contractual obligations. In fact, not surprisingly, there is no evidence at all among deeds drawn up by ordinary people for this practice, since the only income the ‘bodies’ generated consisted of the payments made by the family of deceased individuals to the choachytes.4 4 See, for example, P. BM EA 10523 (295–294 BC) (Glanville 1939, 9–14) in which a woman pledges

124 1

chapter 7

Definition of the Services Performed by Funerary Priests

In the Theban area three different terms are used to define the choachytes’ work and income, though no particular words are used with respect to those of the lector-priests. On the other hand, as discussed above, at Hawara, Memphis, and possibly in Middle Egypt too, the title of god’s seal-bearer and embalmer was used to denote a funerary priest whose activity corresponded to that of the choachytes and that of the lector-priests of the Theban necropolis. Because of this, it is not always possible to determine with certainty whether the terminology used refers to the income they received for performing the mummification of the deceased, for officiating in his/her mortuary cult, or for either activity without any distinction. In general terms, the activity of funerary priests, including that of lectorpriests, is defined as ‘work’ or ‘office’ (wp.t), with examples found in documents from the Theban area and Middle Egypt. Examples are found in P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC), which opens with the heading ‘my (revenues from my) work as choachyte in the tombs that are in the necropolis of Djeme’ (tꜣy=y wp.t wꜣḥ-mw n nꜣ ḥ.wt nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ) (line 5), and in P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC), which stipulates that party B will work as choachyte in the tomb mentioned. Similarly, P. Louvre E 2429bis (292BC) (line 2) and P. Louvre E 2428 (277 BC) (line 2) identify this office as the ‘work as choachyte at Hermonthis’ (wp.(t) n wꜣḥ-mw n i҆wnw-mnṱ). In documents from Middle Egypt examples are found in P. Mallawi 602/1– 5 (79BC) (Sharuna), an apportionment deed drawn up by eleven god’s sealbearers in favour of another colleague, in which the activity to be performed is identified as ‘the offices of lector-priest of Psenharyo in the town of Psenharyo’ (nꜣ wp.wt n ẖr-ḥb ḥr-wḏꜣ pꜣ tmy ḥr-wḏꜣ) (line 1). Similarly, in P. BM EA 10591 (170BC) and P. BM EA 10575 (181BC), recording the apportionment deed made by Petetumis for his son Tuefhapi, party A transfers a share of ‘the work as lectorpriest in the necropolis of Siut’ (tꜣ wp.t ẖr-ḥb n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t sywt) (lines 2–3), as well as a share of ‘the work as lector priest of Shaiueshetep and its (surrounding) areas’ (tꜣ wp.t n ẖr-ḥb š-i҆w=s-ḥtp i҆rm nꜣy=f mꜣꜥ.w) (line 3). More specific information on the activity of funerary priests is found in a number of Demotic sources from the Theban area that identify the services the choachytes rendered for the deceased as šms.w, or (religious) services (λειτουργία), and ꜥrš.w, or purificatory offerings (άγνευτικά). The term λειτουργία, origher house as guarantee on a loan. It is possible, of course, that private individuals could pledge their tombs as a security, but, if this was the case, no evidence for it survives in the textual record.

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

125

inally used to refer to the state-service required of wealthy citizens, acquired, over time, the more general sense of service to the community, before being used to designate services provided to any beneficiary, such as cultic services performed for a divinity.5 Thus it is possible to see why it came to be used to denote the activity of mortuary priests who performed religious services for deceased persons. On the other hand, the term ꜥrš.w probably referred to the libations and burnt offerings made as part of the mortuary cult of the deceased, as suggested by its translation in Greek as άγνευτικά, from ἁγνίζω with the meaning of ‘purify, cleanse’ and ‘offer (or) burn as a sacrifice.’6 As Pestman noted, the noun ꜥrš.w is never used by itself, but always in connection with the word šms.w as the first term. Indeed, they were so closely connected that the second term, ꜥrš.w, was not separately rendered in P. London Gr. 3 and in P. Leiden Gr. 413, which are translations into Greek of P. Berlin P. 3119 (146 BC) and P. Berlin P. 5507 (136BC) respectively.7 In Demotic contracts the two terms are generally used as part of a formulaic clause at the end of the contract to specify that party B is entitled to perform the (religious) services, to make the purificatory offerings for the individuals listed in the deed, and to receive from them revenues for this work as choachyte. Thus in the clause of transfer and possession in P. Berlin P. 5507 (136 BC) the seller declares to have given to party B: ‘[the] ḥ.wt-tombs and their shafts, (and) those who rest in them, the blessed ones (ḥsy.w) and their s.wt-tombs, and those who rest in them, together with (…) their šty-revenues, their i҆ḫy-offerings (for) their religious services and their purificatory offerings’ (ḥ.wt i҆rm nꜣy=w šḳ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w ḥnꜥ nꜣ ḥsy.w nꜣy=w s.wt nꜣy=w rmṯ.w ḥnꜥ (…) nꜣy.w šty.w nꜣy.w i҆ḫy.w nꜣy.w šms.w nꜣy.w ꜥrš.w). lines 7–8

Additional information on the choachytes’ activities is perhaps provided by one of the clauses in their association’s regulations, which indicates that in particular circumstances they would receive a payment from the association. The clause stipulates that: ‘any man who goes to the tombs8 is to be given 3

5 6 7 8

Lewis 1960, 181. Liddell and Scott 1897, 11. Pestman 1993, 458. De Cenival suggests that the reading of the term ḫry, translated as ‘road, path’ in the Glossar, is here another term for tomb derived from the classical Egyptian ḫr (See Wb III, 323,9) (De Cenival 1972, 123 note 8,1).

126

chapter 7

silver (deben), (but) he is not to go without having informed his colleagues in the village’9 (pꜣ rmṯ nb pꜣ tꜣ mtw=f r šm r nꜣ ḫyr.w mtw=w ty.t n=f ḥḏ 3 mtw=f tm šm i҆w bn-pw=f ty.t rḫ nꜣy=f i҆ry.w nt ḥr pꜣ tmy) (Text C lines 8–9). The text does not expand on the reasons why they would go to the tombs and receive compensation for it. An indication of the purpose of their journey to the necropolis is perhaps provided by one of the documents in the Memphite archive of the priest Hor of Sebennytos. Text 21 in this archive is a draft memorandum written by the latter in relation to the administration of the ibis-galleries. In particular, the document establishes that a payment will be made to the priests chosen for the task of inspecting the ‘sanctuary’ of the sacred Ibises and Hawks, and for ensuring its regularity.10 On the basis of this evidence, it seems possible that the choachytes were also responsible for the tombs’ inspection, perhaps to ensure that there had not been any security breach, particularly if these were located in the more remote parts of the necropolis.

2

Different Types of Revenues

In this section the income of the god’s seal-bearers will be discussed together with that of the choachytes, since there is a certain overlap between the different types of revenues of these two groups of mortuary priests.11 Funerary priests would be paid both in money and in kind for the services they rendered. P. Berlin P. 3107 (99BC), from Thebes, provides evidence for the kind of items they could receive as payment, which were: ‘bread, meat, beer, wine, libation(s) and wreath(s)’ (ꜥḳ i҆wf ḥnḳ i҆rp wtn ḳlm) (line 11). On the other hand, P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301BC) provides evidence for compensation in money since it lists ‘the choachyte: 2 kite’ (pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw ḳt 2) (line 12),12 as does P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) that lists ‘Mutmehit: 50 deben for the choachyte of Horos’ (mw.t-mḥyt · 50 pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw n ḥr) (Col. III line 23).13

9 10 11

12 13

The writing of this noun resembles that of the word tw ‘mountain,’ but the use of the topographical determinative argues for the reading of the word as tmy ‘village.’ Ray 1976, 81–84, Text 21 lines 11–18. Because the activity of the god’s seal-bearers encompassed that of choachytes and lectorpriests, the revenues of the former group are discussed both in this section and in that relating to the Theban lector-priests, for which see below Chapter 7 §3. For examples from the Hawara necropolis see below §2.7 ꜥḳ n wsi҆r. For a consecutive translation of this text see Appendix 2.

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

127

A wide range of terms is used in the documents analysed to identify the revenues of the various funerary priests, although the distinction between them is not always clear.14 The following are the various types of revenue attested. 2.1 šty-revenue One of the most common terms for ‘revenue’ or ‘income,’ attested throughout the Ptolemaic Period, and from all parts of the country, is šty. The noun is a derivative of the hieroglyphic verb šdy ‘to take (away), to exact (taxes),’ which survives into Coptic as ϣⲓⲧⲉ ‘to demand, extort.’15 The word is translated into Greek as karpeiai or logeiai with the meaning of ‘revenue.’ The meaning of this term is apparent, for example, in P. Rendell (232 BC) from Hawara, where the payments received are identified as ‘the revenues from the ḥ.wt-tombs (and) the deceased people’ (nꜣ št.w nꜣ ḥ.wt nꜣ ḳs.w) (line 6). In the Memphite documents this word shows two different spellings: the first written with the ‘pool with lotus flowers’ as the first sign and .16 The presthe second written with simply the ‘pool’ as the initial sign ence of two different writings had already been noted by De Cenival and Reymond, who concluded that they must be two different words.17 Martin suggests that the two nouns, although both meaning ‘revenue, income,’ differ in that the first denotes a source of revenue and the second the revenue itself. The difference in spelling is attested only at Memphis where it appears from around the middle of the 3rd century BC, although its origins remain uncertain since there does not appear to be a clear hieroglyphic predecessor for the first variant of this noun which employs the ‘pool with lotus flowers’ as the first sign.18 From the available documentation, however, it is not clear whether this revenue refers specifically to payments in kind or money. According to P. Mallawi Museum 602/7 (101BC) (Sharuna) the šty-revenue consisted, at least in this instance, of ‘emmer, bread-rations (…) […] (given for the) families which we have sold to you’ (mtw=k pꜣ šty r bt ˹ꜥḳ˺ (…) […] mhꜣw r-ty=n n=k r ḏbꜣ ḥḏ) 14

15 16 17

18

The following is a list of the revenues attested for each of the necropolises discussed. Memphis: šty, i҆ḫy (var. i҆h̭y and ꜣḫy), ẖn(y), šmꜥ (var. šmꜥꜣ), gyl, hwh.t (var. wh and hwth), glflf, tmy-šty and ꜥ.wy-šty; Hawara: šty, i҆ḫy, ẖny and i҆ny; Middle Egypt: šty, i҆w, i҆ny, and ꜥḳ; Thebes: ꜥḳ n wsi҆r, šty.w, and i҆ḫy.w; Edfu: none attested. Černý 1976, 254; Crum 1939, 594a. The facsimiles are made from P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) line 14. De Cenival 1972a, 58 note 30; Reymond 1973, 118 note 9; Brunsch 1990 on the other hand read some examples as šty and others as wt, for the corrections to his readings see Martin 2009, 62 note 279. Martin 2009, 59–64.

128

chapter 7

(lines 4–5), although the suggested readings remain uncertain because the papyrus is quite damaged at this point. 2.2 i҆ḫy-offerings (var. i҆h̭y and ꜣḫy) Another very common term for a type of revenue, also attested throughout the Ptolemaic Period and from nearly all parts of the country, is i҆ḫy, and its variants i҆h̭y and ꜣḫy, with the meaning of ‘things, offerings.’ In the documents of the Theban choachytes, dating from the 2nd century BC, the word is rendered in Greek as τὰ προσπίπτοντα ‘profits, income.’ Pestman notes that in these documents the word is never used by itself but always in connection with the word šty (revenue).19 Typically, the nouns are used in one of the contract’s clauses in which party A declares to have given to party B ‘the šty-revenues and the i҆ḫy-offerings (for) the (religious)-services (šms.w) and the purificatory offerings (ꜥrš.w).’ The same is also the case in the Memphite documents where the word is used in close connection with šty.20 A representative example is found, for instance, in P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC), which entitles party B to the endowments listed ‘together with their šty-revenue and their ꜣḫy-offerings’ (pꜣy=w šty ḥnꜥ pꜣy=w ꜣh̭ y) (line 3). A slightly different listing is found in P. BM EA 10398 (119BC) which lists ‘any endowment, any šty-revenue, any ẖny-festival-offerings, any equipment, any places, any i҆ḫy-offerings, any šty-revenue’ (sꜥnḫ nb šty nb ẖny nb tbḥ.t nb mꜣꜥ.w nb i҆h̭y nb šty nb) (line 3); and in P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) which includes ‘their šty-revenue, their i҆ny-festival-offerings, their i҆ḫy-offerings’ (pꜣy=w šty pꜣy=w i҆ny pꜣy=w i҆h̭y) (line 10).21 Among the Hawara documents it is attested only in P. BM 10604 (85 BC) in which the income generated by the endowments sold is identified as ‘their šty-revenue, their i҆ḫy-offerings, their i҆ny-festival-offerings, their ration(s), and everything at all’ (tꜣy=w šty pꜣy=w i҆ḫy pꜣy=w i҆ny pꜣy=w ꜥḳ mt nb pꜣ tꜣ) (line 5). 2.3 ẖn(y)- and i҆ny-festival-offerings Another type of revenue, attested only in documents from Lower Egypt, is ẖn(y). This perhaps is to be understood as a ‘special offering’ received on the 19 20

21

Pestman 1993, 458, 460. However, this is not the case in religious texts, where the noun i҆h̭y is also used by itself. See, for example, P. Harkness (MMA 31.9.7) (AD 61) which reads ‘Offerings will be enduring before you’ (mne i҆h̭y ẖr rꜣ=t) (col. III line 4) (Smith 2005, 66), and the parallel section in P. BM EA 10507 (Late Ptolemaic–Early Roman Period) which also reads ‘Offerings will be enduring before you’ (mne i҆h̭y ꜣh rꜣ=k) (col. XI line 21) (Smith 1987, 51). Among the Memphite documents the term is also attested in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) (line 5), P. Louvre E 3266 (197 BC) (lines 2 H, 3 C, 4 A–B, 7 R, 9 S), P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC) (line 6), P. BM EA 10384 (132 BC) (line 16), and P. Pavia 1120 (118BC) (line 6).

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

129

occasion of festivals, as suggested by Reymond on the basis of its possible hieroglyphic equivalents: ḫn.t ‘festival offering(s)’ and ẖn.t ‘food.’22 At Memphis this type of income is attested from only three documents. In P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC) party A states that party B is entitled to ‘any endowment, any šty-revenue, any i҆ḫy-offering(s), any ẖny-festival-offering(s)’ (sꜥnḫ nb šty nb i҆ḫy nb ẖny nb) (line 3); and similarly in P. Wien ÄS 3874 (149–148 BC) which lists: ‘any endowment, any šty-revenue, any ẖny-festival-offering(s), any places, any i҆ḫy-offering(s), any (source of) šty-revenue’ (sꜥnḫ nb šty nb ẖny nb mꜣꜥ nb i҆ḫy nb šty nb) (lines 2–3).23 Finally, a very close parallel is found in P. BM EA 10398 (119BC) in which party B is entitled to ‘any endowment, any štyrevenue, any ẖny-festival-offering(s), any equipment (from) any places, any i҆h̭yoffering(s) (from) any šty-revenue-source, any revenue-place (and) any lectorpriest’s revenue-town, any money that is donated, bread that is donated, land that is donated’ (sꜥnḫ nb šty nb ẖny nb tbḥ.t nb mꜣꜥ.w nb i҆h̭y nb šty nb ꜥ.wy-šty nb tmy-šty ẖr-ḥb nb ḥḏ i҆w=f ḥnk ꜥḳ i҆w=f ḥnk pꜣ ꜣḥ i҆w=f ḥnk) (line 3).24 Among the Hawara documents ẖn(y) is found in P. Hamburg 4 + 8 (92 BC), a donation of real estate and funerary properties between a father and his son. The income generated by the funerary properties includes: ‘their share of their ration(s), their meat-(rations), their wine, their cloth, their bed, their ointment, their bandages, their portion of silver together with their copper, their wheat, their ẖny-festival-offerings (from the) field (and) the town, together with their shares of everything, every property which will be added to them and which will be given in their name’ (nꜣy=w tni҆.t nꜣy=w ꜥḳ nꜣy=w i҆wf.w nꜣy=w i҆rp nꜣy=w ḥbs pꜣy=w glḏ25 tꜣy=w mtḥ nꜣy=w sbn.w nꜣy=w tni҆.t nꜣy=w ḥḏ.w ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w ḥmt.w nꜣy=w swꜣ nꜣy=w ẖny.w sḫ.t pꜣ tmy ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w tny.w(t) nt nb nkt nb nt i҆w=w wꜣḥ r-r=w ḥnꜥ nt i҆w=w ty.t s rn=w). lines 6–8

The list found in P. Hamburg 5+6 (92 BC), another donation deed drawn up by the same man for another of his sons, written on the same day as the previous document and by the same scribe, lists almost the same items, though in a different order (lines 6–7). In particular, the latter list includes ‘corn,’ but omits mention of the ‘bandages’ found in the former document, which suggests 22 23 24 25

Reymond 1973, 118 note 9; Wb III 289/17 and 373/4 respectively; CDD letter H̱ , 42. Brunsch 1990, 75 note o. After Martin 2009, 62. A different writing is also shown by the Fayumic form of this noun in Coptic.

130

chapter 7

that the list was not an entirely standardised inventory of items, although it was meant to include anything at all that might be given as payment by the families of the deceased in the care of these mortuary priests. The word appears to be the equivalent of the revenue termed i҆ny, attested in P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC), from Middle Egypt, and also meaning ‘festival offerings.’26 This alternative term is also attested at Hawara, although it occurs only in one document, P. BM EA 10604 (85BC), and never in the same text as ẖny. 2.4 šmꜥ- (var. šmꜥꜣ) and gyl-revenue Another term for a type of revenue, attested only in the Memphite documents, is šmꜥ, with its variant writing šmꜥꜣ, literally meaning ‘stranger.’ According to Černý the noun derives from the hieroglyphic word šmꜣ meaning ‘stranger, vagabond.’27 Donker Van Heel suggests that the connotations of this word as ‘stranger, newcomer’ may indicate it was a revenue connected with strangers dying at Memphis.28 The suggestion has been accepted by Martin who postulates that it was a revenue received in connection with ‘third parties’ that were not part of the mortuary priests’ endowments as such, but that fell within their jurisdiction because they had died in the Memphite area.29 The word is almost always preceded or followed by the hwh/wh/hwth-revenue (see below) and by the ‘undivided-revenue’ (wš-pš), and occurs in the documents of both choachytes and god’s seal-bearers. In P. BM EA 10381 (276– 256BC) in addition to the endowments’ šty-revenues and ꜣḫy-offerings, party B is entitled to ‘their hwh-revenue (and) [their] šmꜥ-revenue’(pꜣy=w hwh [pꜣy=w] šmꜥ) (line 3). Close parallels are found in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC), P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC), P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC), and P. Leiden I 380a–b (64BC).30 26 27 28 29

30

Pestman et al. 1977b, 14–15 note s. Černý 1976, 244. Donker Van Heel 1998, 46 note XVIII. Martin 2009, 65–66. Martin also points out an example in P. Ashmolean D. 10 (1968.10) (98 BC) from Hawara in which the endowment transferred include ‘Petesouchos son of Paesis, his mother being Tasos […] (and?) Zoil[o]s who is dead and their women, their children and the strangers who will come in their name in order to perform for them the liturgical services of a lector-priest’ (pꜣ-ty-sbk (sꜣ) p-i҆s.t mw.t=f ta-swr […] sylꜣ[w]s r-i҆ir҆ mwt i҆rm nꜣy=w sḥm.wt nꜣy=w ẖrṱ.w i҆rm nꜣ šmꜥꜣ.w nt i҆w=w r-i҆y n rn=w r i҆r n=w štwy.w ẖr-ḥb) (lines 4–5). However, it is possible that the noun šmꜥꜣ in this document was used to indicate that the endowment included anyone who would be buried in that specific tomb, whose identity was unknown at the time the contract was drawn up, without any connotation to strangers or third parties, especially since the šmꜥ-revenue is not attested at Hawara. P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) lists ‘their hwh-revenue, their šmꜥꜣ-revenue and (…) their undivided-revenue’ (pꜣy=w hwh pꜣy=w šmꜥꜣ ḥnꜥ (…) pꜣy=w wš-pš) (line 5); P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) includes ‘their hwh-revenue, their šmꜥꜣ-revenue (and) their undivided-revenue’ (pꜣy=w

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

131

On the other hand, P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) adds another type of revenue to this list: ‘their šmꜥ-revenue, their gyl-revenue, their wh-revenue, their undivided-revenue, their šty-revenue, their festival-offering(s) (and) their offering(s)’ (pꜣy=w šmꜥ pꜣy=w gyl pꜣy=w wh pꜣy=w wš-pš pꜣy=w šty pꜣy=w i҆ny pꜣy=w i҆h̭y) (line 10). According to Černý the noun gyl derives etymologically from the hieroglyphic word ḳ(r)i҆ ‘newcomer, visitor,’ and thus shares similar connotations to šmꜥ or ‘stranger, vagabond.’31 However, since both šmꜥ and gyl are used in the same document the two terms must refer to different types of revenue received for different ‘classes’ of deceased. An indication of who these two classes of deceased may have been is provided by the evidence of some Theban documents. In P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116 BC), the petition presented by the lector-priest Petenephotes, son of Petenephotes, against his colleague Amenothes, son of Horos, concerns the latter’s infringement upon the territorial jurisdiction of Petenephotes. Here reference is made to a previous contract which is said to have been drawn up in the ‘city of Thebes in the agoranomos for foreigners’ (Διὸς πὀλει ξενικοῦ ἀγορανομίου) (col. I line 6), where foreigner refers to individuals not resident at Thebes.32 As part of the specification of the settlements and people which fell under the authority of each of the two lector-priests, the document includes the inhabitants of the temple of Amun at Thebes and of Psameris, as well as the ‘foreigners who sojourn in these villages and reside there’ (παρεπιδημούντων καὶ κατοικούντων ἐν ταύταις ξένων) (col. I lines 13–14).33 Finally, the petition itself concerns the accusation that the defendant performed the mummification of sufferers who had been taken to the temple of Amun, in order to be cured, and died there.34 In view of this evidence it is possible that the šmꜥ-revenue and the gyl-revenue referred to payments received for: 1. people not resident at Memphis itself, but in settlements within its districts; 2. people originally from other areas, or even countries, but who now lived in the Memphite area and were, therefore, buried there;

31 32 33

34

hwh pꜣy=w šmꜥ pꜣy=w wš-n-pš) (line 3 B). P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC) lists ‘their šmꜥꜣ-revenue, their hwth-revenue (and) their undivided-revenue’ (pꜣy=w šmꜥꜣ pꜣy=w hwth pꜣy=w wš-pš) (line 5), while P. Leiden I 380a–b (64BC) lists ‘their šmꜥ-revenue, their wh-revenue (and) their undivided-revenue’ (pꜣy=w šmꜥ pꜣy=w wh pꜣy=w wš-pš) (line 3). Černý 1976, 326–327; CDD letter G, 8. Pestman 1981, 54 note 4, 74 note j. After Pestman 1981, 68, 71. It is also interesting to note that the document indicates that the Amun temple complex was considered in Greek as a kome, as was the case with the Anubieion in the Memphite necropolis (Pestman 1981, 73 note h). Pestman 1981, 72, 74 note z.

132

chapter 7

3.

people originally from other areas, but who died in the Memphite area, perhaps during a sojourn there while making a pilgrimage to one of its temples, and were, therefore, buried there. It is not possible to be certain which ‘class’ of deceased each of the two revenues covered, but on the basis of the specific meaning of each of the two nouns, it can be surmised that the gyl-revenue was received for people not originally from, or not resident at, Memphis itself, given the connotations of ‘newcomer, visitor’ conveyed by the noun gyl. On the other hand, the šmꜥ-revenue was perhaps received for pilgrims who died during their sojourn in the Memphite area, as suggested by the connotations of ‘stranger, vagabond’ conveyed by the noun šmꜥ. 2.5 hwh.t-revenue (var. wh and hwth) Yet another term for funerary revenues attested in the Memphite documents is hwh.(t) with its variants wh and hwth, of uncertain meaning. The word shows the ‘evil’ determinative preceded by what looks like the writing of the feminine t, which the Chicago Demotic Dictionary suggests is the ‘walking-legs’ determinative.35 The possessive pronoun before the word could be read as either pꜣy=w or tꜣy=w.36 Revillout identified this noun with the Coptic word ϩⲟⲩϩⲉ, meaning ‘untimely birth, foetus, abortion,’ and translated the Demotic term as ‘foetus abortif.’37 Indeed, the presence of the variant wh, possibly linked to the hieroglyphic word why meaning ‘miscarriage,’ seems to suggest that this is the meaning of the Demotic hwh and its variants.38 The Chicago Demotic Dictionary suggests a possible connection with the hieroglyphic word hwhw ‘to scurry off.’39 However, one difficulty with understanding hwh as a type of revenue relating to foetuses and still-born babies rests with the fact that there is no evidence for the presence of a cult centering on this category of deceased.40 One possibility would be to understand the Demotic term as referring to ‘untimely death’ and,

35 36

37 38 39 40

CDD letter H, 28. Martin 2009, 66 note 308, where he notes that in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC), P. Louvre E 3266 (197 BC), P. Leiden I 380a–b (64 BC) and P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) pꜣy=w and tꜣy=w are written in the same way, while in P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC) and P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC) there are no comparative examples of either pronouns except for that used before this word. Revillout 1882, pl. 37 col. 1; Crum 1939, 739b–740a; Černý 1976, 305. Wb II 339.16; Černý 1976, 305. CDD letter H, 28. Except, perhaps, for the reference to young deceased person(s) (ḳs.t ḫm-ẖl) in P. Louvre E 3266 (197 BC).

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

133

therefore, relating to any individual dying prematurely, though not necessarily at birth, and who may have been the object of special veneration, perhaps in a way comparable to the blessed-ones (ḥsy.w) attested in the Theban necropolis.41 2.6 glflf-revenue Another type of revenue mentioned in one of the Memphite documents is glflf.w or food-offerings. The term occurs in P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) where it is listed among other revenues and funerary structures: ‘the ḳꜣ-tombs, the glflf-food-offerings, the sꜥr.w,42 the šty-revenue, the i҆ny-festivaloffering(s), the i҆h̭y-offering(s)’ (nꜣ ḳꜣ.w nꜣ glflf.w nꜣ sꜥr.w pꜣ šty pꜣ i҆ny pꜣ i҆h̭y) (line 13). The same type of revenue occurs in a cession contract for liturgical services at a shrine at Tebtunis, P. Cairo 30620 (100–99 BC). Reymond suggests that, in view of the presence of the bread-loaf determinative, the noun perhaps denotes some type of revenue in kind, and that maybe it derives from the hieroglyphic word ḳrf with the meaning of ‘food.’43 2.7 ꜥḳ n wsi҆r (ration(s) of Osiris) The term ꜥḳ n wsi҆r, or ration(s) of Osiris, was the expression traditionally used in the pre-Ptolemaic Period to denote the revenues received by the choachytes for the religious services they performed for the dead. Among the documents analysed this specific formula occurs in one document from Thebes, P. BM EA 10827 (273–272BC), a deed of donation of a number of tombs, in which party A states: ‘they belong to you, they are your s.wt-tombs aforesaid together with their ration(s) of ˹Osiris˺’ (mtw=t st nꜣy=t s.wt nt ḥry nꜣ.w ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w ꜥḳ n ˹wsi҆r˺) (line 4).44 The noun ꜥḳ, or ‘ration,’ is used in P. BM EA 10591 (170BC), from Siut (Middle Egypt), to refer to a form of income or revenue that two lector-priests, Tuefhapi and his brother Totoes, received, perhaps in connection with services performed in the temple of Wepwawet. The term possibly occurs in P. Mallawi Museum 602/7 (101BC) (Sharuna) as well, which stipulates that: ‘to you belongs the šty-revenue consisting of emmer, bread-rations, (…) […] (given for/from 41

42 43 44

The evidence shows that the epithet ḥsy could also be applied to young children, see further Chapter 14 § 2. No archaeological evidence exists from the Ptolemaic Period for separate burial grounds in which foetuses and infants would be buried, nor is there any indication that this category of deceased was treated differently with respect to, for example, mummification procedures. The word appears to be written alphabetically and uses the pot determinative, but I am unable to suggest a translation for it. Reymond 1954, 43 note 20; CDD letter G, 60; Wb V 60/11. Vleeming 1995, 247; Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 45 with further references.

134

chapter 7

the) families which we have sold to you’ (mtw=k pꜣ šty r bt ˹ꜥḳ˺ (…) […] mhꜣw r-ty=n n=k r ḏbꜣ ḥḏ) (lines 4–5). However, the relevant sections on the papyrus are damaged and the readings uncertain. A number of deeds from Hawara employ a longer version of this formula, one which is comparable to the same type of clause found in contracts in the archives of the Theban choachytes. In P. BM 10603 (100 BC) the items pledged as a guarantee on the marriage document include a share of funerary endowments together with ‘their ꜥḳ-ration(s), their meat-(rations), their wine, their cloth, their ointment, their linens45 and everything, every property which will be given in their name’ (pꜣy=w ꜥḳ nꜣy=w i҆wf.w pꜣy=w i҆rp pꜣy=w ḥbs tꜣy=w mtḥ pꜣy=w ꜥwꜥy nt nb nkt nb nt i҆w=w ty st rn=w) (line 5). A slightly different list of items is found in P. BM 10605 (98 BC), another marriage document, on which are pledged, among other items, a share of ‘their ration(s), their meat(rations), ˹their˺ libations,46 their silver, their copper, and everything which pertains to them’ (nꜣy=w ꜥḳ.w pꜣy=w i҆wf ˹nꜣy=w˺ ḳbḥ.w ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w ḥḏ.w nꜣy=w ḥmt.w ḥnꜥ nt nb nt ṯ r-r=w) (line 2), and which also shows that part of the payments were received in money. On the other hand, a similar list in P. BM 10606 (93BC), also a marriage document, includes a share of ‘the resin, the sywꜥ, the cloth, the ointment, [together with their portion] (of) the ration(s), the meat(rations), the wine, the ointment (and) the ˹large linen(s)˺’ (pꜣ syf pꜣ sywꜥ pꜣ ḥbs tꜣ mtḥ ḥnꜥ pꜣy=w wn pꜣ ꜥḳ pꜣ i҆wf pꜣ i҆rp tꜣ ˹ꜥꜣ.t-wꜥy˺) (line 5). Very close parallels to this formula are also found in P. Hamburg 4 + 8 (92 BC) and P. Hamburg 5 +6 (92BC) recording a donation of properties between a father and his two sons.47 Given that the ꜥḳ-ration(s) concern payments in kind, more specifically food-rations, it is possible that this type of revenue is to be understood as the equivalent of the glflf-revenue attested in one of the document from Memphis. 2.8 i҆w-income As a type of revenue, i҆w, previously transliterated as i҆sw, is attested only in Middle Egypt. The meaning of the noun is similar to that of Classical Egyptian i҆sw ‘compensation, reward,’ surviving into Coptic as ⲁⲥⲟⲩ ‘price, value,’ and variously translated as ‘payment, receipt’ or ‘compensation, reward, price.’48 Mali-

45 46 47 48

For this noun see Lüddeckens 1998, 132–133 note 19. For this reading see Quack 2000, 292. For the text see above § 2.3. ẖn(y)- and i҆ny-festival-offerings. Černý 1976, 13; Crum 1939, 18a; Glossar, 44. For literature and a discussion on the nouns i҆w and i҆swy.(t) see Pierce 1972, 60–62 § 55, and 103–109.

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

135

nine suggested it could be a derivative of the verb i҆w ‘to come’ with the meaning of ‘to come (for the purpose of making a payment),’49 although it could also be understood as ‘(in)come’ and as referring to the actual remuneration received, which seems to be the meaning the noun has in the present context. It is possible that this noun is to be understood as an equivalent of the more common term i҆ḫy, attested throughout the Ptolemaic Period from all other parts of the country, with the meaning of ‘things, offerings,’ and rendered in Greek as τὰ προσπίπτοντα or ‘profits, income.’50 The data discussed are summarised in table 2 below.51 As already noted, the šty-revenue is the only one attested from all parts of the country, while the others are encountered only in some areas. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, it seems possible that the i҆w-income was the equivalent, in Middle Egypt, of the i҆ḫy-offerings attested in the rest of the country, while the noun i҆ny is probably to be understood as the equivalent of the noun ẖn(y), both meaning festival-offerings. However, it is surprising that no revenue comparable to these is attested from the Theban area. Given the large amount of documentation surviving from this necropolis, the lack of attestation is probably not due to accidents of preservation. Rather it is possible that at Thebes the i҆ḫyofferings included also those that would be given on special occasions, such as at festivals. Alternatively, the lack of evidence may be indicative of a difference in local customs, whereby no special payments were prescribed for particular occasions in the Theban area. The ꜥḳ-ration, a type of revenue in kind, is attested from all parts of the country except for the Memphite area, and it is possible that it is to be understood as the equivalent of the glflf-revenue, listed in only one document from the latter necropolis. The remaining three types of revenues (šmꜥ, gyl, and hwh.t) are found only in Memphite documents. Again, it is difficult to see why there should be a greater variety of revenues in this area by comparison with the rest of the country. One possibility is that these were specific to the function of the Memphite mortuary priests as lector-priests. In fact, although it is possible to determine that the lector-priests were also paid in money and in kind, no name is given for the revenues they received for their services.52

49 50 51

52

Quoted in Pierce 1972, 60 § 55; Malinine 1955, 498–499. Pestman 1993, 458, 460. The individual revenues have been arranged in this way, rather than in the order in which they were discussed, to show possible correspondences between the various terms attested from different parts of the country. On the subject of lector-priests’ revenues see below Chapter 7 §3.

136

chapter 7

table 2

Comparative list of the revenues discussed

šty i ҆ḫy i ҆w ẖn(y) i ҆ny ꜥḳ (n wsi ҆r) glflf šmꜥ gyl hwh.t Thebes Memphis Hawara Middle Egypt

2.9 Sources of Mortuary Priests’ Income Documents from Lower and Middle Egypt, make a distinction between the sꜥnḫ and the šty in relation to funerary income, in that the first term denotes ‘income-producing property,’ while the second denotes the revenue itself.53 In addition, documents from Memphis and Middle Egypt use the noun šty, in combination with tmy and ꜥ.wy, to identify the sources whence the mortuary priests’ income originated, with the meaning of revenue-town (tmy-šty) and revenue-place (ꜥ.wy-šty). Martin translates the compound noun ꜥ.wy-šty as revenue-house, although in the specific context of P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78 BC) he suggests that ‘“house” means the “household” to which the rights were attached.’54 On the other hand, Johnson understands the noun ꜥ.wy as being an abbreviation for ꜥ.wy n ḥtp. Consequently, the ‘house-of-revenue (ꜥ.wy-n-šty) of the [oil]-(and)-wine merchant Pais son of Amenneus’ (ꜥ.wy-n-šty n šwṱ [nḥḥ] i҆rp pa-ḥy sꜣ i҆mn-i҆w) (lines 6–7) ceded in this document should be understood as referring to the ‘house of repose’ or ‘tomb chapel’ of this individual.55 However, the noun ꜥ.wy can have a range of different connotations depending on the context in which it is used. Beside its use with the regular meaning of ‘house,’ ꜥ.wy is employed in compound expressions to denote a burial place,56 while it can also designate a ‘temple,’ a ‘district’ or simply a ‘place.’57 At Memphis this compound

53

54 55 56 57

Nims 1938, 75, 77 note 1; Thompson 1934, 12 note 8; Griffith 1909, 99 note 3; Donker van Heel 1998, 44 note VIII. For the use of the noun sꜥnḫ in relation to marriage documents see Johnson 1994. Martin 2009, 150 note ii. Johnson 1986, 79–80. On these tombs see Chapter 16 § 2.6. CDD letter ꜥ, 6–18, with further examples.

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

137

noun is found in the following three documents. In P. BM EA 10398 (119 BC) which lists ‘any šty-revenue, any ꜥ.wy-šty, any lector-priest’s revenue-town’ (šty nb ꜥ.wy-šty nb tmy-šty ẖr-ḥb nb) (line 3);58 in P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) where are listed ‘the places, the lector-priest’s šty-revenue, the lectorpriest’s ꜥ.wy.w-n-šty, the lector-priest’s revenue-towns’ (nꜣ mꜣꜥ.w nꜣ šty.w ẖr-ḥb nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w-n-šty ẖr-ḥb nꜣ tmy.w-šty ẖr-ḥb) (line 2), ‘the lector-priest’s ꜥ.wy.w-nšty (and) the lector-priest’s endowments’ (nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w-n-šty ẖr-ḥb nꜣ sꜥnḫ.w ẖr-ḥb) (line 3), ‘the rest of the ꜥ.wy.w-n-šty’ (pꜣ sp nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w-n-šty) (line 7), and ‘the štyrevenues, the revenue-towns, the ꜥ.wy.w-šty’ (nꜣ šty.w nꜣ tmy.w-šty.w nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w-šty) (line 14); and finally in P. Leiden I 380a–b (64BC) in which are transferred ‘the rest of [the] šty-revenue (and) the ꜥ.wy.w-šty, which belong to the endowment which is above’ (pꜣ sp [nꜣ] šty.w nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w-šty nt mtw pꜣ sꜥnḫ nt ḥry) (line 6). In particular, the occurrence in three of the previous examples of the compound ꜥ.wy-šty together with the compound tmy-šty indicates that the noun probably does not denote here a ‘house’ or even a ‘household,’ since such a specification would seem redundant in view of the fact that these were already implicitly listed through the expression ‘revenue-towns’ of which the houses would be a constituent part.59 As discussed above,60 the endowments of these mortuary priests comprised not only towns and villages, but also other places, such as the Anubieion, described as lying within the districts of Memphis, and separate from both the main city and the necropolis.61 Consequently, in those examples where an ꜥ.wy-šty is not identified by the name of a person a translation as ‘district,’ or simply ‘place,’ would seem more appropriate than one as ‘house’ or ‘household,’ The term ꜥ.wy-šty (revenue-place) appears also in contracts from Middle Egypt where it is used in the same way as at Memphis to identify the source whence the income of the mortuary priests originated. This is indicated by P. Mallawi Museum 602/10 [77/10] (111BC) (Hutnesu), a judicial sentence passed by the Laocritae court concerning a lawsuit between the lector-priest Petenoubis, son of Horos, who accused the lector-priest Horos, son of Pasis, of having appropriated for himself some ‘revenue-places’ (ꜥ.wy.w n šty) belonging to him.

58 59

60 61

For the corrections to Brunsch’s reading see Martin 2009, 62 note 279. It is true, however, that the expression could be used to identify specific houses within a given settlement. This further identification would be necessary if the liturgies were divided on the basis of the deceased’s origo, particularly if settlements were divided among different groups of funerary workers. See Chapter 3 § 3. On this subject see Chapter 15 § 2.

138 3

chapter 7

Income of Lector-Priests and Embalmers

As discussed above, in Lower and Middle Egypt the profession of choachytes and embalmers were performed by the same individuals, and, therefore, it is not possible to distinguish between the income of each of these funerary priests. On the other hand, at Thebes the two professions remained in the hands of two different classes of mortuary priests, although, given the paucity of documents, and because of the way in which they are drafted, it is not possible to arrive at a definite figure for the actual earnings of lector-priests and embalmers. Some information on their income is found in P. Brussels 6032 + P. BM EA fragments (301 BC), concerning the sale of a house to the lector-priest Harsiesis son of Panas as payment for the mummification of party A’s deceased wife and her parents. However, since the sale is intended for both the mummification (ḫꜣꜥ-[syḥ]) of the wife and the burial (ḳs) of her parents, it is not possible to determine precisely what the effective income of the lector-priest would have been.62 In P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–117BC), a petition presented by Amenothes against his colleague Petenephotes ~ Lolous, the plaintiff states that the two had stipulated a contract in which they agreed to divide the revenues they collected from villages and hamlets under their competence. Similarly, in P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116BC) Petenephotes ~ Lolous presents a petition against his colleague Amenothes accusing him of having breached their agreements by taking care of a certain Herieus, son of Harbekis, a topogrammateus of Pois and a man of privileged position in the village, thus appropriating himself of a considerable patrimony. However, neither of these petitons gives specific information on the actual income of the embalmers. The only documents that provide more specific information are P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC) and P. Florence 3667 (111 BC), from which it can be surmised that the embalmers were paid both in money and in kind. In P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC), recording the accounts of the two colleagues, Amenothes and Petenephotes ~ Lolous, are included payments in wheat, wine and money: (§1) ‘The reckoning of the grain: what Amenothes gave in Thebes to Lolous in regnal year 38: 18 artabas of wheat what Lolous took: all’

62

For a discussion of this text and the nouns ḫꜣꜥ-[syḥ] and ḳs see Chapter 11 §2.

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

139

(pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ sw.w r.wn.nꜣ.w tw i҆mn-ḥtp n nw.t (r) tr.t lwlw ẖr ḥꜣ.t-sp 38 rtb sw 18 […] r-ṯ lwlw nb). lines 1–2

(§2) ‘The reckoning of the wine: what was between me and Lolous: 7½ hin what we took here in Djeme: 5 hin (and) on the day of giving medications: 2½ hin’ (pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ i҆rp.w nt i҆wṱy i҆rm lwlw n nw.t hyn 7½ r-ṯ=n ty n ḏmꜣ hyn 5 pꜣ hrw n i҆r pẖr r-i҆r=n hyn 2½). lines 3–4

Pestman suggests that in this latter case the wine was received as payment for the care of a sick person rather than for the embalming of the body because, although embalmers may have received wine as payment for their work, this appears to be a one-off entry during the years 38 and 39, thus suggesting it does not refer to their normal activity.63 Nonetheless, it seems entirely possible that, even if their rate of payment for the embalming of a dead person had been fixed, as Pestman suggests, the commodity in which it was made may not have been. In fact, payments in wine are, for example, also found in P. Florence 3667 (111BC) (see below). The following entry lists: (§3) ‘The reckoning ⟨of the money⟩: what is due from Lolous in Hermonthis: 5 silver kite’ (pꜣ i҆p ⟨n nꜣ ḥḏ.w⟩ nt r-ꜥ.wy lwlw n i҆wnw-mnṱ ḥḏ ḳt 5). lines 5–6

Pestman suggests this may be part of the money of the ‘chief of the necropolis’ which Petenephotes ~ Lolous had received at Hermonthis part of which is due to Amenothes.64 Nonetheless, given that the money received as money of the chief of the necropolis is clearly identified as such (see below), it is best to understand this simply as a payment in money for their services as lectorpriests in the necropolis of Hermonthis.

63 64

Pestman 1981, 50–51 note h. Pestman 1981, 51 note j.

140

chapter 7

(§4) ‘The reckoning of the money: what belonged to me from his reckoning as money of the chief of the necropolis: 35 deben; what I took out ˹up˺-to the last day of the first month of the ˹winter˺ season last (day): ˹15˺ deben, beside the grain which is in common for [regnal year 3]9’ (pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ ḥḏ.w r.wn.nꜣ.w mtw=y ḥr pꜣy=f i҆p ẖr nꜣ ḥḏ.w n tp ḫꜣs.t ḥḏ 35 r-i҆n=y r-bnr ḥḏ ˹15 r˺-hn i҆bt 1 ˹pr.t˺ ꜥrḳy pꜣ bnr n nꜣ sw.w nt n tꜣ mtr.t ẖr [ḥꜣ.t-sp 3]9). lines 6–9

(§5) ‘The reckoning of the grain: what is due from myself for regnal year 39: 6 artabas of grain; the revenue of the ḫts-tree:65 6 artabas of wheat; what we gave `between the two of us´ to Senaroeris: 1 artaba of wheat’ (pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ sw.w nt r-ꜥ.wy=y ḥꜥ=y ẖr ḥꜣ.t-sp 39 rtb n sw 6 pꜣ šty n pꜣ ḫts rtb n sw 6 r-ty=n n tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr-wr `i҆wṱ=n n pꜣ (s) 2´ rtb n sw 1).66 lines 9–11

(§6) ‘The reckoning of the money: what came to me here in Djeme for ⟨regnal year⟩ 39: 15 deben as money of the chief of the necropolis’ (pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ ḥḏ.w (i҆.)i҆r i҆y r tr.t=y ty n ḏmꜣ ẖr ⟨ḥꜣ.t-sp⟩ 39 ḥḏ 15 ẖr ḥḏ n tp ḫꜣs.t). lines 11–12

According to Pestman, if one understands §6 as referring to Amenothes’s income for the first 5 months of year 39, then probably § 3 and § 4 refer to that of the entire year 38. This being the case, the income of Amenothes (and possibly of his colleague too) during both years would be of 3 deben at month.67 However, this would argue against Pestman’s suggestion that the salary of the lectorpriests was not fixed but dependant on the level of the inundation hence on the

65 66

67

The word ḫts refers to a type of tree, although its exact meaning in this context is unknown. CDD letter Ḫ, 181, and letter Š, 240; Pestman 1981, 51 note r. Pestman does not appear to comment on the identity of the woman to whom this grain was due. Was she a creditor of the two lector-priests? Does it refer to activities outside their normal profession such as the borrowing and lending of grain/money for profit? Was she a close relative whom the two colleagues were supporting? Pestman 1981, 51 note m.

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

141

productivity of the lands for a given year.68 His understanding is based on the evidence of P. Turin 2131 (145BC), a maintenance document that Amenothes, son of Horos, drew up in favour of his mother. The contract stipulates that Amenothes is to pay her a set amount of wheat, oil, salt (every year) and a garment69 only if the inundation reaches 18 cubits in height.70 If the waters do not reach this level, Amenothes’s mother is to drink, eat, dress, sleep and explicate all her other things at his house, and that he is to give her a key(?) to the door. Pestman understands this clause as indicating that the lector-priests earned less during lean periods, though clearly not because of fewer deaths, thus suggesting that their salary was not fixed.71 However, it is also possible that their income would have been lower because in lean periods fewer people may have been able to afford the more elaborate mummification procedures. Alternatively, the clause may have been inserted because Amenothes intended to pay the maintenance solely out of any income generated by the lands he owned. If to the amount of money received in the capacity of chief of the necropolis, are added the amounts of wheat and wine recorded in paragraphs § 1 and § 2 of the accounts, then the average monthly earnings of each partner for the year 38 is not three but circa five deben.72 However, if the ‘money of the chief of the necropolis’ (ḥḏ tp ḫꜣst) is understood as the equivalent of the ‘overseer of the necropolis tax’ (ḥḏ mr-ḫꜣst), the payments received in this capacity cannot be taken as indicative of the average income of a lector-priest in any given year, since it would be only when acting in such a capacity that they would receive this money, and the evidence shows that, although the same individual could hold it for successive years, tenancy of the office was granted for a calendar year.73 Therefore, if the money received while acting as chiefs of the necropolis is detracted from the total amount, according to the accounts the two partners would have received only 36 deben or so a year, which is at the lower end of the pay scale of a labourer’s monthly wage.74

68 69 70

71 72

73 74

Pestman 1981, 38 note h. The word ḥbs.t is not found in the Glossar; CDD letter Ḥ, 96. This is the normal level of the inundation for Thebes and Djeme (Pestman 1981, 37 note d; Bonneau 1971, 263). Pestman states that this clause was rarely used even in contracts concerning the renting of plots of land (Pestman 1981, 37). Pestman 1981, 38 note h. If the 18 artabas of wheat mentioned in paragraph § 1 are understood as being in common between the two partners, then each is entitled to 9 artabas, which would amount to about 22½ deben, while the wine, 7½ hins each, valued at 2 deben per hin, would amount to 15 deben each for the entire year. On the office of the Overseer of the necropolis see Chapter 1 §1. See Clarysse and Lanciers 1989, and Table 8 infra.

142

chapter 7

Further evidence on the income of lector-priests and embalmers is found in P. Florence 3667 (111BC), the list of funerary expenses undertaken at the death of the choachyte Horos. The beginning of the document and an undetermined section to the right of the roll is lost.75 In column 2 the text lists ‘the reckoning of the corn for the hand˹s˺ of [˹the people˺] who embalm’ followed by the amounts in artabas of wheat, and hins of oil given by each of the children as a wage to the embalmers: ‘Osoeris one artaba of wheat which makes 70 silver (deben) (and) [1] hin of (of wine?); Nechthmonthes (one) artaba of wheat, 1 (measure of) wine; Petosiris (one) artaba of wheat, 1 (measure of) wine; Taues (one) artaba of wheat, 1 (measure of) wine; (total): 4 hins of wine from Osoeris, Nechthmonthes (and) Petosiris; Nechthmonthes, Osoeris, Petosiris (and) Taues: 4 hin of resin: 30 silver (deben) [for] (each) hin of resin’ (pꜣ i҆p sw pꜣ ꜥ.wy˹.w˺ [˹nꜣ rmṯ˺].w ḳs ⟦sw 10⟧76 wsi҆r-wr rtb sw 1 nt i҆w i҆r ḥḏ 70 ⟨i҆rp⟩ hyn [1] nḫṱ-mnṱ rtb sw (1) i҆rp 1 pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r rtb sw (1) i҆rp 1 ta-wꜣ rtb sw (1) i҆rp 1 hyn i҆rp 4 n-tr.t77 wsi҆r-wr nḫṱ-mnṱ pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r nḫṱ-mnṱ wsi҆r-wr pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r ta-wꜣ hyn syf 4 ḥḏ 30 [r] hyn syf ). col. 2 lines 1–9

The total payment thus amounted to four artabas of wheat, priced at 70 silver deben each, four hins of wine, and four hins of resin at 30 silver debens each hin. Calculating the cost of the wine at just over 17 deben, it follows that the total paid for the embalmers is 417 debens. Unfortunately, without knowing the number of embalmers being paid, it is not possible to determine how much each of them would have earned for one embalmment. At Hawara, a document that could provide some evidence on the income of the god’s seal-bearers and embalmers is P. Ashmolean D. 11 + D. 12 + D. 13 which records a list of accounts relating to funerary matters.78 These accounts

75 76 77 78

Pestman 1992, 207. Following Pestman’s suggestion that this amount may be part of the now washed out original text (Pestman 1992, 218 note 11) I have left it out of the translated passage. Pestman understands this as meaning that the hins of wine were provided by the three brothers even the one supposed to have been given by Taues (Pestman 1992, 219 note 14). These accounts are discussed in this section because a number of the entries mention the mummification of the deceased, although, given that the meaning of two of the

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

143

seemingly concern payments received for three different services, the ḳs, the npy and the pr-nfr, for the value of 1 or ¼ of an unspecified monetary unit, presumably either a deben or a kite. The orthography of the noun ḳs seems quite clear and probably refers to the burial. The second noun was read as npy by Clarysse, who left it untranslated, while Pasek read it as a noun deriving from the verbal form nꜥ, with the meaning ‘arrival.’79 Contextually, the noun ought to refer to a specific mortuary service, different from the entombment and the mummification, if the latter is the meaning of the last noun. The npy is possibly to be taken literally as mourning, and thus as referring to a ‘mourning service’ for the deceased.80 The last noun is perhaps to be read as pr-nfr, in view of its similarities with the writing of the same noun in P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC), also from Hawara and also dating from the last century BC. If the reading is correct, the noun is probably to be understood as referring to the mummification of the deceased.81 What seems strange is that the values indicated for each of these ‘services’ are not always the same. 1.

79

80 81 82

[…] concerning the burial (and the?) npy ˹on˺ the š[…] ([…]82 ẖr ḳs npy ˹ḥr˺ pꜣ š[…]) nouns used is not clear, it cannot be excluded that they also refer to payments received for the performance of the mortuary cult. The accounts are written on a blank area of papyrus to the left and below a marriage document recorded in P. Ashmolean D. 11 + D. 12 + D. 13 (1968.7+ 1968.8+ 1968.11) (187–186BC), which belongs to the archive of one of the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers. The accounts themselves are undated, although a date is given for two other lists of accounts (Ash. D. 8–12 and 7–8) relating to pledges, and written in the same direction as P. Ashmolean D. 11 + D. 12 + D. 13 and D. 11 + 7 (1968.7+ 1968.8+ 1968.11) and upside down to those in P. Ashmolean D. 12– 13 (1968.8+ 1968.11). Clarysse read this date as ‘regnal year 22 which is regnal year 7, month 1’ (ḥꜣ.t-sp 22 i҆.i҆r ḥꜣ.t-sp 7.t i҆bt 1), thus dating the accounts to year 30 BC, while Pasek read ‘regnal year 22, all the things which were done in the first month’ (ḥꜣ.t-sp 22 i҆.i҆r mt.t nb.t i҆bt 1), understanding ‘regnal year 22’ as referring to the reign of Ptolemy V, the same king as that of P. Ashmolean D. 11 + D. 12 + D. 13 (1968.7+ 1968.8+1968.11) (187–186BC), thus dating all the accounts to 183 BC (Clarysse 2009; Pasek 2007, 278 note 1, 282 note 1, 289). However, the date of the two accounts is more likely to be 30 BC, particularly in P. Ashmolean D. 7 + 8 (1968.7+ 1968.8), and, therefore, the accounts recorded in P. Ashmolean D. 13–12 (1968.8 + 1968.11, upside down) should be dated to 30 BC or later since, as Clarysse noted, they partly overlay the accounts in P. Ashmolean D. 8–12 (1968.8). Clarysse 2009; Pasek 2007, 291 note 1. I follow Clarysse’s reading and, therefore, I have included only a few comments to Pasek’s transliteration and translation. It is not clear to me what this ‘arrival’ would refer to in funerary terms. Contextually it could perhaps be a fraction. On the noun pr-nfr and its possible meanings see Chapter 11 §1 and §3. I cannot see in the surviving portion of the document any clear traces for ‘nꜣ rmṯ.w’ as Pasek does (2007, 289).

144

chapter 7

2.

[month × day × …] called Kydres the ḥwꜣ […] ([i҆bt × sw × …] ḏ n=f ḳwtrs pꜣ ḥwꜣ […]) 3. [month × day × … PN] who is called Shebet[…] ([i҆bt × sw × …] nt i҆w ḏ n=f šbt[…]) 4. third month of the ꜣḫ.t season, day 9: the son of Teos […] the man of ˹Meidum˺: npy ¼ (i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t sw 9 pꜣ šr n ḏ-ḥr […] pꜣ rmṯ mr-˹i҆tm˺ npy ¼)83 5. third month of the inundation season, day 22: the wife of Dje[…] ˹the portion of Wenhor˺ the man […] of ˹Meidum˺: npy 1 (i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t sw 22 tꜣ ḥm.t ḏ-[…] ˹pꜣ pš wn-ḥr˺ pꜣ rmṯ84 […] mr-˹i҆ I҆tm˺ npy) 6. third month of the inundation season, day 22: blessed one (?) […] the man of Ptolemais: burial 1 (i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t sw 22 ḥsy (?) […] pꜣ rmṯ pꜣ-sy-mꜣ ḳs 1) 7. fourth month of the inundation season, day 19: Peteuris the man of Ptolemais […] ˹together with˺: npy (1) (i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw 19 pꜣ-ty-ḥr pꜣ rmṯ pꜣ-sy-mꜣ […] ˹ḥnꜥ˺ npy) 8. fourth month of the inundation season, day 19: the son of Peteuris, the son of […] the priest of Sobek of the first phyle: npy ¼ (i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw 19 pꜣ šr n pꜣ-ty-ḥr pꜣ šr n […] pꜣ wꜥb sbk sꜣ tp npy ¼) 9. first month of the winter season day 15: Taneus the [daughter …] of Paremetjrenenet the barber/mender: npy (1) (i҆bt 1 pr.t sw 15 tꜣy-ḥn=w tꜣ [šr.t …] pꜣ-rmṯ-rnn.t pꜣ ẖꜥḳ npy) 10. first month of the winter season day 23: the son of Petesis, the son of Harsiesis, the son of Marebes the scribe ˹šty.t˺: burial ¼ (i҆bt 1 pr.t sw 23 pꜣ šr n pꜣ-ty-i҆s.t pꜣ šr n ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t pꜣ šr n mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-bs pꜣ sẖ ˹šty.t˺ ḳs ¼) 11. second month of the winter season day ?: Ammonios the son of […] Amenemes the measurer: burial 1 (i҆bt 2 pr.t sw ? ꜣmns pꜣ šr […] i҆mn-m-ḥꜣ.t pꜣ rmṯ ˹nt˺ ẖy ḳs 1) 12. [second month85 of the win]ter season day 25: the daughter of Ephony83

84 85

Pasek reads nꜣy n=f. Although the traces closely resemble the genitive n= with the 3rd person singular suffix pronoun f (Pasek 2007, 289–290), one would expect a monetary value here as in the other lines. The traces resemble those of the 3rd person singular suffix pronoun f more than those of the noun rmṯ. The restoration is suggested on the basis of the date in line 11 which provides a terminus ante quem for it, and in line 13 where the writing for ‘day 20’ is clear thus suggesting that the date in line 12 should be one prior to this. Given that line 14 gives ‘day 16’ this should be in the fourth month of the winter season, the writing of which is partly preserved, and is also confirmed by the date in line 15.

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

13.

14.

15.

16.

145

chos, the daughter […] Petearpochrates the ẖmf 86 of Bastet: burial ¼ ([i҆bt 2 p]r.t sw 25 tꜣ šr.t i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ tꜣ šr.t […] pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ pꜣ ẖmf bꜣst.t ḳs ¼)87 [third month88 of the win]ter season day 20: Harmais […] the son of Sepeln (the) herdsman: ˹burial˺ (and?) npy 1 ([i҆bt 3 p]r.t sw 20 ḥr-m-ḥb […] pꜣ šr spln ꜥꜣm ˹ḳs˺ npy (nꜣy?) 1) [fourth month89 of the win]ter season day 16: Marres (son of) Petosiris […] Marres (son of) Paesis the priest of Sobek of the fifth90 phyle: his prnfr 1 ([i҆bt 4 p]r.t sw 16 mꜣꜥ-rꜥ (sꜣ) pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r […] mꜣꜥ-rꜥ (sꜣ) pa-n-i҆s.t pꜣ wꜥb sbk sꜣ 5 pr-nfr=f 1) first month of the harvest season day 2: Marres the son of […] door-keeper (of) Marres the priest of Shu: his pr-nfr 1 (i҆bt 1 šmw sw 2 mꜣꜥ-rꜥ pꜣ šr n […] i҆ry-ꜥꜣmꜣꜥ-rꜥ pꜣ wꜥb šw pr-nfr=f 1) [first month of the] harvest season day 25: Harmais the son of […] Sepeln (the) herdsman: burial 1 ([i҆bt 1] šmw sw 25 ḥr-m-ḥb pꜣ šr n […] spln ꜥꜣm ḳs 1).

As Clarysse noted, the payments are all made by people identified as the son or daughter, and, in one case, the wife, of a named individual. In at least one instance separate entries appear to refer to the same person. The entry in line 13 relates to the ‘third month of the winter season day 20’ and lists ‘Harmais […] the son of Sepeln (the) herdsman: ˹burial˺ (and?) npy 1,’ while the entry in line 16 is dated to the ‘first month of the harvest season day 25,’ but lists again ‘Harmais the son of […] Sepeln (the) herdsman: burial 1.’ The two entries could, therefore, refer to (part) payments received for the same deceased individual by family members at different times. Of the two individuals mentioned, the first one may be the payer and the other the deceased. This is suggested by the entries in line 4 and 5 which mention ‘the son of Teos […] the man of ˹Meidum˺: npy ¼’ and ‘the wife of Ḏ-[…] ˹the portion of Wenhor˺ the man […] of ˹Meidum˺: npy 1,’ if the name of the individual in the second entry is indeed Teos. Given that the functions of this group of funerary priests encompassed those of both choachytes and lector-priests, it is not possible to determine, on these 86

87 88 89 90

The writing of the letter ẖ seems quite clear, as is that of the letters m and f, and I cannot see how this title could be read as ꜥꜣm (Pasek 2007, 290 and note 27), perhaps read ṯnf (Clarysse 2009). Pasek reads pꜣ ꜥm ḥp (2007, 290). See note 85. See note 85. I follow Clarysse’s reading (2009) since the writing for the numeral 5 seems clear and is confirmed by a comparison with the writing for ‘first phyle’ in line 8.

figure 3

P. Ashmolean accounts. The boxes delineate the various portion of this document and their numbering Images © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford; reconstruction after Clarysse 2009

146 chapter 7

147

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

bases, what the npy-service was. If the understanding of the two other terms as ‘entombment’ and ‘embalmment’ respectively is correct, then these accounts give an idea of what they charged for these two services, although the figures seem rather low. In addition, the document also suggests that it was possible to contract the services of these funerary priests for specific services, without there being any obligation to have them arrange the entire process from mummification to burial.

4

Personal and Professional Taxation, Contributions and Exemptions

In Ptolemaic Egypt all male individuals were charged a type of poll-tax known as yoke tax (ḥḏ nḥb), replaced around Egyptian regnal year 22 of Ptolemy II by the salt-tax (ḥḏ ḥmꜣ or ἁλική) exacted from both men and women.91 Most of the information available on this subject originates from the Theban area, and shows that its funerary priests were, not surprisingly, required to pay these duties.92 In addition, the choachytes were also subject to a tax called ‘revenue of a server tax’ (ꜥḳ rmṯ-i҆w=f-šms) charged on individuals who performed religious services at the rate of 3 ½ ¼ obols.93 Funerary workers would also have been required to perform compulsory labour on the canals, dams and embankment that in Ptolemaic times all males were supposed to carry out each year.94 In at least one instance they appear to have avoided it as shown by P. Louvre Gr. 2338, probably dating to year 6 of Ptolemy III (241? BC), which is a report of the oikonomos on the corvée labour executed in the Peritheban toparchy.95 The report lists a number of people who did not perform this compulsory service either because they were exempt or because they were unable to do it. In column II lines 33–34 the text lists: Φυγάδες Χοαχύται ώσαύτως

λζ κα/νη

Exiles Choachytes in like manner

37 21/58

Thus 58 individuals, of whom 21 were choachytes, were able to avoid their compulsory service. According to Pestman, the presence of the adverb ώσαύτως, 91 92 93 94 95

Muhs 2005, 6–10, 29–51; Muhs 2011, 7–8, 21–22; on the salt-tax see also Vleeming 1994, 35– 39. Muhs 2005, 128–131. Vleeming 1994, 29–31; Muhs 2011, 91–105, especially 93–95 for a table of surviving examples of this tax. This service is named after the volume of earth, or naubia (nby.w or ναύβια), to be moved; each naubion being equivalent to one cubic meter (Muhs 2005, 57; Muhs 2011, 127–128). UPZ II 157, Wilcken 1935–1957, 15–22, No. 157.

148

chapter 7

and the fact that the total of the exiles is added to that of the choachytes, would suggests that the latter also fled to avoid the performance of compulsory labour.96 On the other hand, Wilcken suggested that if the choachytes are not to be considered as part of the preceding category then they were probably exempt because of their cultic duties.97 Muhs understands the text as evidence for the exemption of the choachytes from compulsory labour, which, indeed, it was possible to avoid by paying a tax in its place, known as the ‘compulsory labour tax’ (ḥḏ ꜥrt in Demotic and λειτουργικόν in Greek) for 2 kite or 4 drachmae.98 On the subject of tax exaction, there are, in the choachytes’ archives, two petitions, written in Greek by the door-keeper Osoroeris son of Horos in his capacity as representative of his colleagues and addressed to the epistrategos and strategos of the Thebaid Phommous. With these documents, dated 111 BC (P. Turin Gr. 2153) and 110 BC (P. Turin Gr. 2151) respectively, the choachytes, who identify themselves as pastophoroi, lodge a complaint against a tax-official, the oikonomos of the Pathyrite area. The latter was accused of requesting undue payments thus ‘transgressing what, since remote times, has been ordered by the great rulers, that is, not to change anything.’ Phommous, the oikonomos, instructs the epistates Hermokles to ensure that the concerned officials do not attempt to exact from the said pastophoroi more than what is due in accordance with the ancient customs.99 However, the petition remained in the possession of Osoroeris thus indicating that he decided not to proceed any further. In fact, once the person made a petition before an official and the latter wrote down his decision on the document, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to take it to any other official who needed to be informed of, or was to act upon, it.100 A year later the choachytes presented another petition to the same epistrategos and strategos, who again instructed the epistates Hermokles to ensure that the petitioners are asked to pay the contributions for which they used to be liable. This time the epistates appears to have executed the instructions since his decision was noted at the bottom of the petition.101 According to Pestman, although the ordinances referred to in the document have not survived, the text indicates that the priestly class had been granted some fiscal privileges allowing them to pay their dues according to what was customarily levied upon them

96 97 98 99 100 101

Pestman 1993, 384 note 10. Wilcken 1935–1957, 21 notes to lines 33/4. Muhs 2005, 56; Muhs 2011, 127. Pestman 1992, 49–50, lines 8–10. Smith 1978, 181; Bevan 1927, 137–139; Lewis 1986, 58–59; Thompson 1934; Griffith 1909. Pestman 1992, 47, 58, 62.

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

149

in older times. Such privileges were perhaps not restricted to the door-keepers, since it would otherwise have been indicated in the text.102 In the archives of the Theban choachytes there are also three examples of a type of document that has been defined as tax exemption, and that refer to the payment of a necropolis tax.103 P. Brussels 8256e (315 BC), the earliest of the three, was written by Kolleuthis and appears to be addressed to Petearpres son of Esminis, whom he urged not to obstruct the woman Tiuris daughter of Peteuris with regard to the ‘overseer of the necropolis tax’ (line 1). The scribe of this document is perhaps to be identified with the like-named Kolleuthis, son of Amenemes, the official of the body of the city of Thebes attested in T. BN 1892 (315–314) and P. Brussels 8256a (310BC), two receipts of payment of the transfer tax on funerary property.104 The identification of the document’s addressee, Petearpres son of Esminis, with homonyms is more problematic since both are common names in the Theban area. He is perhaps to be identified with the like-named individual, the temple scribe of P. Rylands XII–XIII (281BC), who also bears the title of ‘royal scribe’ and ‘scribe of Amun’ (and whose statue was discovered at Medinet Habu). A like-named individual is also attested in TT32 (264BC) where the overseer of the necropolis Amenrosis son of Totoes is said to act as the representative of Petearpres son of Esminis, thus suggesting that the latter may have been a lesonis of Amun. However, as noted by Depauw, this identification is doubtful since there is a gap of several years in the documentation, although it is possible that the person mentioned in the present document is a relative, perhaps the grandfather, of the scribe of P. Rylands XII–XIII (281BC).105 Finally, Depauw suggests that the woman Tiuris daughter of Peteuris could possibly be identified with the mother of the business associate of the choachyte Teos, son of Iuefau, the owner of the archive, who is called Taesis, which would explain the inclusion of the document in the present archive.106 The second document, P. Brussels 8256d (312 BC), which, it is suggested, was issued to prevent the double payment of the transfer tax on funerary property, was written by Kolleuthis and is addressed to Parates, son of Iuefau, whom he urged not to obstruct [˹the woman˺] Tahekeret and to ‘let her build the ḥ.t-tomb’ (my ḳt=s tꜣ ḥ.t) (line 1).107 The addressee of this text is perhaps to be identified with the brother of the choachyte Teos son of

102 103 104 105 106 107

Pestman 1992, 52 note j. Depauw 2000, 194–197, 205–208. Depauw 2000, 197 note (f). Depauw 2000, 195 note (a); Vleeming 1994a, 360–361 note (cc). Depauw 2000, 196 note (d). Depauw 2000, 205.

150

chapter 7

Iuefau, and probably a choachyte himself.108 However, the fact that the document is addressed to him would indicate that in this case he was acting in an official capacity, rather than as a choachyte. Consequently, Depauw suggests that his name was perhaps written at the beginning of the text not because it was addressed to him but because it was drafted in his favour.109 Nonetheless, it is possible that Parates, son of Iuefau, was a choachyte acting in this instance in an official capacity, a possibility indicated by P. Berlin P. 3115 (109– 106BC) in which the office of lesonis of Amenope was held by the choachyte Nechthmonthes son of Horos (Text A line 5). Thus the scribe of these texts is probably to be identified with one of the clerks responsible for the collection of the tax, while the first named individual was perhaps the temple official to whom the amount was to be paid. The third person mentioned would therefore be a choachyte, or a representative thereof, responsible for the payment of both the burial and the transfer taxes on behalf of the family. The same scenario is found in P. Fayum XIII (170BC), a letter written by Elthous, tax-farmer of the beer-tax at Theadelphia, and addressed to a group of taricheutai, Psais and colleagues. Elthous writes to the latter requesting that he support Petesis, an inhabitant of Archelais, since he has received the tax due from him and has no further claim against him.110 Consequently, it is possible to see these texts as proof of payment of the tax mentioned, and as a protection for the payer from further claims. To define them as tax-exemption is probably misleading, as suggested by another document, P. Brooklyn 35.1462 (225 BC).111 The latter was written by ˹Mires˺ son of Petosiris and was addressed to Pchorchonsis whom he urged not to obstruct the daughter of Psenamounis with regard to the ‘overseer of the necropolis tax.’ At the end of the document, the sender specifies that he will collect the tax on account of the addressee (i҆w=y (r) šp=s n=k n i҆p) (line 4). Thus it is possible to understand the first two texts as having been issued in place of the normal tax receipt, or because the latter had been lost, while in the third instance the document can be seen as guaranteeing the payment of the tax due.

108 109 110

111

Depauw 2000, 206 note (a). Depauw 2000, 206 note (a). Grenfell et al. 1900, 105–106. The word taricheutes is ambiguous in this context since it could refer to either fish-salters or embalmers. Grenfell et al. suggest that either meaning is possible. I follow Muhs suggestion that the papyrus should be redated to year 23 of Ptolemy III on the basis of the scribe’s identity, who may be the same as the like-named Mires son of Petosiris attested in OIM 19333, TT373 and O. Birbeh 3, which also relate to the payment of the burial tax (Hughes et al. 2005, 7–8 and note B).

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

151

In Middle Egypt, information on the levying of taxes on funerary workers is found in P. UC 32223 (2nd cent. BC) and P. UC55871 (2nd cent. BC) from Rifeh, which were probably produced by the civil administration to serve as the basis on which to determine tax amounts by the Ptolemaic administration, and include both lector-priests and embalmers.112

5

Other Economic Activities of the Funerary Priests

Besides those documents directly relating to the Theban choachytes’ main occupation as mortuary priests, the vast majority of contracts found in their archives concern the purchase and sale of immovable property and of building plots on either banks of the Nile. However, one of the main differences between the choachytes of the Late Period and those of the Ptolemaic Period is the limited evidence for their ownership, purchase and sale of lands during the latter period. These, in fact, amount to three documents only.113 In some instances the choachytes are also attested as lessors, as in the case of P. Berlin P. 3102 (119BC) with which Horos son of Horos leased his four arouras of land in Pestenemenophis to the herdsman and servant of Djeme Ephonychos son of Pamonthes,114 or as lessees as in the case of P. BM EA 10782 (119 BC) stipulated between the god’s father Espemetis son of Osoroeris, and the door-keeper of Amenope Nechthmonthes son of Horos and Sachperis.115 The only other contract of lease preserved in the choachytes archives is P. Philadelphia XII (277 BC) in which the woman Tabis, daughter of the choachyte Teos and Tamin, leased from her sister, the woman Tamounis, a house located in the Northern district of Thebes.116 Slightly more often they are attested as parties in loan contracts where they appear mainly as lenders.117 Given the scant evidence for ownership of immovables, it is not surprising that the economic position of the choachytes of the Ptolemaic Period is often negatively contrasted with that of their Late Period colleagues. During this time it appears to have been customary among the wealthier families to endow the 112 113 114 115 116

117

Clarysse and Thompson 2006a, 542. For these documents see Table A.20. For this document see Spiegelberg 1902, Pl. 30; and Pestman 1993, 155–156. For this document see Andrews 1990, 62–63, cat. 22. For this document see el-Amir 1959, 53–55. It may be that the lease had the scope of obtaining clear title to the recently purchased property, as indicated in the Hermopolis legal manual (Donker Van Heel 1990, col. II, lines 23–27). I thank Brill’s anonymous reviewer for suggesting this possibilty. For these documents see Table A.21.

152

chapter 7

choachytes with a plot of land stipulating that the income it generated was to be used as payment for the funerary cult of their deceased relative(s), a practice that did not survive into the successive epoch. Indeed, it has been suggested that as a result of their changed economic position the choachytes would no longer have a guaranteed income at their disposal, rather they would be dependant on ‘the irregular payments by the families’ received for the performance of liturgies for their deceased relatives, as well as having to work as door-keepers.118 However, given the complete lack of evidence on the subject, it is impossible to make assumptions on the regularity of the payments by the family to the choachytes. In addition, although it is true that landed property is no longer part of funerary endowments to the Ptolemaic choachytes, it is important to note that there is preserved in their archives a number of contracts relating to the purchase and sale of real estate as well as to loan transactions. In this respect the loan documents listed in Table A.21 are quite important in that they show that at least some of the choachytes had enough resources at their disposable to be able to invest it in loan operations. The choachyte Nechthmonthes, son of Horos and Sachperis, for example, was able to lend, in the course of three successive years, three, nine and forty artabas of wheat respectively. When these amounts are compared with the average amount of ten artabas of wheat on which a person could live for a year,119 it becomes clear that Nechthmonthes was a wealthy individual. This is further substantiated by the fact that a few years later, in the course of only 13 days, the same individual was able to purchase from some of his colleagues the right to work as choachyte for a number of families and their deceased relatives.120 Even more impressive is the activity of Panas son of Espemetis as moneyender, which is attested from at least three loan contracts,121 P. BM EA 10823/P. BL 1201 (162 BC), P. BM EA 10613 118

119 120

121

This statement is later contradicted by the same author when, in discussing the mummies of the ‘venerable ones,’ he states “I would not be surprised if the category of ‘saints’ was a source of considerable income for the choachytes” (Pestman 1992, xix, 67). Vleeming (1995, 245), on the other hand, simply notes that the choachytes do not seem to have owned as much property as the Theban lector-priests, particularly with respect to landed properties. Préaux 1939, 134; Pestman 1981, 20; Pestman 1993, 348. The contracts are recorded in P. Turin 2130 (23rd December 99 BC), P. Berlin P. 3106 (3rd January 98 BC), P. Berlin P. 3139 (3rd January 98 BC) and P. Turin 2132 (4th January 98BC). Although P. Berlin P. 3108 (4th January 98 BC), an agreement concerning a pledge, indicates that Nechthmonthes was not able to pay at once for the liturgies sold with P. Berlin P. 3106 and 3139, the fact that the contracts were found in the buyer’s archive shows that he was able to meet his obligations (Pestman 1992, 66; Pestman 1993, 219–223). A fourth document is P. BL 1200 (192 BC), a Greek subscription referring to a sale or a loan (Muhs 2014/15, 91; Pestman 1993, 24, 85 [text 15], 292 and 294).

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

153

(160BC) and P. BM EA 10824/P. BL 1202 (160 BC). These show that in the course of about two years he lent 690, 444 and 592 silver deben, respectively, to the herdsman, servant of Montu lord of Hermonthis, Harsiesis, son of Kerkeris and Tausiris. However, it is only through P. BM EA 10557, P. BM EA 10556 and P. BM EA 10670,122 three accounts papyri, that the true extent of Panas’ moneylending business is revealed. P. BM EA 10557 refers to accounts dating from year 2 to 11 of an unnamed king, presumably Ptolemy VI as sole ruler (180/179–171/170BC).123 During this time span, Panas made 54 money loans, 17 wheat loans and 1 mixed loan, for a total of 5736.95 deben and 236 5/6 artabas.124 Similarly, the accounts recorded in P. BM EA 10556 show that during a period of about 12 years Panas made 182 money loans and four wheat loans, for a total of 13659 deben and 42 1/12 artabas.125 Most importantly, these account papyri show that loan contracts were drawn up only for large loans, while the smaller ones were secured by guarantors, or with objects or, apparently, even without security. Without these three accounts papyri, as Muhs notes, we would have a distorted picture of the availability of credit in Egypt, and of the true extent of the economic resources and activities of this choachyte.126 Therefore, taken together these documents indicate that although the choachytes’ derived their wealth mainly from their performance of liturgical services, for which they received a revenue, this activity was capable of generating an income and, at least in some instances, a surplus that could be invested in different types of legal transactions. With respect to the Theban lector-priests, the surviving documentary sources show them engaged in the sale, purchase and lease of lands.127 In addition, in P. Turin 2139 (118BC) Amenothes son of Horos exchanged a donkey, her filly and any of the foals that would be born to them, with another donkey. Amenothes also specifies that he had acquired his donkey in 120–119 BC to have it do some work for him. Further indirect evidence for lector-priests’ agricultural activities may be provided by P. Turin 2131 (145 BC), the maintenance document that Amenothes son of Horos drew up in favour of his mother, 122

123 124 125

126 127

The latter is also an account document giving summaries of loans made during the same period as P. BM EA 10556 (see below), but it is too damaged to determine the number of loans to which it refers (Muhs 2014/15, 100–101). Muhs 2014/15, 93–94. Muhs 2014/15, 96. The accounts recorded in P. BM EA 10556 date from 170–169BC to 158–157BC, thus from both the sole reign of Ptolemy VI and his joint rule with Ptolemy VIII (Muhs 2014/15, 98– 100). Muhs 2014/15, 98, 103. For these documents see Table A.22.

154

chapter 7

which stipulates that he is to pay this allowance only if the inundation reaches 18 cubits in height, and may suggests that Amenothes intended to pay it out of any income generated by the lands he owned. There are also three documents that show the lector-priests engaged in some loan transactions,128 while indirect evidence for loan activities is found in P. Turin 2134 (118 BC). The latter is an oath taken by a certain Imouthes in the temple of Djeme in favour of two sisters who asked him information regarding some properties owned by their father Psennesis. The former declares that Psennesis had given the house, located in Djeme, to Amenothes as payment for a loan in the presence of the lesonis and of the epistates, while no documents appear to have been redacted at the time of the original transaction. By contrast, among the surviving documents of the Memphite god’s sealbearers there is surprising little evidence for economic activities beside those concerning the transfer of funerary endowments and properties, the majority of which concern transactions between members of the same family. Lacking is also any evidence for the interaction of these mortuary priests with other members of the community, although it is not possible to be certain of the identity and profession of the other individuals attested. The few documents available belong all to the same family, that of Petesis son of Chenouphis and his descendants. This individual is first attested from two petitions, and an official copy of a letter of his, all concerning some attacks that he suffered to his person and his property, and recorded in UPZ 106–109 (99–98BC).129 A number of years later there is evidence for his son Chenouphis making an interest-free loan for 48 drachmae for ten months to a certain Peteimouthes son of Horos and recorded in UPZ 125 (89 BC). The same individual is also attested as the owner of orchards by the Aslepieion near the Pachet canal, as shown by the land survey report recorded in UPZ 117 (86–83BC). In addition, he is also attested from another legal document, P. Turin 13 (UPZ 118) (83BC), in which he has recourse to the Chrematistai to have Psentaes(?), the husband of his daughter Taues, meet his obligations towards her. Similarly, the available documentation shows the Hawara mortuary priests mostly engaged in transactions relating to funerary endowments, with very little evidence for other economic activities. The vast majority of this evidence concerns loans, either in money or in wheat, which number is rather large, given the small number of documents surviving from Hawara in general, but especially by comparison to those from Thebes.130 However, they mostly 128 129 130

For these documents see Table A.23. Wilcken 1927, 453–472; Thompson 1988, 186–187. For these documents see Table A.24. On their assests in general see in particular the various deeds published by Hughes et al. 1997 and Lüddeckens 1998.

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

155

concern two families, and may, therefore, be an indication of financial difficulties experienced by these individuals rather than reflect the economic situation of the Hawara mortuary priests in general. Indeed, the god’s seal-bearers and embalmers come across as a well-off group, judging from the amount of property they owned, beside the commodities received as payment for their professional services. The other economic transactions attested in their archives concern the sale and purchase of properties, as well as the purchase of rights to liturgical days in a shrine dedicated to the god Anubis.131 Surprisingly, there is no evidence for the involvement of these priests in any type of agricultural activity, with the exception of the presence of loans of wheat, which could, however, consist of the payment in kind received by the families for their funerary services. For Middle Egypt most of the evidence comes from the documents in the archive of the Siut lector-priests, which shows them engaged in a range of economic activities beside their occupation as lector-priests, probably their main profession. P. BM EA 10591 (170BC) indicates that Tuefhapi and his brother Totoes, the sons of the lector-priest Petetumis, may have held other offices in the local temple of Wepwawet since they receive an income from some temple personnel.132 The contract lists the ‘⅓ share of the rations which the Chiefs of the storehouses of the temple of Wepwawet will give to us daily’ (ḥnꜥ tꜣy=k tny.t ⅓ nꜣ ꜥḳ.w nt i҆w nꜣ ꜥꜣ-šnꜥ n pr wp-wꜣwt ty.t s n=n ẖr hrw) (col. Bviii lines 19– 20); the ‘⅓ share of the rations which the door-keepers of Wepwawet will pay’ (ḥnꜥ tꜣy=k tny.t ⅓ nꜣ ꜥḳ.w nt i҆w nꜣ i҆ry.w-ꜥꜣ wp-wꜣwt r ty.t s) (col. Bviii line 20); and the ‘⅓ share of the oil and any property at all that the said men will give to us’ (ḥnꜥ tꜣy=k tny.t ⅓ n pꜣ nḥḥ pꜣ nkt nb pꜣ tꜣ nt i҆w nꜣ rmṯ.w nt ḥry r ty.t s n=n) (col. Bviii line 21). However, the document does not provide any information on the reason(s) behind these payments, nor on the nature of the services for which they were being paid. A clause in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC), the embalming agreement stipulated between two groups of Siut lector-priests, contains a reference to the mummification of the priests of Wepwawet, which could indicate that 131

132

For these documents see Table A.25. Only transactions with third parties are recorded in this table, sales and/or donations of real-estate between members of the same family are excluded from this list. Unless this is evidence for funerary priests being attached to temples in this part of the country, as it appears could be sometimes the case in the Roman Period. Two temple accounts from Soknopaiou Nesos, SPP XXII 183 (AD 138) and BGU I 1+337 (AD140), indicate that in the Roman Period some embalmers were part of the temple’s personnel. In the first document one of the entries records a payment of 16 drachmas for ‘embalmers(?),’ while an entry in the second document includes a payment of 16 drachmas for the ‘embalmers at the village’ (Johnson 1936, 656, 659).

156

chapter 7

these two lector-priests were being paid for such services. However, the fact that they received a daily payment from the Chiefs of the storehouses of the temple of Wepwawet suggests that they may have held other temple offices as well, and that it was for those that they were being paid. In particular, this could have referred to the provision of the cloth used during the mummification process, which appears to have been another of the activities in which the Siut lector-priests were engaged, although this was closely linked to their professional activity. In P. BM EA 10561 (157BC), party A states that ‘If it happens that a lector priest separates from his associate […] and makes his own storehouse, he will act in accordance with everything aforesaid’ (i҆w=f ḫpr ˹r˺ pš ẖr-ḥb n pꜣy=f i҆ry […] mtw=f i҆r wꜥ pr-ḥḏ wꜥ.ṱ=f i҆w=f i҆r r-ẖ mt nb nt ḥry) (lines 22–23).133 This indicates that the expression ‘to make his storehouse’ in this case denotes the setting up of a business concerning the provision of cloths. An interesting reference to a ‘service of the storehouses’ is found in P. BM EA 10591 (170 BC) which, among other properties, lists ‘⅓ share of the service of the storehouses of the six villages’ (⟨tny.t ⅓⟩ tꜣ bꜣk n nꜣ pr.w-ḥḏ pꜣ tmy 6) (col. Bviii lines 21–22). On the basis of P. BM EA 10561 (157BC), it is possible that this is to be understood as a reference to a service concerning the provision of cloth to individuals responsible for various stages of the mummification process. It remains unclear whether these storehouses were located in the necropolis, although it seems likely. In addition, P. BM EA 10591 (170BC) shows that the two brothers Totoes and Tuefhapi had some wealth, a large part of which consisted of landed property.134 In some years they farmed their lands themselves, while at other times they leased them out to a third party. In P. BM EA 10591 (170 BC) Tuefhapi explains: ‘the aforesaid fields are mine, (I) ploughed them with Totoes in regnal year nine. Then, in regnal year ten, I leased them to Agylos son of Lisimachos, the cavalryman, (and) they were sown for their great(er part) with clover (…). Then, in regnal year 11, I leased `my own´ ⅓ share to Heraclides, the cavalryman, while Agylos and Apylos, who are in the stratiotes, (are those) who ploughed the other ⅔ share at the request of Totoes’ (nꜣ ꜣḥ.w rn=w i҆nk s skꜣ(=y) s i҆rm twt n ḥꜣ.t-sp 9 ḫpr ḥꜣ.t-sp 10.t i҆r=y sḥn.ṱ=w n ꜣgyrws sꜣ lsymḳws pꜣ rmṯ ḥtr ḫpr-ḫr tw=w šm pꜣy=w ꜥšꜣ n ꜣtrm (…) ḫpr ḥꜣ.t-sp 11.t i҆r=y sḥn tꜣy=y tny.t ⅓ `ḥꜥ=y´ n hrgtr pꜣ rmṯ

133 134

See further Chapter 11 § 4. These were: 10 aruras of highland in the south-west of Siut in the temple domain of Wepwawet, a share of plots of land in the Siut necropolis, a share of plots of land called ‘the quay of Pahe’ extending south of Pachir of Siut, a share of plots of land of the house in the Siut necropolis called ‘the house of Petaus,’ a share of plots of land of the house in Pachir of Siut called ‘the house of Kemois,’ a share of gardens and a well in the ‘Valley of Isis’ (P. BM EA 10591, 170 BC).

services, income and taxation of funerary priests

157

ḥtr r ꜣgyles i҆rm ꜣpylws nt ẖn nꜣ stryss.w nt skꜣ n tꜣ k.t tny.t ⅔ r ḫrw twt) (lines 1– 4). Further evidence is found in P. BM EA 10599 (169 BC), a petition presented by Tuefhapi against his brother, Totoes, where he states: ‘I went to my fields which are in the countryside in the highlands south of Siut with my cultivator in order to harvest them (but) the said man (scil. his brother) came against me and hindered me without allowing me to harvest them even though it is I who ploughed the said fields in the winter season’ (šm=y r nꜣy=y ꜣḥ.w nt n tꜣ sḫ.t n tꜣ ḳy rs n si҆wt i҆rm pꜣy=y wyꜥ r ꜣsẖ n-i҆m=w pꜣ rmṯ n rn=f i҆w r-ḥr=y sḫt=f ṱ=y r bn-pw=f ḫꜣꜥ=y r ꜣsẖ n-i҆m=w r i҆nk i҆.i҆r skꜣ nꜣ ꜣḥ.w n rn=w n pr.t) (lines 4–8). In addition, P. BM EA 10591 (170BC) indicates that Tuefhapi owned sheep- and camel-herds since both the shepherd and the camel keeper are mentioned during the legal proceedings (for example in col. Bv lines 24–25). The same document also shows they owned a number of houses in the necropolis of Siut and in Pachir, as well as a number of storehouses, the latter very likely connected with their activity as lector-priests.135 The two brothers also had a share each of the office of ‘Scribe of the divine-scrolls in the necropolis of Siut’ (sẖ mḏ-nṯr n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t si҆wt) (col. Bviii lines 23–24), which their father Petetumis had bought from the endowed woman Ephonychos daughter of Djedjehutiuefankh (P. BM EA 10575 [181 BC] line 10). Finally, from the village of Shaiueshetep, located in the vicinity of Siut,136 there survives a fragmentary contract of sale and cession recorded in P. UC55875 (153BC) and concerning some plots of land said to be located in the necropolis. The titles of the contracting parties are not preserved and it is not possible to determine whether they belonged to a family of lector-priests or to other individuals, but the location of the plots of land in the necropolis argues in favour of the parties belonging to a category of funerary priests. With respect to the town of Hutnesu very little can be determined beyond the fact that one of the lector-priests owned a house with a plot of land and a cloth-place in the eastern district of the town (P. Mallawi 602/9, 100 BC). It is possible that the cloth-place mentioned in this document relates to a place where cloth was produced and/or stored,137 thus indirectly suggesting the presence of arrangements concerning the provision of cloth for the mummification similar to those in place at Siut. 135

136 137

These were: a house now in ruins, a house built and occupied by Tuefhapi, a share of the house called ‘the house of Petaus,’ a share of the house in Pachir called ‘the house of Kemois,’ a storehouse, a storehouse now in ruins in the Siut necropolis, the storehouses in the Siut necropolis called ‘the storehouses of Matraios’ (P. BM EA 10591, 170BC). The settlement is mentioned in P. BM EA 10591 (170 BC) as one of the areas where the Siut lector-priests worked (col. Bvii line 11). Cannata 2006, 193–194 note p.

158

chapter 7

An interesting aspect that emerges from the preceding survey is the parallelism between the Theban choachytes, and the Memphite and Hawara god’s seal-bearers on the one hand, and the Theban and Siut lector-priests on the other. In fact, the Theban choachytes were above all engaged in loan transactions, as were the Hawara god’s seal-bearers, while the little evidence surviving from Memphis sees one these funerary priests making an interest-free loan to an unrelated individual. On the other hand, both the Theban and the Siut lectopriests were mainly engaged in sale, purchase and lease of agricultural lands, some of which they farmed personally. However, given the limited evidence, it is difficult to determine whether this is just a coincidence, or if perhaps their choice was dictated by other factors.

chapter 8

Priestly Associations The following section discusses the available evidence for religious associations of mortuary priests around the country. No fixed rule or custom appears to have existed as to whether members of professions organised themselves into guilds, associations or collegia, and the available evidence, with the exception of the documentation relating to the Theban choachytes, is far from definite.

1

Association of Theban Choachytes

According to Otto and Derda, the Greek sources from the 2nd century archive do not provide any information on the choachytes’ relation with the temple, although they suggest that their standing within its hierarchy was lower than that of other priests.1 The Demotic evidence indicates that the choachytes also worked as door-keepers, as implied by their full title ‘door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes’ (i҆ry-ꜥꜣ n I҆mn-i҆py n pr i҆mnṱ n Nw.t [var. tꜣ i҆mnṱ n Nw.t]).2 The title of door-keeper was held both by priests who were attached to the shrine of a god, and by those in the service of the dead, the latter also known by the occupational title of choachytes. In 109 BC the choachytes formed an association under the patronage of the god Amenope. According to Pestman, ‘the main scope of the association was to strengthen the solidarity of the choachytes, who had many interests in common as a result of their profession, descent and intermarriages. They designated (…) a number of feast-days as “days of drinking” (…) [during which] they were supposed to have a drink together.’3 That this was one of the aims of the association is perhaps also indicated by the fact that they were supposed to make a contribution toward the mummification of a deceased member.4 However, an analysis of these regulations indicates that its purpose and scope were not limited to reinforcing the bond of solidarity of this choachytal community.

1 Otto 1905, 100–105; Derda 1991, 23. 2 Thus also Pestman 1993, 430. 3 Pestman 1993, 5. Thus also Donker van Heel (1995, 24) who sees the association as also playing an important social role, although he understands its main scope as being that of ensuring the efficient functioning of the necropolis. 4 On this see below and Chapter 13 § 1.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_010

160

chapter 8

The regulations were set down in P. Berlin P. 3115 Texts A–E (109–106 BC). Document A identifies these as the rules with which the choachytes have agreed to comply in order to establish the association of Amenope. The first of these regulations prescribes that: ‘any man at all who will (have) reached (the age of) ten years, among the choachytes, will be brought into the association of Amenope’ (pꜣ rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ nt i҆w=f r i҆r rnp.t 10.t ẖn nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw mtw=[w] i҆n.ṱ=f r tꜣ 6-nt n i҆mni҆py), line 2

while with respect to ‘any man at all among the choachytes who will (have) reached (the age of) 16 years without having gone to the association of Amenope’ (pꜣ rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ ẖn nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw nt i҆w=f r i҆r rnp.t 16 mtw=f tm i҆y r tꜣ 6-nt n i҆mn-i҆py), line 2–3

the members stipulate that: ‘they are not to drink (and) eat with him (or any) member of his family, and they will not to go to the ḳs5 (and the) 35 (days ceremony) with him until he comes to the (meeting) place and those of the association decide upon a fine against him’ (mtw=w tm swr wnm i҆rm=f ḥnꜥ rmṯ n pꜣy=f ꜥ.wy mtw=w tm šm r ḳs 35 i҆rm=f šꜥ-tw=f i҆y r pꜣ mꜣꜥ mtw nꜣy tꜣ 6-nt wpy ḳns r-r=f ).6 lines 3–4

5 A stage in the mummification process, for which see Chapter 11 §3. 6 Two different readings of this passage have been given by Pestman and De Cenival. The former understood the passage as referring to ‘any son of a choachyte who has reached the age of ten years’ (Pestman 1993, 5), while De Cenival took it as a reference to the period of time a person was expected to have worked as a choachyte prior to his introduction to the association (De Cenival 1972, 103 line 2). The interpretation of the passage depends on whether one understands ẖn nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw in line 2 as being linked to pꜣ rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ or to nt i҆w=f r i҆r rnp.t 10.t. On the basis of the parallel passage in line 2–3 (pꜣ rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ ẖn nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw nt i҆w=f r i҆r rnp.t 16) where ẖn nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw follows pꜣ rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ, I have opted for the first possibility. Although De Cenival reading is a more literal one, its implications are that a choachyte’s apprenticeship lasted ten years, which seems too long a period for the type of profession. See also below.

priestly associations

161

Contra to the definition of these regulations as trivial,7 it is possible to interpret them as an indication of one of the purposes of the association as the means of regulating the activity of these priests and, to some extent, of exercising a certain control over their conduct, particularly towards their colleagues, in an attempt to avoid disputes among the various mortuary priests.8 This is shown by regulations stipulating that the choachyte in charge of a deceased is the only one who can attend the latter’s mummification, besides those whose help he will enlist. This choachyte is also the only one who can contact the embalmer for the mummification of the dead in his care, and that can provide the necessary materials and accessories for the embalming.9 A number of reasons have been adduced for the creation of, and/or membership in, guilds, among which are ‘low economic, social, and political status,’ as well as ‘familial instability.’ Indeed, it has been argued that guilds fulfilled an important social and economic role by filling a gap, providing members security ‘through ties of “fictive kinship” and membership in “fictive polities.”’10 It is undeniable that membership in associations provided the members with economic benefits, for example in case of economic difficulties due to fluctuation in harvest yields, or in relation to the contributions towards the cost of burial. However, understanding these simply as economic institutions lessens the importance of the ‘social relations and shared values in the formation of associations.’11 An examination of the guilds’ charters with regard to the cost of membership clearly indicates that ‘financial hardship’ cannot have been the reason for joining.12 The list of contributions paid by the members of ‘religious’ associations in the Fayum indicates that office holders made annual payments that were at times higher than the value of one year’s supply of wheat, while the contribution of the ordinary members corresponded to about a quarter of the member’s annual consumption.13 In fact, associations appear to have served a multiplicity of functions. On one hand, they allowed non-elite members of society a more accessible social and civic formal forum,14 thus further enhancing their position within the community.15 On the other hand, they could be understood, as Monson argues, as trust networks. The high cost of member7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Pestman 1993, 5. Thus also De Cenival 1972, 124 note 11,2. On these tasks see Chapter 13 § 1. Quoted in Venticinque 2010, 273, who argues against such an assumption. Monson 2006, 228–229, 233. Venticinque 2010, 274; Monson 2006, 227–228. Monson 2006, 227–228. Muhs 2001. Venticinque 2010, 274–275.

162

chapter 8

ship fees, the obligations to help members in need, together with the fines set for antisocial behaviour, served to discourage untrustworthy individuals from joining. Moreover, the setting down of the association’s rules transformed informal ethical codes into formal norms, while the participation of all the members to religious celebrations and social activities strengthened the bond between the trust network’s members, and at the same time reinforced the division from ordinary social networks.16 Monson perceives these as the primary objectives of the association, although, over time, they would also lower the cost of transactions, making them easier and less risky, because the members could be trusted. The economic aspect is thus secondary to the social aspect, even though, over time, the economic benefits may also have served to reinforce the stability of the association.17 Pestman excludes the possibility that an association of choachytes existed before the end of the second century BC since he states that in ‘109 BC the choachytes suddenly felt the necessity of establishing regulations, whereas their forefathers for many centuries had managed without such things,’ wondering whether this was ‘because their solidarity was endangered in 109 BC’ and if it is a ‘coincidence that the archive stops in 98 BC.’18 However, in view of the fact that an association of the Theban choachytes is attested during the reign of Amasis, albeit under the patronage of another god, the deified Amenhotep son of Hapu, and on the basis of the annual founding of the Fayum religious associations, it is more than likely that an association of choachytes under the patronage of Amenope, whose regulations have not survived, existed prior to the first century BC.19 With respect to the place where the choachytes would have met P. Berlin P. 3115 does not provide any specific information. Some indication of a possible meeting place is found in other documents recording the regulations of similar religious associations in the Fayum, and by temple graffiti of the Roman period. These suggest that the association’s meetings would have taken place in a pub-

16 17 18 19

Monson 2006, 233–234. Monson 2006, 233–235. Pestman 1993, 5–6. De Cenival suggests that the last paragraph in P. Berlin P. 3115 (Text D §3 lines 1–2) does not have to be taken as definitive cessation, but rather as a yearly closure (1972, 129–130 note 1,1). The suggestion seems indeed supported by Text E which lists three people and a number of jars they have received (or were entrusted with) by the association. Fines are established in case of damage or theft of these jars (De Cenival 1972, 130–135). For the Late Period association of the Theban choachytes see Donker van Heel 1995, 24, 143–168 and De Cenival 1986; for the Fayum religious associations see De Cenival 1972, Monson 2006, Muhs 2001, and Muszynsky 1977.

priestly associations

163

lic area, rather than in a purpose-built edifice owned by the association. The documents of the Ptolemaic Period indicate as a meeting place: 1. the temple (P. Lille 29, line 3); 2. the temple dromos (P. Cairo 31178, line 3); 3. before the god Sobek and the gods of Sobek in the resting place of the crocodile of the settlement of Tebtunis (P. Cairo 30606, line 6; P. Cairo 31179, line 6; P. Cairo 30605, line 4–5); 4. the temples of the gods in whose honour the members met during the days of drinking (P. Cairo 30619, line 3).20 The graffiti of the Roman period indicate as a meeting place: 1. the area around a small shrine behind the temple of Augustus at Philae identified as ‘the place of the association of Harpochrates’ (Demotic Graffito Philae AD36–46);21 2. the court of the temple of Kom Ombo identified as ‘the place of drinking of the porter of the gods of Sobek, god of chaos, and of the porter of the gods of Pachonsis’ (De Morgan Graffito No. 1021—Roman Period);22 3. the dromos or the terrace of the temple of Khnum at Elephantine.23 On the basis of this evidence it is, therefore, possible to suggest an area of the temple of Djeme as the probable meeting place for the association of the Theban choachytes.24 A clause in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106BC) also shows that the choachytes were expected to accept as apprentice any young person who lived in Djeme,25 and thus suggests that access to the profession was not restricted.26 In the regulations the members agree ‘not to turn down(?) a young person (scil. apprentice?) who lives here in Djeme’ (r tm lk ḫm-ẖl i҆w=f ꜥnḫ ty n ḏmꜣ) (Text D, line 4).27 In 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27

De Cenival 1972, 177–178. Muszynski 1977, 151; De Cenival 1972, 178. Quaegebeur 1984a, 162. Zauzich 1980a, 62–63. For an alternative suggestion see Pestman (1993, 5) who identified the town of Djeme itself as the likely place of reunion of the choachytes. Thus also De Cenival 1972, 129 note 4,1. On the basis of the available evidence it is not possible to determine how often in practice this happened. A geneaological study of the choachytes’ families, based on the surviving documents, indicates that this was a close endogamous group and that the profession was maintained within the family. However, there are also a number of individuals who are only attested as payers in burial-tax receipts, thus indicating that they were choachytes, but for whom no other documentation survives. This means either that their archives have not survived, and/or that they did not originally descend from one of the known choachytes’ families. Although from Coptic it appears that the verb lk followed by a circumstantial generally

164

chapter 8

addition, the passage indicates that they were to undergo a period of training under the supervision of one of the choachytes, although there is no indication of the length of time of this apprenticeship. The opening passage of the association’s regulations (line 2) prescribes that anybody over the age of ten practicing as a choachyte has to become a member, thus indicating that interested individuals would have started their training period at a very young age, although effectively they would not be considered to be choachytes until this age. This seems consistent with what is known of apprenticeships in other professions, where training would start at a very young age, in the majority of cases probably at home, with the craft being handed down from father to son.28 The length of the apprenticeship varied depending on the craft learned, and would have involved the carrying out, at first, of the most basic tasks. Textual evidence from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt indicates that a formal agreement would be drawn up between the parents or guardian of the young apprentice and the master. In the case of choachytal training, it not clear whether apprentices would have been trained by family members, a likely possibility given that the profession was, mostly, maintained within the same kin group, or if their training was entrusted to other members of the choachytal community.29 Finally, the list of regulations also gives an indication of the possible role of some of the choachytes during religious celebrations. Two of the members, Petosiris son of Horos and Amenothes son of Psenthotes, are identified as the porter (glg)30 who follows down after the Lesonis, and the third porter (pꜣ glg mḥ-3) respectively, possibly indicating their order during a procession, suggesting that some of them may have been responsible for carrying the chest of Amenope during the processions in his honour.31 Further information on the duties of the choachytes as pastophoroi of Amun is provided by P. Turin Gr. 2147 (117BC), in which was recorded the legal decision of the epistates following Hermias’ complaint presented to the strategos against the choachytes.

28 29

30 31

means ‘to prevent somebody from doing something,’ in this case the reading ‘to turn down’ (Glossar, 264) seems more appropriate since the implications of the first reading would be that the choachytes had the power to prevent somebody from living in Djeme, something for which there is no evidence at all. Burford 1972, 82, 87–88. There is no evidence for apprenticeship contracts from either the Ptolemaic or the Roman periods for the training of funerary workers. In the case of craftsmen, it appears that apprentices were not trained by their own fathers, even though sons often followed their fathers’ occupation and trade (Venticinque 2010, 289). The word generally indicates a funerary bed but may be used here with the extended meaning of litter (De Cenival 1972, 110 note 6,3; Doresse 1973, 113 note 5). Doresse 1973, 113 note 5.

priestly associations

165

Hermias son of Ptolemaios, a troop commander from Omboi, presented over the years a number of petitions to the authorities claiming that the Theban house now in the possession of the choachytes belonged by right to him. In the petition, copied in the said document, he exposed once again his accusations against the choachytes, and mentions some royal ordinances concerning the transfer of the Theban taricheutai to the Memnoneia (col. III lines 21–34, col. IV lines 1–30). His accusations were attacked by the choachytes’ lawyer, Deinon, who stated that his clients were not taricheutai, rather choachytes and they did not do the same job. He explains that ‘during the days of public festivities they (scil. the choachytes) bring sand which they sprinkle on the Path of Amun and in the temple, and, on entering the temple of Mut, they do the same. During the annual crossing of Amun to the Memnoneia they perform what tasks were required of them, opening the procession and sprinkling water, and this was their privilege’ (col. VIII lines 11–22). According to the Gnomon of the Idios Logos the pastophoroi ‘may not practice officially as priests (§ 82), nor appear as such in processions, nor lay claim to their functions (§ 94), but they are free to accept private commissions.’32 The conclusion generally reached on the basis of this evidence is that the door-keepers were of lower ranking than the ordinary priests in terms of temple hierarchy, and their function was concerned not with the worship of the gods, but rather with more public oriented roles, such as the supervision of the lay temple personnel.33 However, this seems contradicted by the evidence from Demotic sources, which show the ordinary door-keepers engaged in cultic activities. Information on the door-keepers of Amun at Thebes is found in the Deir el-Medina archive, which concerns the affairs of a family of door-keepers attached to shrines of various gods.34 The income from this office was termed ‘days of endowment’ (hrw n sꜥnḫ), or liturgies, which, like the income received by the choachytes for the care of the deceased, could be bought, sold, leased and inherited. The door-keepers working in the service of the gods at Deir el-Medina performed the same services as the choachytes did for the deceased, as indicated by the fact that the texts employ the same terminology in defining their activity (šms.w, ꜥrš.w), and their income was also termed ‘revenues’ and ‘offerings’ (šty.w and i҆ḫy.w) as was the case with the choachytes. However, textual sources indicate that there was no crossover between the two groups who do not appear to have intermarried. 32 33

34

Quoted in Ray 1976, 136. Ray 1976, 136. In this case, P. Turin Gr. 2147 (117 BC) suggests that the choachytes had a higher status than the other door-keepers since they were not excluded from any official participation in processions. Botti 1967.

166

chapter 8

The two functions were hereditary, and were maintained within the same family, or even extended kin group, as shown, by the fact that in the Deir el-Medina archive there is no evidence of them also working as choachytes. Similarly, from the choachytes’ archives there is no evidence that they also performed liturgies for the gods for which they would have received an endowment that, like the rest of their revenues, would have been the object of at least some of their transactions.

2

Association of Theban Lector Priests

With respect to the lector-priests, no direct evidence survives for the existence of an association comparable to that of the choachytes. However, in the petition recorded in P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116BC) the plaintiff states that the two parties ‘agreed to abide to the clauses of the contract and stipulated that any breach will result in a fine of 30 bronze talents and the (payment?) of the damage according to the regulations’ (lines 34–36). This suggest that, despite the lack of direct evidence for the organisation of the lector-priests in associations, there may have existed some rules by which they had to abide, unless of course those referred to are the customary monetary penalties charged on the breach of any contract’s stipulations. In addition, the oath recorded in O. BM EA 26206 (153–142 BC) provides some evidence for the existence of a council of lector-priests that, not only arbitrated in matters relating to the funerary industry (as was the case with the council of choachytes and lector-priests in P. Amherst dem. 62f + g, 121 BC), but also decided collectively on the territorial division of competence among the various lector-priests. Party A claims control over (the liturgies?) of Pamonthes son of Psenthotes whom, he states ‘devolved upon Patemis son of Zmanres at the time of the division which the council (of lector-priests) made’ (pḥ=f r patm sꜣ smn-rꜥ n pꜣ hrw n pš r-i҆r tꜣ ꜥšꜣt ḥms) (lines 6–7). However, it remains unclear whether the council should be understood simply as the totality of the individuals who worked as lector-priests, and therefore shared a common interest as suggested by the heading of the oath recorded in O. BM EA 25775 (158–157BC) where they are identified as ‘the collectivity of the lector-priests of Thebes’ (tꜣ ꜥšꜣt (n) nꜣ ẖrḥ.(w) (n) nw.t),35 or if this is indirect evidence for the existence of an otherwise unattested association with specific regulations as, perhaps, suggested by P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116BC).

35

For the corrections see CDD letter H̱ , 57.

priestly associations

3

167

Association of Memphite Mortuary Priests

Similarly, there is no surviving direct evidence for the existence at Memphis of an association either of choachytes or of god’s seal-bearers. However, the existence of rules regulating the activity of funerary priests is indicated in the agreement recorded in P. Leiden I 374 (78BC) concerning the cession of a specific endowment in the Memphite necropolis and stipulated between two groups of god’s seal-bearers. The contract includes a specific clause concerning the possibility of family members that may fall within the competence of both groups. Party A agrees that should any deceased belonging within this liturgy be given to them mistakenly they will hand it over to party B ‘with the exception of a woman who will die (and) who has a son or daughter (who falls) between her and (a man within) the revenues belonging to us, we are (then) entitled to it in accordance with the rule(s) of the lector-priests’ (nt pꜣ bnr n sḥm.t i҆w=s r mwt r wn mtw=s šr gꜣ šr.t i҆wt=s i҆wt šty mtw=n i҆w=n mꜣꜥ.w n-i҆m=s r-ẖ pꜣ hp n nꜣ ẖr-ḥb.w) (lines 14–15). This again suggests that, despite the lack of direct evidence for the organisation of the Memphite choachytes and god’s seal-bearers in associations, there may have existed some general rules which they had to respect.36

4

Associations of Mortuary Priests in the Fayum

From Hawara there is also no evidence among the sources for the existence of an association of god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers. The surviving documents concerning religious associations consist of the regulations adopted by the members of the association of ‘Horus the Beḥdedite (Ḥr Bḥd.t) in the settlement of Sobek Pes in the district of Temistos on the southern side of the lake Moeris in the Arsinoite nome’ [P. Lille 29 (223BC) lines 2–3]; those of ‘the crocodile who meet before the god Sobek and the gods of Sobek in the place of rest of the crocodile of the Sobek town of Tebtunis, which is in the district of Polemon in the Arsinoite nome’ [P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) lines 4–5, P. Cairo 31179 (147BC) lines 4–5, P. Cairo 30605 (145BC) lines 3–5]; and the regulations of a religious association in the district of Polemon in the Arsinoite nome in a settlement whose name is not preserved, perhaps Tebtunis too, and recorded in P. Prague (137BC) and P. Cairo 30619 (137BC). In addition, P. εντευξεισ 20 (221BC) and P. εντευξεισ 21 (218BC), both petitions requesting payment

36

Pestman sees this as a reference to customary law rather than to written regulations of an association of lector-priests (Pestman 1963, 16 note i).

168

chapter 8

of funerary indemnity, provide indirect evidence for the presence of religious associations, of which one of women, at Magdola. The title of god’s seal-bearer and embalmer, lector-priest or choachyte does not appear in any of these documents, although this does not exclude the possibility that some of the members belonged to the class of funerary priests. Nevertheless, none of the regulations listed in these agreements appear to relate specifically to the activity of this class of necropolis attendants, as was the case in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106BC) where several of the regulations listed were concerned specifically with the choachytes’ professional activity.37

5

Associations of Mortuary Priests in Middle Egypt

From Middle Egypt the only evidence for the possibility that mortuary priests belonged to religious and/or professional associations is provided by P. Rylands 65 (57BC), from Oxyrhynchus. The document records the judicial sentence passed by the Chrematistai court concerning a petition presented by a group of necrotaphoi against some individuals who are accused of having disregarded the stipulations of an Egyptian contract stipulated by ‘all the necrotaphoi belonging to the association’ (οἱ ἐκ τοῦ ἔθνους νεκροτ̣[άφοι τε]θ̣ειμένοι Αἰγυπτίαν συγγραφὴν) (col. 1 line 3). Johnson notes that the word ἔθνος was used to refer both to sacred and to secular associations, or corporations, although it is not clear what type of association it denoted in this document.38 In the petition, the plaintiffs request that the accused be brought and forced to pay the fines stipulated in the contract against those who contravene its provisions, both to the association and to the Treasury. These provisions are reminiscent of a clause found in text D of P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106BC) where, for example, it is established that a fine of one talent is to be paid to the association, another to the shrine of Montu lord of Medamud, and one talent is to be given at (lit. before) Djeme, by any of the members who refuses to act in accordance with what stipulated by the association. In addition, the mention of an association suggests the mortuary priests formed a consortium, be it an organisation formally constituted as that recorded by the Theban choachytes in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC), or simply the aggregation of individuals who performed the same profession. That such 37

38

However, in view of the limited evidence available and the fact that a large number of papyri from Tebtunis still remain unpublished, it is not possible to exclude the possibility that such an association of mortuary priests existed in the Fayum as well. Johnson et al. 1915, 7 note 3.

priestly associations

169

an assembly decided on matters concerning the division of liturgies among the mortuary priests is indicated not only by P. Rylands 65 (57 BC), but also by P. Mallawi 602/10 (111BC) that, like the previous document, mentions an agreement stipulated, in this case, between all the lector-priests of Hutnesu, in which they divided a number of places of revenue among themselves. These show parallels with O. BM 26206 (153–142 BC) from Thebes, mentioned above, which provides evidence for a council of lector-priests that decided together on the territorial division of competence among them. Indeed, P. Mallawi 602/1– 5 (79BC), an apportionment deed drawn up between 12 mortuary priests from Psenharyo, perhaps represents an example of this kind of document relating to the division of competence among funerary priests. Therefore, in view of this evidence, it is possible that the association mentioned in P. Rylands 65 (57 BC) was a religious association formed by the mortuary priests of Oxyrhynchus and that another may have existed at Hutnesu, and possibly at Psenharyo, although that this applied also to mortuary priests from other parts of Middle Egypt can only be a surmise. As Monson argues, the associations’ rules help understand the underlying social relations, and clearly indicate that members of a trust network had access to informal assistance from other members. One such benefit concerned, for example, possible disputes among fellow members, which a number of associations’ rules stipulated that these were to be settled in-house, without resorting to state authorities.39 In the light of this, it is possible to understand the oaths recorded in O. BM EA 26206 (153–142 BC) and O. BM EA 25775 (158–157BC) from Thebes, and possibly the agreement preserved in P. Leiden I 374 (78BC) from Memphis, as resulting from this kind of in-house arbitration of disputes among fellow members. This may also have been the purpose of councils which helped in the resolution of disputes without need for recourse to a formal lawsuit. Such regulations, and particularly the rule prescribing high fines for members who resort to state authorities to resolve conflict, or to refuse to abide by the decision of the association regarding a dispute, appear to have been disregarded (if they existed) by the Oxyrhynchus necrotaphoi who petitioned the Chrematistai court concerning a dispute between them and another group of mortuary priests.40 One final point worth mentioning with respect to these associations is that of the fines imposed on members for antisocial behaviour specifically in rela39 40

This, in turn, would also strengthen the trust network, and protect it from state intrusion (Monson 2006, 235–236). Recorded in P. Rylands 65 (57 BC).

170

chapter 8

table 3

Fines prescribed for association members in relation to funerary matters

Document

Refuse to attend funeral

Refuse to collect dead from place of death

Refuse to mourn Refuse to mourn deceased member member’s dead kin

P. Lille 29 (223BC) P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) P. Cairo 31179 (147BC) P. Cairo 30605 (145BC) P. Prague (137BC)

½ kite

4 kite 10 deben 20 deben […] deben 20 deben

5 deben 5 deben 5 deben

5 deben 2 deben 5 deben

tion to the death of one of the members, or even of his close kin. In particular, fines were prescribed for failure to mourn a deceased member or a member of his family, for refusing to accompany the funeral cortege to the necropolis, and for refusing to go to collect the body of a deceased member who dies outside their own settlement. Although in relative terms the fines set for antisocial behaviours in respect of the death of one of the members (or his close kin) are among the lowest prescribed, especially when compared with those prescribed for some of the other offences,41 in general terms they still represent fairly large amounts of money (perhaps with the exception of P. Lille 29). In fact, attendance to funerals would have furthered the development and maintenance of the bonds of trust not only among the members, but also between the members and their families. Failure to comply with these norms of behaviour, therefore, would have carried a stigma with both the members and their families, and would have marked the individual as untrustworthy.42 41 42

See Monson 2006, 232 Chart 6. Venticinque 2010, 284–285.

chapter 9

The Funerary Priests and Their Social Context An analysis of the available documents shows that, in the main, mortuary priests tended to live in settlements located within temple precincts in the necropolis. Indeed, given the nature of their work, it seems natural that they should live near or within the necropolis. One exception is represented by the mortuary priests of Thebes, both choachytes and lector-priests, who owned residential property on the west bank at Djeme and at Thebes by the temenos walls of temples.

1

Place of Residence of the Funerary Priests

In the period between 330 and 170BC the Theban choachytes lived, or at least owned houses, in the northern district of Thebes within the quarter known as the ‘House of the Cow,’ while, some of them, also owned properties in Djeme and neighbouring areas.1 That they owned properties on both banks of the Nile is not surprising since their activity required them to spend some time in the necropolis of Djeme, while many of their clients would have been residents of Thebes. What is perhaps more surprising is the fact that from about 170 BC they all appear to have moved permanently to Djeme and the neighbouring areas, since they are no longer attested as owners of properties in documents dealing with houses located in the ‘House of the Cow.’ However, this seems to contrast with the evidence of P. Turin Gr. 2149 (126 BC), a petition presented to the Chrematistai by Apollonios, a cavalryman of Diospolis Magna in the Thebaid, against the choachytes. In the document Apollonios claims ownership of part of the land over which now stood a house jointly owned by the choachytes, specifying that they are residents of the same city (lines 11–12). On the other hand, from one of the documents relating to the Hermias’ lawsuit, P. Turin Gr. 2148 (119BC), we learn that the choachytes had their domicile in the Memnoneia as they were apparently not allowed to live in Thebes (lines 13– 16). In fact, it is possible that Apollonios simply assumed the choachytes were permanently living in the said house, while Hermias, who on more than one occasion was unable to get hold of them because they had taken refuge in

1 See Tables A.26 and A.27.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_011

172

chapter 9

Djeme, knew that their permanent residence was in the Memnoneia. The reasons for the choachytes’ move to Djeme are not immediately apparent from the documents in their archives. On the basis of P. Turin Gr. 2147 (117 BC), one of the documents relating to the disputed ownership of the house in Thebes between the choachytes and Hermias, a man from Omboi, it could be suggested that this was the result of an ordinance passed by the royal physician prescribing that, for reasons of public health, the taricheutai were no longer allowed to reside in Thebes. In the petition, the plaintiff accuses the choachytes of inhabiting this house ‘despite (the fact that) the former strategos Aineas had written to Ptolemaios, who was then epistates, to transfer these people to the Memnoneia, first, following the command of the king that Tatas, the royal physician, had reported; and with regard to the same people, the former strategos Diasthenes had written to have transferred’ (col. II lines 23–27). Nonetheless, the accusations were denied by the choachytes’ lawyer, Deinon, who having clarified that his clients were choachytes not taricheutai, and having explained what their occupation entails, stated ‘that even for the taricheutai there exists a decree through which they are protected against molestations, and that, even if it were the case, which it is not, that the taricheutai had been transferred, nobody has the right, not even Hermias, to take something from their ownership, and every one of them, being the owner of his own property, has the power to sell or to cede it to another party and to receive, (every one of) them, its price’ (col. VIII lines 22–29). Therefore, it is clear from the statement of Deinon that the royal ordinance cannot be taken as the cause for the move of the choachytes to the east bank since not even the taricheutai, to whom the decree applied, had been moved to the Memnoneia. It is possible that, since their activity required them to be mostly on the west bank, where they already owned properties, they decided to move there permanently. However, some decades later they began work on a joint property on the east bank, which suggests that perhaps a need was felt to have a base at Thebes as well. The house consisted of a number of rooms on two sides of a central vestibule, and a courtyard. The rooms were not very big and probably did not represent the owners’ main residence, although they could have been used as temporary accommodation during their stay in Thebes.2 The house was located by the river, whence the choachytes easily crossed to the other bank, and therefore represented an

2 P. Nat. Gr. 715 gives 15 m2 as the size of the room alone (Pestman 1993, 146), while another measured 11 m2 (Pestman 1993, 406). For information on the size of houses in the ‘House of the Cow’ at Thebes see Depauw (2000, 55 and note 141, 116 note f); for papyrological evidence see Husson (1983, 164–173).

the funerary priests and their social context

173

ideal location whence to carry out any business transactions.3 However, with the exception of two documents, the rest do not provide any information on how this house was used. In P. Turin gr. 2147 (117BC), the petition presented by Hermias against the choachytes, the plaintiff stressed that not only did the choachytes live in this house, but that ‘they have, in addition, deposited there some corpses, mindless of the fines pending on them, and despite the fact that the house is located near the dromos of Hera and (the dromos) of Demeter, the great goddesses to whom the deceased and those who take care of them are abominable’ (col. II lines 18–23). This is taken as evidence for the use of the Theban house as a storage place for mummies since ‘[t]his fact was not denied by the lawyer of the choachytes, and thus it is implicitly admitted (…). The small rooms certainly made excellent store-rooms, where mummies could be collected before being dispatched to the necropolis on the other bank of the Nile; and in the central court or vestibule there must have been space enough for the choachytes to perform some kind of operation with regard to the mummies.’4 The assumption that the central court or vestibule in the Theban house was used in such a way is based on P. Wien ÄS 3872 (121 BC), recording the apportionment to Horos of his share. The document specifies what his 1/7 share included: ‘two rooms (…) together with the 1/7 (of) the vestibule (…) together with the 1/7 of all the work performed within it, together with the 1/7 of everything which appertains to it’ (ry.t 2 (…) ḥnꜥ pꜣ 1/7 tꜣ ẖy.t (…) ḥnꜥ pꜣ 1/7 n pꜣ i҆r-bꜣk nb ẖn=s ḥnꜥ pꜣ 1/7 nt nb nt ṯ r-r=f ). The clause ḥnꜥ pꜣ 1/7 n pꜣ i҆r-bꜣk nb ẖn=s is understood to mean that “each of the choachytes [was] entitled to do his share ‘of all the work performed there’ (= in the central court),”5 elaborating that this must have referred to operations carried out on the mummies. Nonetheless, the text only indicates that some work was carried out within this space, which could refer to any number of activities, and entitles the contract’s beneficiary to its 1/7. Finally, additional proof for the choachytes’ use of the Theban house as a storage place for mummies, is sought for in a passage in P. Amherst 60a (125BC), a hn-agreement concerning the inheritance of Pechites, which reads ‘the house in Thebes and the revenues’ (pꜣ ꜥ.wy n nw.t i҆rm nꜣ šty.w). This, it is suggested, shows ‘[h]ow close the connection was between the Theban house

3 In P. Leiden 376 (127 BC) (Pestman 1993, 95–97), for example, the Theban house is given as the creditor’s address at which a loan of 4½ artabas of wheat and 200 copper debens is to be repaid. The loan is stipulated between the carrier of the milk-jar of Amun in Djeme Patemis, son of Esnakomneyus and Stoetis, and the woman Sachperis, daughter of Amenothes and Thathas, as the creditor. 4 Pestman 1993, 409. 5 Pestman 1993, 409.

174

chapter 9

and the mummies.’6 Unfortunately, Pestman did not elaborate further on what he thought was the place whence these mummies are supposed to have been collected, and exactly what operations it was that the choachytes would have performed on the mummies in the Theban house. This house has continued to be seen as a temporary storage place for ‘mummies awaiting burial,’ where, despite an existing ‘rule against storing mummies within the city boundaries, bodies continued to be deposited, since it would have been difficult for an outsider to determine between mummies stored and those about to be shipped.’7 However, this assumes that the embalming was performed within Thebes, or on its outskirts, by the choachytes, something for which there is no evidence. In addition, the surviving documents provide clear evidence for the existence of specific tombs in which mummies awaiting final burial were deposited, and for the choachytes’ use of some of the large tombs dating to both the Pharaonic and the Late periods, such as that of Nebwenenef at Dra Abu el-Naga and that of Harwa at Deir el-Bahari, for the temporary storage of mummies.8 One attractive possibility is that among the ‘implements’ stored in the Theban house were, for example, ceremonial boat(s) and biers that would be used for the transport of the deceased from the town to the necropolis for embalmment. During the period between 327–326 and 181BC some of the Theban lectorpriests lived, or at least owned houses, in the northern district of Thebes within the same quarter as the choachytes, the ‘House of the Cow.’9 As was the case with the choachytes, the lector-priests seem to have left Thebes, possibly moving to Djeme or neighbouring areas, around the beginning of the second century BC. This is indicated by the fact that they are no longer attested as owners of properties located in Thebes. Again, as with the choachytes, the reasons for this move are not evident from the surviving documents. On the basis of P. Turin Gr. 2147 (117BC), relating to the series of lawsuits concerning ownership of the choachytes’ Theban house mentioned above, it would appear that this was the result of an ordinance passed by the royal physician stipulating that, for reasons of public health, the taricheutai were to leave Thebes. The ordinance is mentioned by the plaintiff who claims ownership of the Theban house, although the accusations were denied by the choachytes’ lawyer who stated that not even the taricheutai had been transferred out of Thebes. Therefore, it is clear that the royal ordinance cannot be taken as the cause for the 6 7 8 9

Pestman 1993, 409. Vleeming 1995, 247. On this see further Chapter 12 § 4. See Tables A.28 and A.29. See also Depauw 2000, 31–54 §3.5, for a list of individuals resident in the ‘House of the Cow,’ six of which were lector-priests.

the funerary priests and their social context

175

move of the lector-priests. In addition, the claim is also contradicted by the fact that the lector-priest Amenothes, son of Horos and Tashebura, owned a ‘plot of land trodden upon (so as to form the) base’ of a house (wrḥ n ꜥ.wy nt ḥwy n snṱ.t) (line 9) in the southern district of Thebes as late as 125 BC (P. Turin 2146). In P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–116BC), a petition presented by Amenothes against his colleague Petenephotes ~ Lolous, it is stated that in year 51 the two had stipulated a contract in the office of the agoranomos for foreigners (scil. people non-residents of Thebes) in Diospolis Magna (lines 6–9). However, in P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116 BC), a petition presented by Petenephotes against Amenothes, the plaintiff is identified as a ‘paraschistes, one of those from Diospolis Magna’ (lines 3–4), thus suggesting that he lived in Thebes. This seems to contrast with the fact that the original contract had been stipulated in the office of the agoranomos for foreigners, which would imply that in 119 BC, the year the document was drawn up, the two were not residents of Thebes. With respect to Djeme, there is only limited evidence for lector-priests or embalmers living, or owning properties there. Some indirect evidence is found in P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC), the memorandum relating to the businesses of Amenothes and his colleague Petenephotes ~ Lolous. The relevant entries read: ‘The reckoning of the grain: what Amenothes gave in Thebes to Lolous’ (line 1), ‘The reckoning of the money: what came to me here in Djeme for the year 39’ (lines 11–12).10 From the wording of these accounts it would seem that Amenothes lived in Djeme and Petenephotes ~ Lolous in Thebes, which is consistent with the fact that the latter was identified in P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116 BC), mentioned above, as being resident in Diospolis Magna.11 On the other hand, some of the lector-priests working in the necropolis of Djeme owned properties at Pamenis and Hermonthis where it is possible that they also lived.12 Again, as was the case with the choachytes, the reasons for their apparent move out of Thebes, if indeed they did move out of the city, remain unclear, though they may, perhaps, be linked with the practice of their profession, which required their presence mostly in the necropolis. With respect to Memphis, surviving archaeological evidence indicates the presence of a number of communities living in different parts of the necropo-

10 11 12

For these accounts see Chapter 7 § 3. Thus also Pestman 1981, 50 note g. The house and courtyard sold in P. BM EA 10407 (224BC) (line 4), and possibly the lands sold in P. BM EA 10410 (224BC) although the relevant clause is in lacuna (line 5), are located ‘on the southern highland which is in the north-west quarter of Hermonthis in the enclosures,’ while the lands sold in P. BM EA 10380a (231BC) are described as being on the southern highland of Hermonthis (line 3).

176

chapter 9

lis and in the proximity of the important cult centres, either inside or outside their enclosure walls.13 At Saqqara remains of settlement areas have been found within the Anubieion temple complex and near the ancient Abusir lake in the proximity of the Main temple complex, while structures of a seemingly domestic character are found in and around the Sarapieion temple complex.14 Similarly, at Giza, remains of habitations were found near the valley temple of the pyramid of Khafre.15 However, although it is a possibility, it remains uncertain whether mortuary priests were present in all of them, or if these settlements were mostly inhabited by other categories of necropolis workers and priests. Beside the sacred animal temple complexes, such as the Sarapieion, the Bubastieion, the Anubieion and the Main temple complex or Iseum, a number of other localities are attested in the Memphite documents. These include the Temple of Osiris of Rutiset, the Temple of the peak of Anchtawy, and the Temple of Isis Lady of Anchtawy.16 The temple of Osiris of Rutiset (pr-wsi҆r-rꜣi҆s.t), is attested, among the documents analysed, only in P. Leiden I 380 a–b (64BC) where it is identified as the ‘Peak of Osiris of Rutiset (in) the districts of Memphis’ (thny n wsi҆r-rꜣ-i҆s.t nꜣ sḥn.w n mn-nfr) (line 6).17 The same place name is attested in P. Brooklyn 37.1839B (201BC), a cession deed concerning a house, outbuildings and plots of land which are said to be located in the ‘temple of Osiris of Rutiset, on the southern side of the dromos of Osiris of Rutiset’ (line 3), while on the western side the house is bordered by the ‘great road’ (line 4).18 The latter, it is suggested, may correspond to the axial wadi road that from the Abusir Lake led to the Sarapieion, which run almost parallel to the sacred way leading off from the Main temple complex.19 Similarly, in P. Cairo 30602 and P. Cairo 60603 (116–115 BC), two donation deeds in which party A is identified as ‘a merchant, a man from the temple of Osiris of Rutiset,’ the house and its outbuildings object of the transaction are also said to be located in the ‘temple of Osiris of Rutiset, on the southern side of the dromos of Osiris of Rutiset’ (lines 6–7).20 The fact that this location is identified as temple (pr) in the same way as the Anubieion and the Sarapieion were, the presence of a dro13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

See Davies and Smith 1997; Martin 1981; and Macramallah 1940. Jeffreys et al. 1988; Jeffreys et al. 1991, 7; Martin 1981 and Macramallah 1940. Hölscher 1912, 86–89. The location of this temple remains uncertain. For a discussion of the different conjectures concerning their location see Martin 2009, 49–50 §3–4. See further Martin 2009, 163 note xi, 47–48 § 1, and 51–52 §10. Reich 1933, 45, 108–117; Pestman et al. 1977a, 25–30; Pestman et al. 1977b, 29–35; Martin 2009, 48–49 § 2. Davies and Smith 1997, 116 and Fig. 3; Martin 2009, 48–49 §2. Spiegelberg 1908, 3–14; Martin 2009, 48–49.

the funerary priests and their social context

177

mos within it and the fact that it was mentioned alongside these other temple complexes, suggests that this too was a discrete complex, rather than a small temple inside one of the other sacred enclosures. Its identification as a ‘peak’ may indicate that it was located at the northern end of the Saqqara plateau, near Abusir.21 However, the presence of two large structures, possibly temples, was revealed north of the Sarapieion Way during the geophysical survey of the Saqqara necropolis.22 It may be possible that these are to be identified with (or part of) the temple of Osiris of Rutiset, which would then be located in the area between the Main temple complex, with the other surrounding catacombs, to the north and the Sarapieion Way to the south. The textual sources indicate that the Memphite mortuary priests lived in the necropolis, in and around the main temple complexes, while there is no evidence that they owned houses at Memphis itself, although this cannot be excluded given the paucity of documentation from the main city. In this they show parallels with the Hawara funerary attendants who clearly owned, and lived in, properties located in the necropolis settlement by the same name. There are also some parallels with Thebes where choachytes and lector-priests owned properties at Djeme on the west bank, within what once was Ramses III’s mortuary temple. That some of the Memphite mortuary priests lived in the necropolis, more specifically in the Anubieion, is suggested by P. Leiden I 378 (160BC) and P. Louvre E 3268 (73BC) in which they are identified as contracting parties and/or owners of neighbouring properties.23 Two houses, a cloth-place and storehouses, also located in the Anubieion on the south side of the Dromos of Anubis, are listed in another of the documents belonging in the archives of the Memphite god’s seal-bearers, P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC). Another house, this time belonging to a god’s seal-bearer, is mentioned in P. Sallier 3 (186–185 BC), a public protest document addressed by the god’s seal-bearer Pasis, son of Teos and Arsinoe, to the woman Haonchis daughter of Pais and Terous. According to Devauchelle, the house is located in the Asklepieion on the southern side of the dromos of Anubis.24 Nevertheless, it would seem more logical for the house to be located in the Anubieion if the dromos mentioned were that of Anubis, since the dromos of the Asklepieion was called ‘the dromos of Imouthes son of Ptah’ as indicated by P. Louvre E 2412 + P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305–304BC). However, it is possible that these mortuary priests did not see themselves as actually living in the necropolis, since the Anubieion, 21 22 23 24

Martin 2009, 48–49. Ian Mathieson† personal communication (2006). See Cannata 2007a, especially Figs. 8–10, and Cannata 2006. Devauchelle 1998b, 24–25.

178

chapter 9

for example, is said to lie in the districts of Memphis.25 In P. Leiden I 380a–b (64BC) some of the revenues are identified as pertaining to the ‘lector-priest šty-income (in) Memphis, (in) the districts (of) Memphis (and in) the Memphite Necropolis’ (šty ẖr-ḥb mn-nfr nꜣ sḥn.w mn-nfr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr) (line 4), while others are identified as ‘pertaining to the endowment which is above, in the Anubieion (and the) Peak of Osiris of Rutiset (in) the districts of Memphis’ (m-sꜣ pꜣ sꜥnḫ nt ḥry n pr-hn-i҆np thny n wsi҆r-rꜣ-i҆s.t nꜣ sḥn.w n mn-nfr) (line 6).26 Thus the evidence indicates that the districts of Memphis, and therefore the temple complexes, were distinct from the main city itself and the necropolis proper, although the latter would have been virtually on their doorstep. This seems, indeed, logical in view of the fact that there was a settlement inside this temple complex, which was, therefore, distinct from Memphis and any other community living within the latter’s districts.27 No clear evidence is available with regard to the place of residence of earlier generations of mortuary priests identified in contracts by the title of choachyte. In P. Louvre E 2412 + P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305–304BC) the properties transferred include a share of the ‘courtyard which is north of the house of the choachyte Amenothes son of P˹choilis˺ aforesaid (…) which is in (the) peak of Anch˹tawy˺ outside the (?) of the peak on the southern side of the dromos of Amenothes son of Ptah, the great god’ (i҆nḥ nt i҆r mḥṱ n pꜣ ꜥ.wy n pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw i҆y-m-ḥtp pꜣ-˹gyr˺ nt ḥry (…) nt ḥr thny ꜥnḫ-˹tꜣ.wy˺pꜣ bnr (?) thny ḥr pꜣ ꜥt rs ḫfṱ-ḥ i҆y-m-ḥtp sꜣ ptḥ pꜣ nṯr ꜥꜣ) (line 4).28 Therefore, it is possible that they too lived in the Temple complexes located in the Memphite necropolis. With respect to the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers, textual sources indicate that their main place of residence was Hawara itself, although they also owned properties in some of the other towns in which they held funerary endowments. Two different locations are given in the Demotic contracts with regard to the houses at Hawara: within the precinct of the temple of

25

26 27 28

That the Anubieion was considered part of the districts of Memphis, and therefore probably distinct from the necropolis, is indicated by P. Brooklyn 37.1796 (108BC) (line 13), P. Brooklyn 37.1802 (108 BC) (line 14), P. Brooklyn 37.1803 (108 BC) (line 11), P. Louvre E 3268 (73 BC) and P. BM EA 10075—P. Bodleian MS. Egypt. a. 41(P) (64BC) (line 1). See also Martin 2009, 163 note xi. This is also consistent with the evidence from Thebes which indicates that the Amun temple complex was considered in Greek as a kome, see Chapter 7 §2.4, and Cannata 2007a. Another example is possibly found in P. Brussels E 6033 (276–275BC) which mentions a structure whose neighbours to the south and to the north are the places (ꜥ.wy) of two different choachytes, while to the west there is a garden of Serapis the great god. The rest of the specification is in a lacuna and it is, therefore, not possible to determine whether the places mentioned are funerary structures or houses, or exactly where they were located.

the funerary priests and their social context

179

Sobek, and at Hawara itself. In P. O.I. 25262 (292 BC) the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Achomneuis, son of Peteneneteris, donates to his son Petosiris ⅔ of a share in a house located inside the precinct of the temple of Sobek, as well as ⅔ of a house at Hawara. In this instance, although Achomneuis also owned endowments in two other necropolises, he apparently did not own a house in these two other settlements. In P. Rendell (232BC) the son of Petosiris, Achomneuis the elder, donates to his brother Achomneuis the younger his half share in the house at Hawara, perhaps the same as that inherited by their father with the previous contract, as well as ‘the half of the path (…) the half of this courtyard (…) the half of the bench’ ([tꜣ pš] n tꜣ ẖry.t (…) tꜣ pš n pꜣy i҆nḥ (…) tꜣ pš (n) tꜣ nsy.t) (line 3), and ‘the half share of (the) places and the plots of land which are among them’ (tꜣ pš n (…) mꜣꜥ.w nꜣ wrḥ.w nt ẖn=w) (line 5).29 On the other hand, the seal-bearer and embalmer ˹Mare˺phaues, son of Nechsouchos, owned only a share in a house with courtyard at Hawara, although he also had funerary endowments to the south in the district of Herakleopolis and to the north in the area known as Persea.30 From P. BM EA 10603 (100 BC), a marriage document, we learn that the seal-bearer and embalmer Pemsais, son of Kelol, owned a share in a house, a ḫtm-enclosure and a courtyard at Hawara, as well as a share of a ruined house and a share of a plot of land in the Sobek town of Rataheny which was called Ptolemais Hormou. He also owned funerary endowments in further five settlements, the names of which are in a lacuna, but the text does not specify whether he also owned a house in these other localities as well. This was certainly the case of the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Harmais, son of Maresisukos, who owned a share of a house with courtyard, a share of a house in construction, and a share of some plots of land and appurtenances, all of which were located at Hawara, where he also held some funerary endowments. In addition, he also owned a share of a plot of land in the northern quarter of the village of Ptolemais Hormou, where he had some funerary endowments as well, and a share of another ruined house located in the southern quarter of the village of Rataheny.31 In discussing the letter recorded in S.B. I 5216 (1st century BC), Derda suggests that the statement of the chief physician Athenagoras that his deceased subordinate was: ἐν ταῖς παρ’ ὐμεῖν νεκρίαις (line 5) indicates that the stolistai lived and maybe even worked in the necropolis.32 A comparison between the Demotic contracts and the Greek subscriptions, indicates that 29 30 31 32

For the translation of ẖry.t as ‘path, lane’ see Hughes et al. 1997, 67 note F, and 68 note N for this translation of line 5. For these see P. BM EA 10606 (93 BC). For these see P. BM EA 10605 (98 BC), P. Hamburg 4 + 8 (92BC) and P. Hamburg 5+6 (92 BC). Derda 1991, 22.

180

chapter 9

‘the Labyrinth’ was a term that referred not only to the necropolis but also to the town of Hawara itself. This is, for example, indicated in P. O.I. 25255 (245 BC), a contract of sale of a share of a house said to be located at Hawara, stipulated between the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Pateris, son of Achomneuis, and the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Sobekhotep, son of Paues. However, in P. O.I. 25260 (245BC), the official acknowledgement in Greek of payment of the tax on the sale of the same house, the property is said to be located in the Labyrinth.33 This is due to the fact that the town of Hawara partly overlay the remains of the mortuary temple known as the Labyrinth. Thus the sources indicate that the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers lived in the town itself, rather than in and around the necropolis proper, as in the case of the Memphite mortuary priests living in the Anubieion. The limited amount of textual sources available from Middle Egypt does not permit to determine with certainty where the mortuary priests were customarily resident. In general, it seems that it varied from town to town, but this could be simply the result of accidents of preservation of the documents. The documents from Siut indicate that at least some of the lector-priests lived on the necropolis itself. This is shown by P. BM EA 10591 (170 BC), a deed of division between the lector-priests Totoes and Tuefhapi, his brother, which lists, among other properties, some plots of land belonging to a house now in ruins located in the necropolis of Siut ‘opposite the house which is built and roofed by me (and) in my own occupation’ (wbꜣ pꜣ ꜥ.wy nt kt ḥbs n-tr.t=y ẖr-[r]-ḥr=y ḥꜥ=y) (col. Bviii line 9). These two lector-priests owned another house, now in ruins too, with surrounding plots of land, and also located on the necropolis of Siut. The fact that no mention is made in these documents of any house in the town of Siut suggests that this family of lector-priests lived on the necropolis since, had they owned a house in Siut, one would expect it to have been listed with the other properties. The impression one gets from these documents is that there was a community living on the necropolis of Siut, perhaps comprising individuals at least in part linked with the funerary sphere. Unfortunately, none of the owners of the neighbouring properties are identified by a title, and thus it is not possible to determine further the character of this community. The aforementioned family of lector-priests also owned a house and lands in a locality known as Pachir. These properties are first listed in P. BM EA 10575 (181BC), the deed of donation drawn up by Petetumis for his son Tuefhapi, where they are described as ‘the house of Kemois and its lands which I purchased (…) from Totoes son of Eba the elder’ (pꜣ ꜥ.wy i҆rm nꜣy=f wrḥ.w r-i҆n=y

33

For these documents see Hughes et al. 1997, 38–48.

the funerary priests and their social context

181

ḏbꜣ ḥḏ (…) n-tr-t twt sꜣ ebꜣ pꜣ ꜥꜣ) (line 8). The same are then listed, a number of years later, in P. BM EA 10591 (170BC) where they are defined as ‘the house, which is called the house of Kemois, and the plot(s) of land which neighbour it (and) which are in the town of Pachir of Siut’ (pꜣ ꜥ.wy nt i҆w=w ḏ n=f pꜣ ꜥ.wy n gm-mys i҆rm nꜣ wrḥ nt pꜣy=f ḳty nt n tmy pꜣ-h̭ yr n si҆wt) (col. B viii lines 11–12). No mention is made of a necropolis attached to this settlement where these lector-priests may have been working, thus it is possible that they lived in this area when working on their land.34 With regard to the town of Shaiueshetep, the evidence is too limited to determine whether its lector-priests lived on the necropolis located at nearby Deir er-Rifeh, or in the town itself.35 Thompson, who first described the contents of P. UC 32223 (2nd cent. BC), suggested that the individuals listed may have been connected with a temple dedicated to the local god, Khnum, perhaps located at Shaiueshetep itself.36 On the other hand, the later editors of this document suggested the civil administration as its source because of the presence of laymen amongst the individuals listed.37 Alternatively, it is also possible that the document originated from a temple community, possibly similar to that attested at the Anubieion in the Memphite necropolis, that would perhaps include lay groups and that could be considered in Greek as a kome. However, even if this was the case, the question of where the lector-priests of Shaiueshetep resided remains open since the location of this conjectured temple is not known. Finally, P. BM EA 10575 (181 BC) attests to the presence of some of the Siut lector-priests working there, since it lists a share of ‘the work as lector priest of Shaiueshetep and its (surrounding) areas’ (tꜣ wp.t n ẖr-ḥb š-i҆w=s-ḥtp i҆rm nꜣy=f mꜣꜥ.w) (line 3), thus also indicating that the latter’s necropolis served a larger catchment area than just the town itself. On the other hand, at least one of the lector-priests of Hutnesu probably resided in the town itself as suggested by the fact that he owned a house there. This is shown by P. Mallawi 602/9 (100BC), a deed of not hindering with regard to repairs or building works to be carried out in a house, plot of land and cloth-place,38 stipulated between the lector priest (and) god’s seal-bearer, Djehorpahapi, son of Petosiris and Tetosiris, and his like-titled colleague Harpaesis,

34 35

36 37 38

For the landed properties of the Siut lector-priests see Chapter 7 §5. That the extensive burial grounds around modern Deir er-Rifeh may be the location of the necropolis of Shaiueshetep is also suggested by the mention of this town on a fragmentary contract (P. UC 55875, 153 BC) also part of the cartonnage material recovered there. Thompson 1907, 33 item E1. Clarysse and Thompson 2006a, 542. Contra to the translation given by El-Aguizy (1989, 95 note i) who accepts the reading of the word ḥ.t-nwṱ as ‘mill’ proposed by Reymond. See Cannata 2006, 193–194 note p.

182

chapter 9

son of Horos and Tetosiris(?). The house, plot of land and outbuilding are said to be located in ‘the eastern district of Hutnesu’ (tꜣ i҆wy i҆ꜣbṱ ḥt-nsw) (line 6).

2

The Funerary Priests and Their Families

It has been commented that, on the basis of the low state of the door-keepers in the temple hierarchy, the choachytes of the Ptolemaic Period were less respected than in earlier times.39 Such a statement is probably based on the assumption that the choachytes of the Ptolemaic period were forced to work also as door-keepers in order to supplement their income.40 However, whatever their position within the temple hierarchy, it is doubtful whether this would have had a bearing on the way they were perceived amongst the rest of the population, particularly in view of the necessary and important service they performed for the deceased and their families. Nevertheless, it is also true that, as discussed above, their archives provide very little evidence for interaction with individuals outside their professional circle. By contrast, the Theban embalmers appear to have had a greater participation in community life, as shown by P. BM EA 10523 (295–294) and P. Turin 2143a (124 BC), both of which concern loans (money and wheat respectively) made by a lector-priest to another party. On the other hand, P. Turin 2133 (118 BC) shows a lector-priest renting a plot of land from a clerucos, while, together with the choachytes, they formed a council before whom public agreements, such as P. Amherst 62 f + g (121BC), were made. These findings are, in part, consistent with the evidence for the Siut lector-priests whose documents also indicate a greater interaction with the local community. This is shown by the statement made in P. BM EA 10591 (170BC) by the lector-priest Tuefhapi who explains that he leased their fields to some individuals who, on the basis of their names, appear to have been from a Greek ethnic background. In addition, the same individual mentions in the petition recorded in P. BM EA 10599 (169 BC), a cultivator who was apparently in his employ and who, it could be surmised, was probably not a mortuary priest himself. The evidence with respect to the possible social interaction of the mortuary priests from Middle Egypt is certainly very limited in extent, space and time. However, the fact that some is at all available, despite the small number of documents on which to base such an analysis, may suggest that the interaction between the local community and their mortuary priests was indeed greater

39 40

Pestman 1992, xix. See Chapter 1 § 4.

the funerary priests and their social context

183

than that attested at Memphis and Hawara, where the surviving documentation, limited though it is, is still more abundant than that from Middle Egypt. In fact, there is no evidence for any economic transactions between the Memphite god’s seal-bearers and the rest of the community. Similarly, the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers appear to have interacted either within their professional group or, at most, with other temples’ personnel. Geneaological data from legal deeds, and particularly marriage agreements between spouses, show that the funerary workers around the country were a very close endogamous group. In fact, the marriage documents preserved in the archives of the Theban choachytes clearly show that a majority of their offspring married the sons and daughters of their colleagues.41 Moreover, the data from the choachytes’ legal deeds, which allows to reconstruct part of the settlement area in which they lived, shows that they often married the offspring of their next-door neighbours.42 According to Muhs’ analysis of marriage and inheritance patterns, economic factors were probably at the root of the mortuary priests’ endogamy. In particular, the custom was probably influenced by the frequent practice of patrilocal residence, which saw the sons taking over the household and the daughters marrying out of such an household, as well as the division among both male and female offspring through radical partable inheritance. Once the daughters inherited and married out of the household the latter would see its assets diminished. However, by marrying within the same professional group, the mortuary priests’ total assets would not progressively diminish, rather they would be redistributed since both spouses inherited shares of their family’s funerary revenues, thus compensating for the loss of revenues received by the daughters.43 The same level of endogamy is attested among the funerary priests of Memphis, Hawara and Siut, although, given the limited number of documents surviving from these areas, the possibility that some of them did marry outside their professional circle cannot be discounted. A comparison between these documents and those from the Theban choachytes shows a difference in terms of marriage documents’ typology. According to the clauses they include, marriage documents are classed as Type A, B and C.44 Type A (sẖ n sḥm.t), was a unilateral deed in which the husband states that he has given his wife a gift, or consideration (šp n sḥm.t), and under-

41 42 43 44

For a list of these documents see Table A.30. Or within one of two properties (Muhs 2005a, 187–188). Muhs 2005a, 188–189. Following Pestman’s (1961) classification of marriage deeds.

184

chapter 9

takes to provide her with an annual maintenance.45 In Type B the woman presents a gift to the husband (ḥḏ n i҆r ḥm.t) who undertakes to use this sum to provide her with maintenance for the duration of the marriage at specified daily, monthly, and annual rates.46 In Type C deed, just as in type B, the woman gives a sum of money to the husband who undertakes to provide her with maintenance at specific rates. However, two deeds are drawn up in this case, one in which the receipt of such a gift is acknowledged (sẖ ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ) and another (sẖ n sꜥnḫ) in which the husband’s obligations for the maintenance of the wife are set out.47 The choice between the three types of agreements rested with the couple and may have depended on the presence of children from different marriages, or on the wish to leave matters unsettled until a later stage.48 By contrast to marriage documents of the theban choachytes, most of which were of Type A, those belonging to the mortuary priests of Memphis,49

45 46

47

48

49

The document would have become effective once given to the woman who, by accepting it, acknowledged its exactness (Pestman 1961, 32). Smith 1995, 49. In case of dissolution of the marriage the man would have had to return the sum received, or, if unable to repay the entire amount at once, he would have had to continue paying maintenance until payment was settled in full. In this case the wife would still be in possession of the marriage deed, thus proving that the man has not fulfilled his obligations. The document would be returned only after the complete payment of the sum (Pestman 1961, 36–37). Smith 1995, 48–49. With the sẖ ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ, drawn up either within the contract or as a separate deed, the husband sells his entire property to the wife. However, the latter is only used as security, and is not a complete transaction, since no title of ownership has been transferred for which a sẖ n wy would be needed. The latter would only be drawn up after divorce should the husband fail to fulfil his obligations, that is, the repayment in full of the sum received from his wife (Pestman 1961, 39–40). Indeed, a main difference between type B and type C deeds appears to be the insertion, in the latter, of a clause regulating the inheritance of property by the children of the couple. The regulations may concern the exclusion of children who have been, or may be, born outside the marriage with the woman for whom the deed has been drawn up. Similarly, they may include stipulations regarding the division of the couple’s assets between offspring from different marriages. The fact that these types of clauses are not included in type B deeds may suggest that all children born to the man would have had an equal right to a share (Pestman 1961, 48–49). It is also possible that such a choice was, to some extent, influenced by economical factors such as the cost of drawing up two documents in place of one in the case of Type C marriage documents. Of the five surviving marriage documents, only one gives the profession of the woman’s father (P. Leiden I 373a), in two of them the relevant section is in lacuna (P. Leiden I 381 and P. BM EA 10229), one of them is unpublished (P. Louvre E 3265+P. Louvre E 2419), while the last one omits it (P. Bibl. Nat. 224–225), although the father-in-law’s profession, as in other instances, is known from other sources. Another interesting aspect highlighted by these data is the fact that at Memphis choachytes and lector-priests clearly intermarried.

the funerary priests and their social context

185

Hawara50 and Siut,51 were all of type C and some of Type B.52 Although accidents of preservation can, to some extent, account for this phenomenon, the evidence suggests that the latter types of marriage documents were overall more common in Lower and Middle Egypt than they were in the south of the country.53 A possible factor underlying the choice of document type, and the consequent predominance of type C and B marriage documents, may be linked to a desire to limit the fractioning of immovable property, and particularly of houses.54 In fact, the same risk of fragmentation that affected the mortuary priests’ funerary revenues, would also interest immovable property such as houses. Portion of houses could, naturally, be acquired through purchase, or by buying out other heirs, as well as by marrying the son or daughter of the next-door neighbour. As with funerary revenues, real estate would move from one household to another, but would still remain within the same professional group.55 Another way of dealing with this problem among the Hawara mortuary priests was to limit the number of heirs, and hence of fractions in which houses would be divided, by giving daughters a dowry rather than a share in the house. This may be linked to the predominance of Type C marriage documents at Hawara, in which the wife gives the husband a substantial sum of money, who undertakes to provide her with an annual allowance for the rest of her life.56

50

51

52 53 54 55 56

At present there are twelve known marriage documents for the Hawara mortuary priests, of which ten were stipulated between members of the god’s seal-bearers and embalmers’ families. The only exceptions are represented by P. O.I. 25256 (243 BC) in which the woman Sheti, daughter of Pashuty and Haonchis, marries the fisherman of the lake and servant of Sobek Semtheus, son of Pashemetere and Onchasis; and by P. BM EA 10605 (98 BC) in which the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Harmais, son of Maresisukos and Taesis, marries a woman, Terpos (daughter of Pelaias and Tasos), whose father’s profession is not given. Divorce seem to have been a fairly common occurrence since there are three divorce documents, P. Hamburg 7 (99 BC) [Hawara XIII], P. Cairo 50131 (90–88BC) [Hawara XVIII] and P. Hamburg 3 (67 BC) [Hawara XXIII], in a total of six marriage documents preserved in the archive published by Lüddeckens (1998). There are only two marriage documents surviving for the Siut mortuary priests, P. BM EA 10594 and 10593 (172BC), stipulated between the lector-priest Pachysis and Teteimouthes, daughter of the lector-priest Petetumis. It is certainly true that the evidence is far too limited to be considered representative, and it is therefore possible that this was by no means the rule among the mortuary priests of Middle Egypt, but it remains a strong possibility given that it was the custom among all other funerary workers countrywide. See Tables A.31–33. This is based on the charts produced by Pestman (1961, Charts A, B, C). Muhs 2008, 189. Muhs 2005a, 189, 192. Muhs 2008, 188–190.

186

chapter 9

Thus, as Muhs convincingly argues, endogamy was one of several measures that these mortuary priests actively took to prevent, or counteract, the increasing fragmentation of their movable and immovable property through radical partable inheritance, which would have resulted in the impractical fractioning of assets.57 57

Muhs 2005a, 193–194.

part 2 Death, Mummification and Burial

∵

chapter 10

Death Life [is] an incurable disease which always ends fatally.1

∵ The same view was held by the Egyptians too, although, in their perception, this was a state of illness from which the deceased could be treated. This is shown by a passage in P. BM EA 10507 (Late Ptolemaic—Early Roman Period) in which the deceased states: ‘I am well by virtue of my remedies, and recovered from my illness’ (nfr=y n nꜣy=y pẖr.w ꜥn=y n pꜣy=y šny)2 col. II line 14

while in the embalming ritual (P. Boulaq 3, P. Louvre 5158, P. Durham 1983.11 + P. St. Petersburg 18128 [Roman Period]) the body is said to be ‘filled with medicament(s)’ (mḥ m pẖr.t) (Chapter x + VI (x + 3.14)).3 The process of mummification itself is referred to using the euphemism ‘to give medicaments’ (i҆r pẖr), an expression used to refer not only to prescriptions administered by doctors to cure the sick, but also to the mummification materials employed by the embalmers to treat the deceased in the ‘place of embalming’ (ꜥ.wy (n) i҆r pẖr).4 Thus in P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270 BC) party A, an embalmer, states: ‘I am to complete him (scil. the deceased) (with) medicament(s)’ (mtw=y mnḳ=f pẖr); a line 9, b lines 7–8

1 2 3 4

Parkes et al. 1998, 7. Smith 1987, 37. Töpfer 2015, 337–338. Smith 1987, 69–70, line 14 note e. See also Pestman 1981, 50–51 note h; de Cenival 1972, 128 note 3,1; and Spiegelberg 1928.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_012

190

chapter 10

while in P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC), a personal account of two lector-priests, Amenothes, one of the two associates, writes: ‘the reckoning of the wine (…) what we took (…) on the day of giving medications: 2½ hin’ (pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ i҆rp.w (…) r-ṯ=n (…) pꜣ hrw n i҆r pẖr r-i҆r=n ḥn 2½).5 lines 3–5

The same expression is found in P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79 BC), which also uses this indirect expression to refer to the mummification process: ‘he (scil. the embalmer) will complete him (scil. the deceased) with medicaments’ (mtw=f mnḳ=f n pẖr.w). line 2

An actual amphora (CCLXXXII) once containing these medicaments was found in the embalmers’ cache in the shaft tomb of Menekhibnekau at Abusir, and is inscribed in hieratic with the phrase ‘beer medicament, (the) first’ (pẖr.t ḥnḳ.t mḥ-1).6 The noun ‘medicament’ (pẖr.t) occurs also on some potsherds, such as the hieratic docket from a rim sherd of a burnished bowl which reads ‘the medicament for/of embalming’ (tꜣ pẖr.t wty).7 Death itself was often referred to indirectly using such terms as ‘to be far’ (wꜣi҆), ‘to go forth’ (pri҆), ‘to land’ (mni҆, smꜣ tꜣ), ‘to leave’ (ḫꜣꜥ), or ‘to go away’ (ḫpi҆).8 Indeed, textual sources show that the Egyptians had a seemingly ambivalent attitude to death, mummification and the afterlife. On the one hand, funerary literature presents mummification as the means to restoring the physical faculties to the dead and to resurrection, with the deceased even being assured a place among the gods in the afterlife.9 On the other, death can be described as the ‘evil day,’10 while a number of sources present a view of the netherworld as

5

6 7 8 9 10

For a different view see Pestman (1981, 50–51 note h) who understands this as a reference to lector-priests working also as doctors for the sick. It is true that a link between doctors (swnw) and embalmers may have existed in earlier periods of Egyptian history, although it is not clear whether the two professions overlapped, or if the two professionals collaborated on some particular cases. On this see further Nunn 1996, 43–44. Landgráfová and Janák 2011, 176. Martin et al. 1988, 9. A Demotic example was found among the inscribed potsherds from the Saqqara Animal Necropois, for which see Ray 2013, 291–292, O. Saqqara 298. Zandee 1960. For an example from the end of the Ptolemaic Period using the verb mni҆ see Stela BM EA 147 (Reymond 1981, 165–177). See Smith 2005, 103, and the examples in col. II, 16, 29–30, 34–35. Glossar 278.

death

191

a place of darkness and solitude.11 Even the process of mummification could have a negative aspect as a result of the bandages enveloping the deceased in a dark gloom and obstructing any freedom of movement.12 Yet the seemingly opposing views are simply two different perspectives, one from the point of view of this world, in which the wrappings prevent movement, and the other from that of the afterlife, in which they represent not only a protective cocoon on the journey to the underworld, but they also signify the fine clothing that the dead are promised in funerary texts.13 Death was perceived as a transitory stage, and the associated rituals as the necessary prerequisites for the resurrection of the deceased in the afterlife. The entire process from death to burial was a highly ritualised one, and was divided into a number of discrete stages, which, overall, appear to have remained remarkably constant throughout the course of history, even if varying in detail during different periods.14 Using representations from the 18th dynasty, particularly those from the tomb of Rekhmire, Hays identifies seven main funerary ritual complexes: 1. Journey and arrival at the Necropolis ‘landing’ (dw/rdjt r tꜣ, smꜣ tꜣ) ‘disembarking’ (prt ḥr tꜣ) 2. Procession to the Embalming Place ‘approaching the god’s booth’ (spr r sḥ-nṯr) three-day purification in the i҆bw-tent or in the god’s booth (sḥ-nṯr) 3. Embalming and Mummification mummification in the wꜥbt or pr-nfr ‘wrapping’ (wt) 4. Post-Embalming Rituals vigils and rituals 5. Procession to the Tomb ‘funeral’ ( jrt ḳrst nfrt) 6. Opening of the Mouth ritual ‘opening of the mouth’ (wpt rꜣ) 7. Mortuary Service ‘voice offering’ (prt-ḫrw)15

However, even if never part of the funerary decorative scheme, there is another stage that precedes these seven ritual complexes, that is, the moment of death itself, and any accompanying rite performed while the deceased was still in

11 12 13 14 15

See, for example, Smith 2009, texts 1, 12 and 13; Smith 2005, col. II, 32; Reymond 1981, 165– 177 (Stela BM EA 147). Smith 2005, 103. Smith 2005, Introduction (section 10), and 103 with further references. On the Egyptians’ ambivalent attitude to death see also Stadler 2016. Assmann 2005, chapter 13. Adapted from Hays 2010, 2–3. For a more detailed list see Theis 2011, 40.

192

chapter 10

the home. These may have included the public notification of death by family members, even through wailing and lamentations as suggested by Herodotus’ account (II.85), and the donning of mourning attire.16 The following sections are devoted to the analysis of these stages using, above all, the extant documentary sources from the Ptolemaic Period, but also drawing on other sources both cross-temporally and cross-culturally.

1

The Mourning Period

Probably already from the Old Kingdom the Egyptians possessed an elaborate mythology of mourning and a complex set of funerary and mortuary liturgy and rituals, which endured for most of their civilization. The mythological archetypal for the dead and the bereaved family was represented by the myth of Isis and Osiris. The dead were associated with the god Osiris, which represented a model for the attainment of the afterlife, while the family was associated with Isis, which embodied the model for the mourning and revivification of the departed. In Western societies three particular states, and their related sets of emotions, are associated with a death: bereavement, grief and mourning. Bereavement denotes the state of loss following the death of a loved one, while Grief is the emotional reaction to such a loss, and Mourning the social expression of grief-actions and grief-rituals that reflect one’s culture and/or social group.17 In Egypt, death marked the beginning of a formal mourning period, which lasted until the day of burial,18 although no direct evidence survives on the 16

17

18

Watson (1988), for example identifies nine main elements in Chinese funerary rituals, of which the first two include the public notification of death, through wailing and the posting of banners, and the wearing of mourning attire. Schut et al. n.d. http://www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief.html accessed 28/01/2020. However, something one needs to bear in mind is that while in western culture a distinction exists between grief and mourning, the same is not true of others. In fact, there are languages which do not have the equivalent of our term grief (for example Japanese), and death may elicit instinctual responses which are different from those that are termed grief in western culture. For example, while in the west death generates a sense of loss, separation and even trauma, in other cultures it generates a sense of pollution or powerlessness (Klass n.d. http://www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief‑and‑Mourning‑in‑Cross ‑Cultural‑Perspective.html accessed 28/01/2020). See for example the Stela of Annos (Stela Cairo 31099 (73BC)) in which it is specified that ‘they made for him a great and fine mummification and burial according to that which comes in writing from the 6th Epiphi to the end of the mourning, he having entered his house of rest’ (i҆r=w w(sic) n=f ꜥꜣ.t nfr.t r-ḥ pꜣ nt i҆y n sẖ ṯ i҆bt 3 šmw sw 8 šꜥ–tw n hrw i҆w=w ty

193

death

actual mourning period, its extent and what it entailed for the bereaved family. The extant documentary evidence provides hardly any information on this stage of the death rites, and consists mainly of the terminology used to refer to this particular moment. Indeed, the Egyptians possessed a rich lexicography of grief and mourning, although, being culturally embedded, their exact meaning, and the difference between them, if any, is at times somewhat elusive. The terms attested in the documents analysed are the verb ꜣrb, literally ‘to enclose, seclude,’ and the compound noun ꜥḳ nhpy or ‘mourning rations.’19 The first term is found in a number of religious associations’ regulations from the Fayum, which establish that, should one of their members pass away, the other members will mourn (ꜣrb) him. Thus in P. Prague (137BC) the members agree that: ‘As for the man among us who dies (…) we will also mourn him (…) we will take 10 mourning rations [˹to his house˺]’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆w=f r mwt (…) i҆w=n r ꜣrb r=f ꜥn (…) i҆w=n ṯ ꜥḳ nhpy 10 [˹r pꜣy=f ꜥ.wy˺]?).20 lines 24–25

However, a range of other terms existed in the Egyptian vocabulary to refer to mourning, including hrw n ḥbstn and hrw ḥb,21 both with the meaning of ‘day of mourning;’ ḥbs tp ‘mourning,’ or more literally ‘covering the head;’22 ꜣḳm ‘to mourn, to be sad,’23 ks ‘to mourn;’24 nhp also meaning ‘to mourn,’ whence the expression šp n PN nhp ‘to mourn for someone;’25 snm m-sꜣ [PN or suffix] ‘to mourn [someone];’26 and šnyny ‘to mourn.’27 The first two expressions are self-explanatory in that it is clear that they refer to an occurrence, the day of mourning, which perhaps could be also understood as referring to the beginning of the mourning period. On the other hand the verbs ꜣḳm, ks, nhp, šnyny, as well as the expressions šp n PN nhp and snm m-sꜣ [PN or suffix], probably

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

ḥtp=f r pꜣy=f ꜥ.wy-ḥtp) (line 9) (Griffith 1900, 29–30 note 25; Rowe 1938, 177; and Shore and Smith 1960, 291). CDD letter Ꜣ, 43, and letter ꜥ, 146; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 428 §61. Variants of this clause are also found in P. Lille 29 (223BC), P. Cairo 30606 (157BC), P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC), and P. Cairo 30605 (145 BC). CDD letter Ḥ, 80; Smith et al. 2011. CDD letter Ḥ, 94; Smith 1993, 60 note b to line 13. CDD letter Ꜣ, 89–90. CDD letter K, 37. The verb nhp survives in Coptic as ⲛⲉϩⲡⲉ, CDD letter N, 98. CDD letter S, 35. CDD letter Š, 173; Smith 2005, 134, note b to line 1.

194

chapter 10

denoted the actual ‘action’ as well as the resulting ‘state’ of (being in) mourning. If this interpretation is correct, then it is possible to understand ḥbs tp and ꜣrb as perhaps referring to the set of cultural behaviours which are expected from the bereaved during the mourning period. One of the mourning practices encountered among many cultures is, for example, the use of special clothing and/or armbands of culturally defined colours, while the period itself can be marked by specific practices, such as the withdrawal of the bereaved from social events.28 If the same was true among the Egyptians, then it may be possible to understand ḥbs tp29 as denoting the practice of wearing mourning clothing, and the verb ꜣrb as referring to a custom observed by the bereaved family— that of not leaving the house for the entire mourning period.30 Therefore, the statement by the association’s members that they would ‘enclose themselves for him (scil. the deceased),’ probably means that they would seclude themselves from society like the bereaved family, thus indicating that they shared in the same level of sorrow and grief as the deceased’s family. One way in which grief appears to have been expressed is through the practice of fasting, attested, for example, among some of the worshippers of the Apis Bull. In particular, there appears to have been a fast for the first four days following death, and a partial fasting for the remaining seventy days of the embalmment.31 An echo of this is probably found in the writings of Diodorus Siculus, who reports that the bereaved did not consume any ‘food worth mentioning’ (91.1). Linked to this custom may be the practice of bringing food for the bereaved family.32 This tradition was, for example, attested amongst the Copts,33 and in some villages in Southern Italy even today, where the family should not be concerned with food preparations, which is instead brought in by relatives, friends and neighbours.34 Indeed, P. Prague (137BC) and P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) indicate that the association’s members would take to the house of the deceased mourning rations (ꜥḳ nhpy).35 These appear to be distinct from 28 29 30

31 32

33 34 35

Rando, www.deathreference.com/Me‑Nu/Mourning.html, accessed 28/01/2020. CDD letter Ṯ, 168; letter Ḥ, 94; see also below. According to Giamberardini (1965, 39), the custom was also prevalent among the Copts at least during the last century. Indeed, the custom is still observed in Sicily, at least in the smaller villages where people all know each other and public opinion matters. Vercoutter 1962, 42, 125. Food may have been brought to the family following the period of fasting, or for consumption by those family members who were not fasting (for example children and the elderly). At least until the 1950s and 60s when Giamberardini (1965) conducted his study in Egypt. On the Coptic custom see Giamberardini 1965, 40–41. Although in P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) these are identified simply as ‘rations’ (mtw=n ty ṯ=w

195

death

the contributions that the members agree to make towards the ḳs and the prnfr of the deceased,36 and it is, therefore, possible that the mourning rations were intended to be consumed by the deceased’s family. Linked to this, may be also the practice of comforting the relatives of a deceased member by offering them a drink. Thus in P. Prague (137BC) the members stipulate: ‘(…) we will take the son of the said man, or his father, his brother, his brother-in-law to drink with him to appease his heart’ ((…) i҆w=n ṯ pꜣ šr n pꜣ rmṯ rn=f gꜣ pꜣy=f i҆ṱ pꜣy=f sn pꜣy=f šm r swr i҆rm=f r ty nfr ḥꜣ.ṱ=f ).37 line 25

Similarly, in P. Berlin P. 3115 (Text A 109BC), the Theban choachytes agree that: ‘they will assign to his (scil. the deceased) people two days of drinking (while?) in the house of rejuvenation (pr-nfr), within the association, (while for) the burial one day (will be) assigned within the association of the children of Pechytes’ (mtw=w šp ḏr.t nꜣy=f rmṯ.w hrw 2 n swr n pr-nfr ẖn [tꜣ] 6-nt tꜣ ḳs wꜥ hrw n šp ẖn tꜣ 6-nt nꜣ ẖrṱ.w n pꜣ-ḫṱ).38 Text A col. 3 lines 5–7

The same regulations also apply to the death of one of the members’ close kin. A representative example is again found in P. Prague (137 BC), where the members stipulate that: ‘As for the man among us whose father or mother, brother, sister son, daughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law or wife dies (…) we will all mourn with him and (…) we will take for him ten mourning rations, and we will take him to drink to appease his heart’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆.i҆r pꜣy=f i҆ṱ gꜣ tꜣy=f mw.t pꜣy=f sn tꜣy=f sn.t pꜣy=f šr tꜣy=f šr.t pꜣy=f šm tꜣy=f šm.t tꜣy=f ḥm.t r mwt

36 37 38

n=f ꜥḳ 8), its meaning appears to be the same as in P. Prague (137BC) on the basis of the parallels between the two clauses. For which see below Chapter 11 § 3 and Chapter 13 § 4. Variants of this clause are also found in P. Lille 29 (223BC), P. Cairo 30606 (157BC), P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC), P. Cairo 30605 (145 BC) and P. Prague (137BC). De Cenival (1972, 189) understood this to mean that two days of drinking will be offered to the family of the deceased inside (my italics) the embalming place. However, because of the presence of the adverbial phrase ẖn tꜣ 6-nt, I have understood the passage as meaning that two days of drinking will be offered to the deceased’s family while he is in the house of rejuvenation and one following the burial itself (see also chapter 2). I am not certain of how to interpret the reference to ‘the children of Pechytes.’

196

chapter 10

(…) i҆w=n ꜣrb r-r=f tr=n i҆w=n ty pḥ=f tꜣ ḫꜣs.t i҆w=n ṯ n=f ꜥḳ nhpy 10 i҆w=n ṯ pꜣ rmṯ rn=f r swr i҆rm=f r ty nfr ḥꜣ.ṱ=f ).39 lines 23–24

As with the family of a deceased member, mourning rations were to be taken to the latter in case of death of one of his close relatives.40 In addition, in P. Lille 29 (223BC) the members stipulate: ‘As for the man among us whose father, whose mother, whose brother, whose sister, whose father-in-law, whose mother-in-law will die (…) we will receive himself into the “house,” and we will cause that he drinks and we will cause that his heart is pleased’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆.i҆r pꜣy=f i҆ṱ tꜣy=f mw.t pꜣy=f sn tꜣy=f sn.t pꜣy=f šm tꜣy=f šm.t r mwt (…) i҆w=n šp ḥꜥ=f r pꜣ ꜥ.wy i҆w=n ty swr=f i҆w=n ty nḏm ḥꜣ.ṱ=f ). lines 19–20

Three of the surviving regulations also include a clause concerning the possibility of one of the members loosing a son at a very young age. In P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) and P. Cairo 31179 (147BC) the relevant clause establishes that: ‘As for the man among us whose son dies at very young age we will drink beer with him and we will appease his heart’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆.i҆r pꜣy=f šr r mwt i҆w=f sbk n ms m-šs i҆w=n swr ḥnḳ i҆rm=f i҆w=n ty nfr ḥꜣ.ṱ=f ). lines 16–17 and 19 respectively

In P. Cairo 30605 (145BC), mention is made of guests who may be allowed to join in, since the members decreed: ‘As for the man among us whose son will die, he being of a very young age, we will drink beer with him and we will appease his heart together

39 40

Variants of this clause are found in P. Lille 29 (223BC), P. Cairo 30606 (157BC), P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC), P. Cairo 30605 (145 BC), and P. Cairo 30619 (137BC). (Mourning) rations are also mentioned in P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) in the same context. It is possible that these ‘mourning rations’ were actually monetary contributions towards the cost of mummification and burial, but the fact that they are specifically identified as relating to mourning would suggest that this is the phase to which they relate. However, if they were monetary contributions, I cannot see what expenses they would cover in relation to mourning. See also below Chapter 11 § 3 and Chapter 13 §4.

197

death

with the rest of the people whom those of the “house” agree that they will drink beer with him’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆.i҆r pꜣy=f šr r mwt i҆w=f sbk n ms mšs i҆w=n swr ḥnḳ i҆rm=f mtw=n ty nfr ḥꜣ.ṱ=f ḥnꜥ pꜣ sp rmṯ nt i҆.i҆r nꜣy=w pꜣ ꜥ.wy mt r-r=w r swr ḥnḳ i҆rm=f ). lines 16–17

As mentioned above, another aspect of mourning, common to many cultures, is the tradition of wearing particular mourning clothing. Lexicographical terms again provide some evidence for the existence of this practice among the Egyptians. The term used to denote ‘mourning clothing or linen’ is pk.t (var. pgy),41 also employed in the following expressions: ḥbs.w n pky ‘clothing of mourning linen,’42 (var. ḥbs pgy ‘mourning clothes’), ẖ pk.t ‘wearing mourning clothes,’ and ṯ pk.t ‘put on mourning clothes.’43 Another associated item is the pyr-band, long, narrow strips of cloth used for the wrapping of mummies.44 The same band could also be wound around the neck as a sign of mourning, and worn, for example, by the mourners of the deceased Apis, as well as its embalmers.45 In P. Leiden T 32 (V, 20–21) an interesting distinction is made between the men-pꜥ.t, wearing a band around the head, and the men-rḫy.t, with a pyrband around the neck,46 which, it is suggested, may have marked a difference between individuals simply accompanying the funeral cortege and those more closely involved with a person’s embalmment.47 Consequently, it is possible that the expression ḥbs tp ‘covering the head,’ mentioned above, indicated this practice of wearing a particular item of clothing worn over the head as a mark of mourning.48

41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48

CDD letter P, 172. CDD letter Ḥ, 96. CDD letter P, 172. Collombert 2006, 235 and note 4. See LRL 35, 13–15 ‘you shall send some cloth (…) and they shall be made into pyr-bandages with which to wrap up men’ (pyr.w r wt rmṯ i҆m=w) (Wente 1967, 52–53). Vercoutter 1962, 44–46 (See Collombert 2006, for corrections to the reading proposed by the editor); P. Wien ÄS 3873 rº I, 2–3 (Vos 1993, 43, 72–73). Herbin 1994, 61, 208. Collombert 2006, 236–237. Similar practices were, for example, attested in Britain and in Southern Italy during the last century. In addition, Islamic women are forbidden from wearing decorative clothing or jewelry for the entire mourning period, which lasts for four months and ten days (Rando n.d. www.deathreference.com/Me‑Nu/Mourning.html, accessed 28/01/2020). It cannot be excluded, of course, that the expression refers to the practice of placing mud over the head as a sign of mourning.

198

chapter 10

In addition, all societies have specific rules on how grief should be shown and handled—in fact, it could be said that ‘societies police grief.’49 Even within the same culture there may be totally opposing rules on how one should express grief emotionally. A cross-cultural comparative project between Egypt and Bali, both Islamic cultures, revealed, for example, that while in Bali women were strongly discouraged from crying, in Egypt they would be considered abnormal if they did not express their grief with incapacitating weeping.50 Some information on the Egyptians’ negotiations of grief and ‘practices’ can be gathered from the often quoted passage in Herodotus’ Histories in which it is recounted that: [w]henever any household has lost a man who is of any regard amongst them, the whole number of women of that house forthwith plaster over their heads or even their faces with mud. Then leaving the corpse within the house they go themselves to and fro about the city and beat themselves, with their garments bound up by a girdle and their breasts exposed, and with them go all the women who are related to the dead man, and on the other side the men beat themselves, they too having their garments bound up by a girdle; and when they have done this, they then convey the body to the embalming. Herodotus II.85

While Diodorus Siculus relates that: [W]henever anyone dies among them, all his relatives and friends, plastering their heads with mud, roam about the city lamenting, until the body receives burial. Nay more, during that time they indulge in neither baths, nor wine, nor in any other food worth mentioning, nor do they put on bright clothing. Diodorus 91.1

Such expressions of grief are but rarely attested among Egyptian textual material, although the account shares clear parallels with the funerary imagery found on tomb walls and funerary papyri of earlier periods of Egyptian history. A number of these show women, some bare breasted, crying and praying, hands raised, or placing mud over their heads, or simply resting a hand over 49 50

Klass n.d. www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief‑and‑Mourning‑in‑Cross‑Cultural‑Per spective.html, accessed 28/01/2020. Klass n.d. www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief‑and‑Mourning‑in‑Cross‑Cultural‑Per spective.html, accessed 28/01/2020.

death

199

the head, in a clear gesture of grief and sorrow.51 Additional evidence is found in one of the Letters to the Dead, P. Leiden 371 (19th dynasty), in which a husband, writing to his dead wife, relates how he wept in the street with the rest of the household. Considering the strength and endurance of Egyptian religious and funerary beliefs, one may be justified in assuming that Ptolemaic mourning practices were not substantially different from those of earlier periods. It is, therefore, possible that such dramatic expressions of grief were still common at this period. Confirmation for this is provided by the second Setne story that describes the funeral procession of a rich man who was being carried to the cemetery amidst very loud wailing.52 In addition, similar displays of intense grief are also attested from representations of the prothesis on Greek vases from different periods. Here women are shown lamenting the dead, tearing their hair, beating their head and breasts.53 The term grief has its origins in pre-modern French, where it was used with a range of meanings including: ‘a suffering, a distress, a wretchedness, a pain, a burden, a wound,’ and could also refer to injustices perpetrated against a person by others.54 A range of terms referring to grief is also present in the Egyptian vocabulary, including: ḥꜣ.t ‘grief, care,’55 i҆ḥm ‘grief, mourning,’56 nḫy ‘lamentation, mourning,’57 snm ‘grief, sorrow,’58 šnn ‘sorrow, grief,’59 and tyṱ ‘to cry out, mourn, jubilate.’60 In particular, the last term may be quite informative in that it may give an indication of the practice of expressing grief in a loud manner, crying out in sorrow for the loss of a loved one. On the other hand, indirect 51

52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Lüddeckens 1943, 15–188. Depictions of mourners are, for example, found in the tomb of Mereruka at Saqqara (VI Dynasty), Pahery at el-Kab (XVIII Dynasty), Ramose (TT55) (XVIII Dynasty) and Ameneminet (TT277) (XIX Dynasty) at Thebes, Khonsuemheb (Ramesside period), Khonsu (Gourna) (XIX Dynasty), Roy (Dra Abu el-Naga) (XVIII Dynasty); on a relief (ca. 1330BC) from Saqqara now in the Louvre, on a limestone painted relief (381– 343 BC) now in the Brooklyn Museum (Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 1998.98); on an ostracon (n. 5886) now in the Manchester Museum; on the coffin of Amenemipet (BM EA 22941) (XXI Dynasty), and on Ani’s Book of the Dead (EA 10470/3) (XIX Dynasty) both now in the British Museum. Lichtheim 1980, 139. However, given that the story is based in the reign of Ramses II, it could, conceivably, reflect New Kingdom funerary customs (I thank Brill’s anonymous reviewer for making this point). Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 144; Garland 2001, 28–29. Kastenbaum, n.d. www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief.html, accessed 28/01/2020. CDD letter Ḥ, 43. CDD letter I҆, 206. CDD letter N, 113. CDD letter S, 268. CDD letter Š, 173. CDD letter T, 102. The verb survives into Coptic as ⲧⲟⲉⲓⲧ.

200

chapter 10

evidence for the practice of not washing as a sign of grief is perhaps provided by P. Oxyrhynchus III 528 (second century AD), in which a man writes to his sister (and probably wife) who has gone away, wishing for her return. The man writes ‘I assure you that ever since you left me I have been in mourning, weeping by night and lamenting by day. Since we bathed together on Phaophi 12, I never bathed nor anointed myself until Athyr 12,’61 thus indirectly indicating that such a practice was still current during the Roman Period. One last aspect that needs to be addressed is the question of what happened with respect to the deceased during this initial stage of the mourning period. The sources clearly indicate that mummification did not start until after the fourth day after death,62 but no indication is given on whether the body was kept at home during this time, or if it was moved to the necropolis immediately following death. In Greece, during the classical period, a deceased person would be bathed, anointed with oil, and dressed, by the women of the household, and then displayed on a bed, couch or kline. This custom was known as prothesis and took place at the home of the deceased (although in earlier times perhaps it took place in the courtyard in front of the house) on the day after death. Its purpose was to confirm death and to allow friends and family to pay their last respects to the deceased. On the third day, before dawn, the deceased would be taken in a funeral cortege to the necropolis for internment.63 With respect to Egypt, some indirect evidence is provided by Herodotus’ assertion that high status women would not be taken to the embalmers until the third or fourth day after death (Herodotus II.89), which may mean that the body was kept at home until then. Certainly the custom of keeping the dead at home for a varying period of time following death is one shared by many cultures, and it is entirely possible that this was also the case among the Egyptians.64

2

Arranging for the Services of Funerary Priests

Presumably as soon as death occurred the family would need to take steps to arrange for the mummification and burial of the deceased, although there is no extant direct information as to how this process was organised. As discussed in Part 1, in Upper Egypt the funerary priests involved in the entire process of 61 62 63 64

Grenfell and Hunt 1903, 263–265. On this topic see Chapter 11 § 3 below. Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 144. However, Solonian laws later prescribed that the prothesis was to last for only a day (Garland 2001, 26). See further Chapter 11 § 3.

201

death

mummification and burial were the choachytes and the lector-priests (including embalmers and doctors). The same was also the case in Lower and Middle Egypt until the apparent reorganisation of the necropolises, which meant the adoption of the new professional title, along the same lines as at Hawara where the God’s seal-bearers performed the functions of both choachytes and lectorpriests since at least the Late Period. In those areas where choachytal and embalming services were performed by separate groups of mortuary priests, the family was free to choose any choachyte, whose services they could hire for the organisation of the entire process. In some instances one could already be in charge of the mortuary cult of other deceased family members. However, the family did not have a saying on who would be embalming their dead, since the lector-priests divided among themselves the various areas over which they had jurisdiction. Consequently, the family had to employ the services of the embalmer in whose jurisdiction death had occurred. In some cases, the family made arrangements directly with the relevant embalmer, while in other instances it was perhaps their choachyte who would approach the embalmer. On the other hand, where the choachytal and the embalming services were performed by the same individuals, the family would probably have no choice at all, since the God’s seal-bearers also divided among themselves the areas over which they had control. Given that these individuals performed both services, it seems logical to assume that the same person would be acting as both choachyte and embalmer for the family. However, it is also true that families appear to have been free to decide whether to make use of the services provided by these mortuary priests or not, with the less wealthy citizens perhaps opting to prepare the corpse themselves and then take it to the necropolis for burial.65

3

Transport of the Deceased to the Necropolis

Whether on the day of death, or at the end of the four-day period, the dead person would have to be carried to the necropolis for mummification and then burial. The documentary sources are again silent on this aspect, but the decorative programme of a number of Pharaonic tombs shows that the deceased was carried from the house to the necropolis inside a coffin.66 That this was still the 65 66

On this see further Chapter 18. Although, apparently, this was not the coffin in which s/he would be buried (Theis 2011, 43). A similar practice is attested for the medieval period, whereby individuals who could not afford their own, would borrow a parish coffin. Here the deceased lay during the time

202

chapter 10

custom in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, is indicated by the second Setne story, in which are described the funeral procession of a rich man and that of a poor one—while the former was being carried to the cemetery inside a coffin, the latter was simply wrapped in a mat.67 Once the body reached the river bank, it would have to be taken across the Nile to the west bank. This is the first of the funerary ritual stages, of which individual episodes were depicted in a number of tombs of the Pharaonic Period. In the captions to these reliefs the boat is, in some cases, identified as the neshmet barque, a papyrus boat with high prow and stern, fashioned in the shape of papyrus heads or blossoms. The coffin is depicted on a lion-bier under a baldachin, with statues of Isis and Nephthys at the head and foot. The deceased is accompanied by mourners. The boat is shown as being towed by a normal boat with both sails and oars. The use of a ceremonial boat, as well as the accompanying inscriptions, indicate that the river crossing was also perceived as a ritual riverine procession.68 The documentary sources provide no clear information on the procedures relating to the transport of the body to the place of mummification, but it seems natural to assume that a river crossing would be involved in all those cases in which the necropolis was located on a different bank from that of the city. Among the Theban documents, a reference to the cost of transport is found in P. Florence 3667 (111BC) recording the breakdown of the expenses undertaken by the offspring of the choachyte Horos, at his death, with regard to his mummification and burial. In column II the text reads: ‘20 silver (deben) for the cost concerning the transport’ (ḥḏ 20 n ꜣsy ẖr pꜣ fꜣy) (line 20). Unfortunately part of the previous line is in a lacuna, while the entry in line 21 does not refer to the transport, and, therefore, it is not possible to determine who in this case would have been in charge of this operation. In O. Cairo 12470–12478 (253–252 BC), a burial tax receipt, the official in charge states: ‘(…) you have given me ½ kite for the tax of the overseer of the necropolis (in the) name of ˹Haronnophris˺ son of Amenothes whom you have brought to the necropolis’ ((…) tw=k n=y ḳt ½ n ḥḏ mr ḫꜣs.t (n) rn ˹ḥr-wnnfr˺ sꜣ i҆mn-ḥtp r-i҆n=k r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t). lines 2–3

67 68

s/he spent in the church until the end of the funeral, and then the body would be laid in the grave simply wrapped in a shroud. Lichtheim 1980, 139. Assmann 2005, 304–305.

203

death

This could suggest that, in some instances, the choachytes would be responsible for the transport of the deceased to the necropolis. However, the document records the payment of the tax due on the actual burial of the deceased, following its embalmment, thus the phrase ‘whom you have brought to the necropolis’ is probably to be understood as meaning ‘whom you have brought in order to (be buried in) the necropolis.’ Consequently, such a statement would have no relevance to the question of who first brought the dead person to the necropolis in order to be mummified. In P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270 BC), an agreement between an embalmer and the father of a deceased person concerning the provision of some embalming materials, party A states: ‘I am to complete him (with) medicament(s) (and) I am to place it in the care (lit. hand) of your choachyte `by the 72nd day´’ (mtw=y mnḳ=f pẖr mtw=y tw=s n-ḏr.t pꜣy=k wꜣḥ-mw `r hn pꜣ hrw mḥ-72´). A lines 8–10; B lines 7–10

Thus the document indicates that, following the mummification of the body, the choachyte was responsible for its removal to the tomb as was the case with the previous document. On the basis of P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–116 BC), a petition of the paraschistes Amenothes son of Horos to the epistates Ptolemaios against his colleague Petenephotes ~ Lolous son of Petenephotes, it could be suggested that, at least in some cases, the transport was undertaken by the lector-priests themselves. The plaintiff accuses the defendant stating that the latter ‘contravening the clauses of the contract, is taking away, together with his wife, some deceased (persons)’ which belong to him and requests that he be forced to respect the clauses of their previous agreement (lines 19–20). However, the sentence could also be understood to mean that the couple was taking charge of deceased who were not part of their liturgies, rather than literally as referring to the collection and transport of the dead to the place of embalming. Yet, P. BM EA 10528 (291BC), a tax-farming agreement, possibly suggests that one of the duties of the overseer of the necropolis was that of supervising the transport of the deceased to the cemetery. In this document, Pelaias, acting in the capacity of overseer of the necropolis, declares: ‘I am to go to the district of Thebes with the men whom you will give to me to go out with me’ (mtw=y šm r pꜣ tš nw.t i҆rm nꜣ rmṯ.w nt i҆w=tn r ty.t st n=y r i҆y r bnr i҆rm=y) (line 4), although no mention is made of any other attendant who may also have been in charge of this operation.69 69

As discussed in Part 1, at Thebes, during the Ptolemaic Period, the overseer of the necropolis was drawn from among the lector-priests.

204

chapter 10

From the Memphite area, there are only two documents mentioning, directly or indirectly, the transport of the deceased to the necropolis: P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78BC) and P. Saqqara 71/2 DP 136 (350–275BC). In the first document party A renounces claim over the place-of-revenue of the oil-and-wine merchant Pais son of Amenneus and his household and agrees that: ‘the person among them who will die and will be brought [to us] to a ḳꜣtomb, ḥ.t-tomb (or any) place [of ours] in the necropolis of Memphis, we will give him to you within four days, without us having caused you [to give] money (or) property for him’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=w nt i҆w=f r mwt mtw=w i҆n.ṱ=f [n=n] r ḳꜣ ḥ.t mꜣꜥ [mtw=n] ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr i҆w=n r ti҆.t s n=tn ẖn hrw 4 i҆w bn-pw=n ti҆.t [ti҆]=tn ḥḏ nkt r.r=f ). lines 9–10

The second document, P. Saqqara 71/2 DP 136 (350–275BC), is a brief letter sent by a man, Petetumis, seemingly to a subordinate of his, Teos son of Petesis, concerning the transport of some deceased from the Quarter of the Greeks presumably to the necropolis. The sender states: ‘See to the gods of the people (of) the Quarter of the Greeks who are ˹brought˺ up’ (my nw r nꜣ nṯr.w n nꜣ rmṯ.w (n) tꜣ i҆wy.(t) n nꜣ wꜣny nt i҆w=w ˹i҆n˺ r-ḥry). lines 2–5

Neither of the individuals is identified by a title and the exact meaning of the document is not entirely clear, but it suggests the existence of people who would be responsible for the transport of the deceased to the necropolis. Among the Fayum documents, the clauses included in the regulations of religious associations, and some petitions concerning members of these associations, indicate that the members were expected to arrange for the transport of the deceased to the necropolis and to accompany him there. In P. Lille 29 (223BC), for example, the members agree that: ‘(as for) the man among us (scil. a member) who will die in the aforesaid settlement within the aforesaid days, we will cause him to reach the necropolis’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆w=f mwt n pꜣ tmy nt ḥry r nꜣ sw.w nt ḥry i҆w=n ty pḥ=f r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t), lines 17–18

205

death

while, ‘(as for) the man among us who will die outside the aforesaid settlement,—(within) two miles to the south, the north, the east (and) the west—we will ˹equip˺ five men (from) within the “house” (and) we will cause that they go after him [to cause that he reaches the necropolis]’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆w=f mwt pꜣ bnr n pꜣ tmy—ꜣr 2 r pꜣ rs pꜣ mḥṱ pꜣ i҆ꜣbṱ pꜣ i҆mnṱ— i҆w=n ˹sbt˺ rmṯ s 5 ẖn pꜣ ꜥ.wy i҆w=n ty šm=w m-sꜣ=f [r ty pḥ=f r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t]).70 line 20

Similar agreements can be inferred from P. εντευξεισ 20 (221 BC), from Magdola, where a certain Crateia presents a petition against Philippos, a priest of a religious association (thiase), and Dionysios, president of that thiase, stating that at the death of his brother, Apollodotos, member of the same association as the accused, did not attend his funeral nor did they accompany the deceased to his burial, as prescribed by the association’s regulations, and thus requesting that they pay an indemnity. In addition, a further two documents, also recording the regulations of religious associations, prescribe that the same conduct be reserved for the deceased relatives of one the members. In P. Prague (137 BC) the members establish: ‘as for the man among us whose father or whose mother, whose brother, whose sister, whose son, whose daughter, whose father-in-law, whose mother-in-law, (or) whose wife will die, we will cause that he reaches the necropolis’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆.i҆r pꜣy=f i҆ṱ gꜣ tꜣy=f mw.t pꜣy=f sn tꜣy=f sn.t pꜣy=f šr tꜣy=f šr.t pꜣy=f šm tꜣy=f šm.t tꜣy=f ḥm.t r mwt i҆w=n ty pḥ=f tꜣ ḫꜣs.t).71 line 23

In particular, in the last document the members specify: ‘[we] will receive, ˹(in) person,˺ the group of his family (lit. body of his people) who will cause that ⟨he⟩ reaches ˹it˺ (scil. the necropolis) together with the group from his village’ (i҆w[=n] šp ẖ.t ˹ḥꜥ˺ nꜣy=f rmṯ.w nt i҆w=w ty pḥ=⟨ f ⟩ ˹r-r=s˺ i҆rm tꜣ ẖ.t n pꜣy=f tmy) (line 8). Here, ‘to cause the deceased to reach the necropolis’ probably refers to the arrangements they would make to have the body transported to the necropolis, while the family and the other members would also accompany the deceased there in a funeral cortege. 70 71

Variants of these clauses are also found in P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) (lines 13–15), in P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC) (lines 15–16), and in P. Cairo 30605 (145BC) (lines 13–14). The same clause is also found in P. Cairo 30619 (137 BC) (lines 7–8).

206

chapter 10

P. Carlsberg 37a and b (220BC) indicate a certain involvement by the deceased’s family in arranging for his transport to the necropolis. In the first document the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Achomneuis son of Pasis, declares: ‘I am to call before Tesenouphis the god (…) on account of the burial of Pasis son of Pnepheros (…) who is dead (…) (and) whom you had brought to Hawara’ (mtw=y ꜥš ḥꜣ.t tš-nfr (…) ẖr tꜣ ḳs.t n p-si҆y sꜣ pꜣ-nfr-ḥr (…) nt mwṱ (…) r-ty=t i҆n=w s r ḥ.t-wr) (line 5). While in the second, P. Carlsberg 37b (220 BC), the withdrawal of complaint of misconduct relating to the previous document, suggests a more involved role by the deceased’s wife, since she states: ‘I will bring him to you for (the burial in) the ḥ.t-tomb of (…) my father’ (i҆w=y i҆n.ṱ=f n=k r tꜣ ḥ.t (…) n pꜣy=y i҆ṱ) (lines 5–6).72 The fact that in the documents concerning the regulations of religious associations the clauses referring to the transport of a dead member to the necropolis employ a construction with the causative verb ty (i҆w=n ty pḥ=f tꜣ ḫꜣs.t), as is also the case in P. Carlsberg 37a (220BC) (r-ty=t i҆n=w s r ḥ.t-wr), may suggest that the family, or the associations’ members, would be requesting the services of somebody to transport the deceased to the necropolis. Whether this person was one of the mortuary priests, or another individual who specialised in such a task, is not clear from the extant documentation. From Middle Egypt there is very little evidence regarding the arrangements for the transport of the deceased to the necropolis. Some indirect indication is provided by P. Mallawi 602/10 (111 BC), P. Rylands 65 (57BC), and P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC). P. Mallawi 602/10 (111BC) reports a statement made by the plaintiff Petenoubis, son of Horos, who explained that ‘Thotmais son of Petosiris died while I was out of town, and in addition Horos son of Pasis, the lector priest, took him to his […]’ (ḏḥwṱ-m-ḥb sꜣ pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r mwt i҆w=y r bnr pꜣ tmy r wꜣḥ ḥr sꜣ pa-sy pꜣ ẖr-ḥb ṯ.ṱ=f r pꜣy=f […]) (line 7). Unfortunately, the end of the line is too damaged and it is not possible to determine where the deceased was taken, but it seems probable that, whatever the place, it was in order to perform his mummification and thus claim the compensation due for this service. Similarly, in P. Rylands 65 (57BC) a number of necrotaphoi accuse the defendants of having breached the agreements they all voluntarily made as to the division of liturgies, carrying away a number of corpses. Although not clearly stated, it seems likely that the plaintiff referred to the taking charge of bodies to be embalmed, and thus to the misappropriation of liturgies, or payment, due for their services, since compensation would only be received for services rendered. Finally, in P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC) it is stated that one of the duties of 72

However, given that, in this particular instance, the funerary attendant in charge was being accused of misconduct by the wife of the deceased, it is possible that this is not an entirely representative case.

death

207

the lector-priests with respect to the deceased was to ‘take him to the ḥ.t-tomb’ (ṯ.ṱ=f r tꜣ ḥ.t) (line 2), where, presumably, the mummification would be carried out.73 Taken together the evidence available does not give clear information on how, if at all, the transport of the deceased to the necropolis was organised, and whether there were particular arrangements and customs to be respected. In the Theban area, P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–116BC), P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270 BC), and to some extent P. BM EA 10528 (291BC) and O. Cairo 12470–12478 (253–252 BC), suggest that the lector-priests were, in some cases, in charge of the transport of the body from the house to the place of embalming in the necropolis,74 while the choachytes were in charge of the transfer of the mummified body from there to its final resting place. At Memphis, P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78 BC) indicates that the body of a deceased person could be taken to the necropolis by a person other than the mortuary priest(s) responsible for him/her, presumably by the relatives or somebody employed by them, who may not know exactly to which group of god’s seal-bearers it should be entrusted. This in turn could be taken to mean that there were individuals specifically responsible for the removal of the deceased to the necropolis, although without further evidence this can only be a surmise. On the other hand, the documents from the Fayum suggest that the family, or the associations’ members, would be requesting the services of somebody to transport the deceased to the necropolis, while in Middle Egypt mortuary priests would be taking charge of the person at his/her death and thus they may also have been responsible for the transport of the deceased to the necropolis. Therefore, with the possible exception of P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78BC), the remaining documentation, limited as it is, indicates that there did not exist a separate group of funerary attendants specifically responsible for the transport of deceased individuals from their place of residence to the necropolis. In fact, it is very likely that the transport did not entail more than the hire of a boatman who would tow the ceremonial boat, on which the deceased lay, to the other bank, if the family could afford such elaborateness. In this case, a specialised boat might be hired for the purpose as indicated by P. Hamburg 74 (Roman Period) and PSI 967 (Roman Period) which mention a πλοῖον νεκρηγόν and a πλοῖον τῶν νεκρῶν respectively.75 A symbolic depiction of this river jour-

73

74 75

Abd el-Aal 2003. The document is virtually unpublished since hardly any information on its contents is given by the author, while the photographs of the papyrus (one of which is missing) are published at very low resolution. On the subject of the place of mummification, see Chapter 11 § 1. On this see further Chapter 11 § 1. Bataille 1952, 240; Marzagora 1929, 120; Drexhage 1994, 172.

208

chapter 10

ney is perhaps found on the coffin of Mutirdis, which shows Osiris sitting on the Neshmet boat with a goddess on either side of him.76 In the vast majority of cases, however, the dead would simply be rowed across without much pomp or ceremony. This is confirmed by the shipping agreement recorded on O. Strassburg 189 (Roman Period) stipulated between a ferryman and the son of a deceased man. The ferryman states ‘you have paid me the fare for Imouthes, your father. I am to transport his embalmer and his choachyte’ (mḥ=k ṱ=(y) n tꜣ ḥm.t n i҆y-m-ḥtp pꜣy=k i҆ṱ mtw=y ṯ-yr n pꜣy=f swnw pꜣy=f wꜣḥ-mw) (lines 3– 6).77 Once on the other bank, the deceased, laying on a more or less elaborate bier, depending again on the family’s financial means, would be transported by family and friends to the embalming place. Wealthy individuals may have been able to hire the services of porters for this task, as perhaps suggested by the funerary expenses recorded in P. Fayum 103,3 (3rd century AD).78 Representations on tomb walls and papyri from the Pharaonic period indicate that the funeral cortege would proceed amidst much mourning and lamentation. Again, depending on the socio-economic status of the deceased’s family, professional mourners could be hired for this purpose.79 76 77 78 79

The coffin is in the Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum in Hildesheim. The depiction is not found on the coffin of Djebastetiuefankh which is in many respects nearly identical. Vinson 1998, 176–177. Grenfell et al. 1900, 250. Derda 1991, 33.

chapter 11

Mummification Mummification, hence the preservation of the body, was an essential element of Egyptian funerary practices and beliefs, since it was to the preserved body that the ka, or double, would return to partake in the offerings presented to the dead. In fact, as noted above, death was perceived as a state of illness from which the deceased could be cured by means of the mummification materials used by the embalmers during the embalming process.1 However, this was not merely a technical process, it also had a most important ritualistic aspect that sought to re-enact the stages of the first mummification: that of the deceased Osiris. On a religious level the entire process was to last 70 days, a period of time linked with the Sothic cycle and the phases of the Dog Star Sirius. In practice, however, the time spent in the mummification place was not standardised, and variations in length are attested throughout Egyptian history, including the Ptolemaic Period.2

1

The Embalming Place: the pr-nfr and the wꜥb.t

The places traditionally associated with the mummification are the pr-nfr (pernefer), or place of rejuvenation,3 and the wꜥb.t (wabet), or (place of ) purification. The evidence from the Pharaonic Period indicates that in theory these were two separate areas where different stages of the mummification would take place. The wꜥb.t was the place where the evisceration and possibly the natron treatment would be performed, and the pr-nfr the area where the corpse would be rejuvenated by means of rituals.4 In practice it appears that either term could be used to denote the place of embalming of the deceased, and in particular that the use of the term wꜥb.t predates that of the noun pr-nfr. In the Middle Kingdom the wꜥb.t was part of the pr-nfr, while from the New Kingdom onward both terms are used.5 That during the Ptolemaic and Roman Period the two terms may not have been synonymous is perhaps suggested by a passage in 1 2 3 4 5

In Egyptian identified by the noun pẖr or medicaments. See further Chapter 10 above. See further Chapter 11 § 3 below. For this translation of the noun pr-nfr see Donohue 1978, 148. Shore 1992, 232. Frandsen 1992, 56.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_013

210

chapter 11

P. Cairo 30646 (Ptolemaic Period), The Story of Setne Khamwas (Setne I), in which it is said that the deceased would be granted an entry into the pr-nfr ‘of 16 day(s)’ or ‘in 16 day(s)’ (n hrw 16).6 Consequently, if this really was the case, there must have been another structure (or another area therein) where the dead person would have stayed from the day of death until s/he was taken to this structure. The existence of separate places is also suggested by P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Late Ptolemaic), which indicates that the Apis Bull at his death was first taken to the ‘house of purification’ (ḥ.t ḳbḥ.t), where it underwent a ritual washing, perhaps until the fourth day from decease, and then it was moved to the ‘house of embalming’ (wꜥb.t) where it stayed until the 68th day. Within the latter building there were, according to the text, three separate areas: a ‘great hall’ (wsḫ.t ꜥꜣ.t), a ‘slaughter room’ (ꜥ.t nmꜥj.t) and a ‘šst-room’7 (ššt).8 In this case it is clear that all of the main operations were carried out in the ‘house of embalming’ since here was also the ‘slaughter room’ where the evisceration took place. However, as noted above, the noun wꜥb.t does not occur in the documentary sources analysed with the same meaning as in P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Late Ptolemaic).9 In this respect it should be noted that the term pr-nfr is not attested in P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Late Ptolemaic) and that, in fact, the two terms do not appear to have been used within the same document to refer to embalming structures,10 or even separate areas within them, which may suggest that, at least during the Ptolemaic and Roman Period, they were used as synonyms when referring to a physical place.11 The two nouns are but rarely mentioned in the documentary sources of the Ptolemaic Period where their exact function is never made explicit. In fact, the available evidence poses more questions than it solves. In the first place it is necessary to determine whether the two terms denote a physical place, a stage within the mummification process, or both. If they designate a structure, are they synonymous and do they, therefore, refer to the same type of building? Or do they denote separate buildings where different stages of the mummification

6 7 8 9 10 11

On this passage see further Chapter 11 § 3. Apparently a place for sacred animals within a temple. For the correction to the editor’s reading see CDD Š, 218 with further references. Vos 1993, 30–34. Another term used in P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Late Ptolemaic) to refer to the embalming place is the pr-wr (Vos 1993, 162–164). Although both terms are found in P. Florence 3667 (111 BC), they appear to refer to a process rather than to a structure. Note, however, that they are both used on the coffin of Petesemtheus (Cairo JE 31566) where they are used as synonyms (Shore 1992, 232). The texts on the coffin were published by Rowe 1938, 188–189 text XX, 191 text XXV.

mummification

211

process would take place, or even different parts of the same structure? Where was this structure located? On the other hand, if the terms are used to denote a specific stage in the mummification process, do they refer to the same, or to different phases? Does one follow the other? And if so, how long did each of these stages last and what did it entail? The term pr-nfr occurs in eight of the documents analysed: P. Florence 7127 (264BC), P. Florence 3667 (111BC), P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC), P. Turin 2132 (98BC), P. Lille 29 (223BC), P. Cairo 30606 (157BC), P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC), P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC) and in P. Cairo 50127 (1st cent. BC). On the other hand, the term wꜥb.t is attested only in P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270 BC) and P. Florence 3667 (111BC). In P. Florence 7127 (264BC), apparently an agreement concerning revenues from mummification work, a group of embalmers take an oath promising that, should they be proved culpable of any misconduct, or if they fail to report to party B within ‘day four (of the) (or: four day(s) of the) pr-nfr’ (hrw 4 pr-nfr) during a prescribed period of three months, they will be liable to pay a fine.12 In P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) a section of the list of burial expenses for a deceased is labelled ‘the list of the properties that (came) out for his pr-nfr (in) his places of ˹embalming˺’ (pꜣ wn nꜣ nkt.w r bnr wbꜣ pꜣy=f pr-nfr nꜣy=f ꜥ.wy.w ˹ḳs.(t)˺) (col. III line 2).13 In P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC) the choachytes agree to assign to the family of a deceased member ‘two days of drinking of (the) pr-nfr within the association’ (hrw 2 n swr n pr-nfr ẖn [tꜣ] 6-nt) (Text A line 6); and ‘not to give ḥbs-cloth (or) i҆nw-cloth to a man who stands in (the) ˹pr-nfr,˺ (nor) a bed, (or) a cover’14 (r tm ty.t ḥbs i҆nw n rmṯ i҆w=f ꜥḥꜥ r ˹pr-nfr˺ glk prḫ) (Text D lines 2–3). In P. Lille 29 (223BC) the members of the association agree to pay for ‘the price of his (scil. the deceased member) ˹pr-nfr˺]: 50 rations’ (pꜣ swn pꜣ[y=f ˹pr-nfr˺] ꜥḳ 50) (line 18). In P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) the members stipulate: ‘we will give

12 13

14

See also Chapter 11 § 3 below. It is not clear how the clause pr-nfr nꜣy=f ꜥ.wy.w ˹ḳs.(t)˺ (col. 3 line 2) should be understood since this could be translated as ‘the pr-nfr (in) his places of embalming’ with the preposition n omitted, or as ‘the pr-nfr (and) his places of embalming’ with an omitted conjunction. In the first instance, the noun pr-nfr would apparently refer to a stage within the embalming process, while in the second it could denote one of the places where the deceased was taken during various stages of his/her mummification. On the basis of word order I have understood the pr-nfr to have been, in this specific example, a process rather than a place. De Cenival (1972, 128 note 2,3), I believe correctly, suggests that ‘the man who stands in the pr-nfr’ probably refers to a person working there, rather than to a deceased individual, given that the preceding clause stipulates that no cloth will be given for a dead man and would therefore be a repetition.

212

chapter 11

for him (the) dues [which those of the association will agree to give for his ḳs.t and his pr-nfr]’ (mtw=n ty n=f pꜣ ḥḏ ꜥl [nt i҆.i҆r nꜣy=w pꜣ ꜥ.wy mt r=f ty st wbꜣ tꜣy=f ḳs.t ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f pr-nfr]) (line 15). In P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC) the members agree: ‘we will give for him our personal(?) dues which those of the house will agree to give for his ḳs.t and his pr-nfr’ (mtw=n ty n=f pꜣ ḥḏ rmṯ ꜥl nt i҆.i҆r tꜣ 6-nt mt r=f ty st wbꜣ tꜣy=f ḳs.t ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f pr-nfr) (line 14). In P. Turin 2132 (98 BC) an additional clause at the end of the document specifies that ‘If we do not find the tents […] which are(?) in the pr-nfr, because they do not exist, you will not be able to have a claim on us’ (i҆w=n tm gm nꜣ ḫyb.w […] nt(?) pr-nfr ḏ bn st ḫpr i҆n-nꜣ.w bn i҆w=k rḫ ḫpr m-sꜣ=n n-i҆m=n) (line 8). Finally, P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC), an agreement between god’s seal-bearers concerning tombs, prescribes that: ‘he (scil. the deceased) will be laid down (in the) ˹pr-nfr ˺’ (mtw=w ḫꜣꜥ=f ˹pr-nfr˺) (line 2). Therefore, with the exception of P. Turin 2132 (98 BC), P. Mallawi 602/1– 5 (79BC), and possibly P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106BC) (Text D), where the pr-nfr appears to be a construction, all other occurrences of the term seemingly refer to a process rather than to a specific place, although such a process may have taken its name from the place where it was originally performed.15 On the other hand, P. Florence 3667 (111BC) suggests that the wꜥb.t was a process since it lists ‘[…] 100 silver (deben) on account of his purification’16 As noted above, the pr-nfr mentioned in P. Turin 2132 (98 BC) is a permanent structure, belonging to a family, in which are stored ritual items: barques (sgt.w) and tents (ḫyb.w) (lines 5, 8).17 It has been suggested that each family would have had their own barques and tents which they stored in the pr-nfr that must have been full of various items hence the possibility of the choachytes not finding the tents.18 A unique depiction of what such a building may have looked like is found in one of the Theban tombs (TT C.4) decorated during the reign of 15 16 17

18

For a discussion of the pr-nfr and the wꜥb.t as stages of the mummification process see below Chapter 11 § 3. For the transliteration of this passage see Chapter 11 §3. The barques are probably sacred barques made of wood, which Pestman wonders whether could have served as some kind of coffins. The tents, and possibly the barques, are thought to have been used by the choachytes for the transport of the mummy from the pr-nfr to the tomb (Pestman 1992, 84–85 notes q and t). Interestingly, in P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Late Ptolemaic) the Apis Bull is taken to a wooden tent after the 69th day of the mummification process where the ‘opening of the mouth’ ritual is performed (Vos 1993, 40). Pestman 1992, 84–85 notes q and t. It is interesting that from the inscription of Sabni it would appear that, at least during the Old Kingdom, the pr-nfr was part of some kind of funerary storehouse (Frandsen 1992, 59). Another seemingly privately owned pr-nfr is given as one of the neighbours of the plot of land transferred with P. Louvre E 7128 (510 BC), in which the western neighbour is identified as the pr-nfr of Inaros son of Amortaios (called Iben), see Chapter 15 § 3.

mummification

213

Amenhotep III, or that of his predecessor, and belonging to a wꜥb-priest named Merymaat.19 Part of the mural decoration scheme in the traverse hall shows the funeral procession heading towards this building, which is identified by the inscription (pr-nfr) written above its door.20 However, with the exception of P. Turin 2132 (98 BC), none of the other documents analysed here indicate that families owned the items used by the funerary priests, as well as their own pr-nfr,21 although it remains a possibility. In addition, even if this structure was used as a storage place for items employed either by the choachytes or the embalmers during the mummification and/or burial of the deceased, this does not preclude the possibility that it also served as embalming place. Moreover, although this appears to be a permanent structure, given the space constraints on the necropolis, and the lack of clear archaeological evidence for such structures,22 it seems likely that, at least in the case of well-off citizens, the place of embalming would have been a temporary structure.23 The latter would probably have been built of light, perishable material (that would not survive in the archaeological record), and would have been erected by the tomb of the deceased for the required period of time. On the other hand, there may have been in the necropolises semi-permanent, ‘public’ or ‘communal’ structures, which would have been used for the mummification of those individuals who could not afford their own embalming place. This, in turn, leads to the question of where these structures were located and, by implication, the place where the mummification took place.24 Inscriptions in Pharaonic tombs clearly state that the embalming hall was located in the necropolis: Going to the necropolis, accompanying N. to the beautiful West, to the divine tent of Anubis (= the embalming place) in the western desert.25 19 20

21 22 23 24

25

Manniche 1988, 100–103, Pl. 31 Fig. 51. Manniche 1988, 111. The tomb had been visited by a number of early travellers and scholars (Burton, Wilkinson, Hay, Prudhoe, Champollion and Lepsius), who also produced illustrations of the tomb decoration. A depiction of the pr-nfr building was, for example, made by Wilkinson and by Prudhoe (see Manniche 1988, 100 and Pl. 31). Schenkel 1965, 73 (Siut V, 20). But see also below. Dawson 1927. In this respect, it has been suggested that the choachytes’ Theban house served as a storage place for mummies awaiting burial (Pestman 1993, 409; Vleeming 1995, 247), and, presumably, that the mummification of the deceased took place somewhere on the east bank. However, in my opinion it would not be logical to take bodies to the west bank to be mummified and then back to the east bank for storage in the Theban house, especially because there were tombs that were clearly used for this purpose. Assmann 2005, 305.

214

chapter 11

On the basis of the tomb scenes at Meir and later texts referring to ‘your (scil. the deceased’s) place of embalming,’ Dawson concluded that the place where the mummification took place was a temporary construction erected by the tomb of the deceased.26 The Ptolemaic documentary sources also indicate that the mummification took place in the necropolis. One of the clauses found in the regulations of religious associations in the Fayum prescribe that ‘(as for) the man among us (scil. a member) who dies (…) we will cause him to reach the necropolis.’27 Although it is possible that the clause refers to a funeral procession with the already mummified body of the deceased being taken to his burial place, the fact that all of the above clauses are followed by the statement that the members will contribute to the price of the deceased’s mummification indicates that the person was to be taken to the necropolis in order to be mummified. In fact, there is no evidence to indicate that the members of the association, who were sent to bring their deceased colleague back, would also arrange for his summary or preliminary embalming at the place where he died, as has been suggested.28 Additional evidence for the transport of a deceased to the necropolis, without prior mummification, is found in P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78BC), from Memphis, where party A states: ‘(as for) the person among them who will die and will be brought [to us] to a ḳꜣ-tomb, ḥ.t-tomb (or any) place [of ours] in the necropolis of Memphis, we will give him to you within four days’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=w nt i҆w=f r mwt mtw=w i҆n.ṱ=f [n=n] r kꜣ ḥ.t mꜣꜥ mtw=n ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr i҆w=n r ty s n=tn ẖn hrw 4). lines 9–10

The fact that the text refers to the moment of death and then to the transport to the necropolis, without mention of the mummification having already been performed, again suggests that the deceased was brought to the necropolis in order to be embalmed. In the archaeological record, evidence for actual embalming places is extremely limited and not without dispute. An example of such a structure, identified by the excavators as a ‘Late Period mummification “workshop” for lower-class people,’ was discovered at Saqqara in the vicinity of the tomb 26 27

28

Dawson 1927, 41. P. Lille 29 (223BC) lines 17–18 and 20–21. Variants of this clause are found in P. Cairo 30606 (157 BC) lines 13, 14–15; P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC) lines 14–15; and in P. Cairo 30605 (145BC) lines 14–15. For this suggestion see De Cenival 1972, 36 note 21,1.

mummification

215

of Horemheb, used as burial ground during this period. The area was characterised by the presence of mummification materials,29 and two particular structures: a ‘bench’ (c. 2.4×1.2×0.55m) and a triangular platform (c. 1.9 × 1.15 × 0.5m), perpendicular to the first, which the excavators suggest could have served as a kind of ‘table for the utensils’ used during the mummification.30 A comparable structure appears to be that excavated on the Asasif and identified as ‘Grave IX.’ The structure was identified as such because of the high concentration of embalming deposits in the surrounding area, and because of its actual floor plan. This was arranged around a large room accessed via a portico, which led to another room (e) connected to a storeroom (d), to another storage room with possibly a water facility (f), and to a ‘wrapping room’ with a bench.31 A niche, or false door, is also found within this structure, which presence appears to share parallels with the embalming place discovered at Saqqara near the tomb of Horemheb and that of the Apis Bull.32 Other embalming places have tentatively been identified at Kafr Ammar and at Kysis (Dush) in the Kharga oasis. The structure at Kafr Ammar was found ‘in the middle of the graves’ and consisted of a large courtyard with three small rooms at the back. In one of these was found a vessel containing a large number of eyeamulets. On the basis of this find, the excavators concluded that ‘this was the undertaker’s house, and this his stock of amulets for sale to his clients.’33 Nothing else was discovered in the building, although bags of natron and remains of bandages were found in the area around it.34 The structures at Dush consisted of brick-built constructions (numbered 13–16), which were only preserved to ground level. They do not appear to have served as tombs, and when excavated they revealed neither human remains nor funerary material culture. The excavators suggest they represent either housing for the funerary workers, or embalming places. The latter identification is based on the presence in a corner of structure 13 of a small basin in which it was suggested the dead would be dehydrated by means of natron.35 Tomb scenes from the Pharaonic Period,

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Distinct pottery type associated with mummification, lumps of natron, linen fragments, and a potsherd inscribed in hieratic with the name of the god Hapy (Raven et al. 1999, 22). Raven et al. 1999, 22. Budka 2010, 467 and Fig. 187. Budka 2010, 462. Petrie and Mackay 1915, 36 and Pl. 30. Petrie and Mackay 1915, 36 and Pl. 30. Budka (2010, 467) suggests the building is more likely to have served as storage than as embalming place. Janot 2000, 42–43. However, the structure(s) tentatively identified as embalming places could very well have served as storage places for materials and utensils used by the mortuary priests, since these facilities are mentioned in a number of documents.

216

chapter 11

such as that of Qar at Giza, show the plan of the embalming place to have consisted of a square floor plan, divided into smaller areas by means of partition walls, which shielded the rooms from view.36 This particular division in rooms, not intervisible from each other, is reminiscent of the floor plan of the Apis embalming place. In P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Late Ptolemaic) the structure is said to have been entered via screen-walled portico (sbḫ.t) which provided physical, and consequently spiritual, separation from the outside.37 Inside, the structure was divided into six, or more, rooms linked together by a long corridor.38 Each room served a different function within the different stages of the mummification process, and was, therefore, identified by different terms. The entire mummification process, or at least most of it, would then take place in different areas of the same structure. However, P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79 BC) clearly suggests a third possibility—that the embalming took place at the tomb itself. In listing the duties of the lector-priests with regards to the deceased, it is stated that they are to ‘take him to the ḥ.t-tomb’ (ṯ.ṱ=f r tꜣ ḥ.t) (line 2). The clause is then followed by a statement concerning the completion of the deceased with medicaments, that is, an allusion to his mummification. Given that one would expect the latter statement to precede, rather than follow, any reference to the transport of the dead person to his/her tomb for the final burial, it follows that this is an indication of the place where the mummification would be carried out, that is, in the tomb itself.39 The document, therefore, adds weight to the possibility that wealthier individuals, in the Ptolemaic Period as in Pharaonic times, would have been mummified in, or by, their tombs. The documentary sources indicate that the noun pr-nfr was used to denote both an embalming place, located in the necropolis, and a stage within the mummification process.40 The fact that this and the noun wꜥb.t do not occur in the same texts suggests that they had become synonymous, at least by the Ptolemaic Period, with the former being the more frequently attested of the two. In addition, it is possible that by this period, if not before, the noun wꜥb.t had acquired a more specialised meaning and that it referred to places specifically designated for the cultic interaction between this and the world of the divine. In fact, Coppens argues that, within a temple context, this area was the place where statues of the principal deities were prepared for their renewal.41

36 37 38 39 40 41

Simpson 1976, Fig. 24. Vos 1993, 32. Vos 1993, 33. Thus also Frandsen 1992, 60–61. For the latter see below Chapter 11 § 3. Coppens 2014, 117.

mummification

217

The function of this ‘room’ parallels that of the lichthof, or open-court, in a number of Late Period tombs. Here the presence of cultic equipment, such as altars, offering tables, and libation basins, located before the entrance to the underground burial area, suggests the open court had taken on the traditional function of the false door. This, together with the decorative programme of the lichthof, indicates that the rituals performed in this area focused on the regeneration and renewal of the deceased.42 Thus, taken together, the sources analysed suggests that the mummification of the deceased would be performed in a place, or area, designated as pr-nfr, which could be a temporary structure located near the tomb of the dead person, inside the tomb itself, perhaps in one of the first rooms, or in a purpose-built structure belonging perhaps to the ‘necropolis’ itself. By contrast, the wꜥb.t may have come to designate the area in front of, or just inside, the tomb where the mortuary cult would be performed.

2

Arranging for the Mummification of the Deceased

There are only three documents that clearly show the family was personally responsible for making the necessary arrangements with an embalmer for the mummification of a dead relative. One, P. Carlsberg 37b (220 BC), comes from the Fayum, while the other two, P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC) and P. Brussels E 6032 + P. BM EA fragments (301BC), are from the Theban area. In P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) party A withdraws her complaint of misconduct against party B and states: ‘I entrusted (…) Pasis (…), my husband, to you, him being dead and mummified with the mummification43 which I caused the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Paesis (…) to perform for him’ (my italics) (i҆r=y gyl (…) p-si҆y (…) pꜣy=y hy r-r=k i҆w=f mwṱ i҆w=f ḳs n tꜣ ḳs.t r-ty=y i҆r ⟨s⟩ n=f ḫtmw-nṯr wyt p-n-i҆s.t). lines 4–5

Thus the document clearly indicates that the family of the deceased was responsible for making the necessary arrangements with the embalmer, in this case a god’s seal-bearer and embalmer, for the mummification of their dead. The same is also indicated by P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC), a mummifica-

42 43

Coppens 2014a, 344–345. For these readings of ḳs see Cannata 2007 and Appendix §1.

218

chapter 11

tion agreement stipulated between the father of the deceased person and an embalmer,44 and by P. Brussels E 6032 + P. BM EA fragments (301 BC), which is the earliest Ptolemaic document dealing with arrangements for the embalming of a deceased individual.45 Of the first contracting party only the title doorkeeper survives,46 while Party B is a known lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme, Harsiesis son of Panas. In the document, party A sells the house of his deceased wife in order to pay for her ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ as well as for the ḳs of her parents. He states: ‘I have sold [it] (scil. the house) to you (as payment) for the ḫꜣꜥ-[syḥ] of the woman Senchonsis daughter of [Pa]ibis, her mother being Setatiretbin, together with the ḳs of [Pa]ibis, her father, and the ḳs of Setatiretbint, his wife’ (tw=y [s] n=k r-ḏbꜣ ḥḏ n pꜣ ḫꜣꜥ-[syḥ] n sḥm.t tꜣ-šr.t-hnsw ta pꜣ-[hb] (P. BM EA frag.: line 2) mw.t=s sṯꜣ.ṱ-i҆r.t-bn ḥnꜥ tꜣ ḳs [pꜣ]-hb pꜣy=s i҆ṱ ḥnꜥ tꜣ ḳs (P. Brussels E 6032 Pl. II line 3) sṯꜣ.ṱ-i҆r.t-bn tꜣy=f ḥm.t (P. Brussels E 6032 Pl. III line 2)). However, although providing important evidence on who was responsible for making the necessary arrangements for the embalming of a deceased individual and on its cost, the contract also poses some difficulties regarding the identification of the roles and responsibilities of the different mortuary priests. The understanding of these issues hinges on the interpretation of the words ḫꜣꜥsyḥ and ḳs. The term ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ is a masculine compound term formed from the infinitive of the verb ḫꜣꜥ and the noun syḥ. The verb ḫꜣꜥ can have a range of meanings such as ‘to place,’ ‘to leave,’ ‘to abandon’ and ‘to lay down,’ while the noun syḥ is used to denote a ‘hall’ or ‘chamber’ as in the compound word sḥ-nṯr where

44

45 46

On this text see Chapter 10 above, and Chapter 11 §3. A parallel agreement may be the fragmentary contract recorded in Papyrus B.3 recovered from cartonnage material discovered at Deir er-Rifeh, in which Party A seemingly undertakes to bind, anoint and embalm the deceased (Thompson 1907, 36). According to the Petrie Museum Digital Database, this fragment has not been positively identified amongst those preserved there, www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/rifeh/cartonnage.html (accessed 28/01/2020). Alternatively, the contract may be an agreement stipulated between embalmers, similar to the oath recorded in P. Ashmolean D. 18–19 (1968.13+ 1968.14) (70–60BC) (Reymond 1973, 126–136, Pl. XIV). The latter is a fragmentary witness-copy contract of sale. Much of the text can be reconstructed from the surviving sections of the witnesses’ copies. Thus it is not possible to determine whether he was one of the choachytes or one of the other door-keepers attached to the shrine of a god.

mummification

219

it is translated as ‘divine booth’ and is associated with the embalming-place and the god Anubis.47 It is possible that the noun syḥ is an abbreviation of the latter compound and, therefore, a reference to the embalming place.48 Thus the compound ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ could be translated literally as the ‘laying down in the (embalming) hall.’49 Another attractive possibility is that of taking the noun syḥ as an abbreviation of the compound sḥ-nṯr denoting a type of linen cloth.50 The expression ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ could then be understood as referring to the ‘placing of linencloth,’ that is to the bandaging of a corpse, and, by extension, to the total of the operations and rituals performed on the deceased during the embalming process. This seems supported by the examples of the word found in P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC) in which the noun syḥ shows the ‘cloth’ determinative, followed by the ‘evil’ determinative. However, that the ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ was a structure is suggested by the fact that in all other examples it shows the ‘house’ determinative, while in some instances it has also the evil determinative, perhaps emphasising its link with a funerary aspect. This would argue against the reading of the compound as ‘placing of linen-cloth,’ and in favour of its interpretation as a place where the embalming took place. Given that in the latter document party A, the embalmer, states that he is to complete the dead with medicaments and hand it over to the choachyte, the term has to refer to the mummification process.51 This compound noun is attested in only nine other documents, all from the Theban area, where, with the exception of P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC), it is always combined with the noun ḳs: P. Louvre E 2439 (330BC)52 P. Philadelphia II (314BC) witness copy B P. Rylands XI (284BC) witness copy B 47 48 49 50 51

52

Glossar 345–346, 445; Hannig 1995, 734. In fact, in P. Rhind 2 (9 BC) the Demotic term syḥ is used as synonym of the hieratic term wꜥb.t. Smith 2009, 321 note 98, text 15 line 3/5. Thus Griffith 1909, 123 note 6. Hannig 1995, 734. It is perhaps possible that the term syḥ could have originally been used to refer to the wrapping of a body as well as to the place where this took place, thus by extension the compound ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ could refer to both the act of wrapping and the place where it was performed. After Revillout’s transcription (1880a). I am not certain what his reasons were for the inclusion of another example of the noun ḳs in brackets.

220

chapter 11

witness copy C witness copy D witness copy E P. BM EA 10077 (270BC) a b P. BM EA 10026 (265– 264BC)53 B witness copy C witness copy D witness copy E P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) 298 (235BC) P. Berlin P. 3099 (124BC) 3100 (124BC) 5508 (124BC) P. Louvre E 2439 (330BC)54 is probably one of the two deeds drawn up as part of marriage document type C55 in which party A, Petearpres, son of Pachaas and Tasenneferhetep, pledges all his possessions as a guarantee on the fulfilment of the obligations of the deed he drew up for his wife, party B, the woman Sarpochratis, daughter of Teos and Tashertmehi. The document includes a particular clause concerning burial arrangements. Party A states: ‘you are the one who has a responsibility over me whether I am alive or dead, (and) you are the one who has a responsibility over my burial (and) my mummification’ (mtw=t nt i҆r-syh̭ 56 n-i҆m=y i҆w=y ꜥnḫ i҆w=y mwt.w.ṱ mtw=t nt i҆r-syh̭ n tꜣy=y ḳs.(t) pꜣy=y ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ).57 lines 4–5

53 54 55 56

57

The clause is omitted from copy A. Zauzich 1968, 10–12. Pestman 1961. For a discussion of the various meanings of the verb sh̭ see Depauw 2000, 216–218, with further references. In the present and following documents I have translated it as ‘concern, responsibility’ because this seems to be the most logical meaning of the clause. The same expression is also found in P. Louvre E 2429bis (292BC) (line 4), stipulated

mummification

221

A similar clause is also used in P. Marseilles 299–298 (235 BC), a sale and cession contract of liturgies stipulated between the door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes Amenothes, son of Psemminis and Manmin, and the woman Tamin, daughter of Paiga and Taimen, where the seller specifies: ‘I belong to you when dead, I belong to you while alive, no man at all will be able to have responsibility over my burial and my mummification except you’ (mtw=t i҆w=y mw.t.ṱ i҆w mtw=t i҆w=y ꜥnḫ i҆w bn i҆w{=y} rḫ rmṯ nb pꜣ tꜣ i҆r-syh̭ n tꜣy=y ḳs.t ḥnꜥ pꜣy=y ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ bnr=t).58 line 15

In P. Philadelphia II (314BC), a will styled as a sale, party A, the woman Tetenephotes daughter of Teos and Tates, stipulates that party B, the woman Tamin, daughter of Heh and Teteharpochrates, is to pay 5 silver (deben) for her mummification and burial (mtw=t ty ḥḏ 5 r sttr 25 r ḥḏ 5 ꜥn wbꜣ pꜣy=y ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ ḥnꜥ tꜣy=y ḳs.t) (line 6) in exchange for a share of her house and everything she owns and that which she will acquire. Similarly in P. BM EA 10026 (265–264 BC), another will styled as a sale, in which the woman Eschonsis, daughter of Teos and Tabis, ‘sells’ to her eldest son, the door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes Panas, son of Pchorchonsis, a share of her properties specifying: ‘you are to provide for my mummification and my entire burial in accordance with the custom for people (of my status)’ (mtw=k i҆r pꜣy=y ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ tꜣy=y ḳs.t ḏr=s r-ẖ pꜣ smt n rmṯ). line 10

The latest documents in which the term is attested are P. Berlin P. 3099 (124 BC) (lines 18–17), P. Berlin P. 3100 (124 BC) (lines 15–16), and P. Berlin P. 5508 (124 BC) (lines 16–17), each recording the donation of a share of liturgies by the doorkeeper Horos, son of Horos and Senpoeris, to his children the door-keepers

58

between the door-keeper of Amenope Pchorchonsis, son of Petemenope and Taous, and his wife, the woman Eschonsis, daughter of Teos and Tabis; and P. Rylands XI (284BC) (Copy A line 7), stipulated between the lector-priest of the Baboon Pelaias, son of Thotortaios and Tawatenchemet, and his wife, the woman Tauris, daughter of Harsiesis and Tabastis. The use of this particular clause suggests that the two individuals were related by marriage, as indicated by the fact that the other three contracts in which this expression is found were all drawn up between couples. The presence of a cession document drawn up on the same date as the sale deed is however unexpected since type C marriage documents include only a sale document (sẖ-ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ) and not a cession document (sẖ n wy).

222

chapter 11

Osoroeris, Nechthmonthes and Petemestous respectively. The testator stipulates that each son is to contribute to the burial and mummification of both parents: ‘you are to give the 1/5 for my burial (and) my mummification together with the 1/5 for the burial (and) the embalmment for Sachperis, daughter of Amenothes, your mother’ (mtw=k ty pꜣ 1/5 n tꜣy=y ḳs.t pꜣy(=y) ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ ḥnꜥ pꜣ 1/5 n tꜣ ḳs.t pꜣ ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ n šꜥ-ḫpry ta i҆mn-ḥtp tꜣy=k mw.t). In P. Louvre E 2429bis (292BC), P. Rylands XI (284 BC), P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC), P. Philadelphia II (314BC) and P. BM EA 10026 (265–264 BC) the compound ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ precedes the noun ḳs.t and it seems logical to translate them as ‘mummification’ and ‘burial’ respectively, since one follows the other. On the other hand, in P. Louvre E 2439 (330 BC) and P. Berlin P. 3099/3100/5508 (124 BC) the order is reversed. However, unless we are to understand this as evidence for the use of ḳs in these clauses to denote two different stages, one prior and one following the operation described by the term ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ, then ḳs.t, whether used before or after the compound ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ, has to refer to the actual interment rather than to some other operation. On the basis of the evidence for the different meanings of the noun ḳs and the compound noun ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ, three different explanations can be put forward for the meaning of the passage in P. Brussels E 6032 + P. BM EA fragments. It is possible that, as suggested by Shore, the lector-priest was still owed part of the cost for the embalmment of party A’s in-laws.59 Although this is a plausible explanation, it fails to explain the use of two different terms. Another possibility is that party A lost both his wife and his in-laws at the same time or within a short period from each other. This being the case the word ḳs could be understood as an abbreviation of the expression ‘ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ and ḳs’ and therefore as an indication that all three individuals were going to be embalmed at the same time. Alternatively, the ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ of party A’s wife could refer to the entire embalming process, whereas the ḳs of his inlaws could refer to a single stage within the entire process. However, this would imply that only the cost of the first stage of their embalmment had already been paid for, which is an unlikely scenario since in P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270 BC) the agreement is stipulated before the start of the embalming process thus suggesting that the payment was to be made in advance. Another explanation may be that the in-laws of party A had been embalmed at the time of death and that their mummies were stored temporarily in some funerary structure until they

59

Shore 1968, 198.

mummification

223

could be interred in their own tomb. This would explain the use of two different terms to describe the services referred to in the present contract, and would not require three people dying all at the same time, or within a short period of time of each other. This explanation implies that further operations were required prior to the final entombment of a deceased person, and that these fell under the responsibility of the lector-priests, at least in some instances. These final actions may have included, for example, the performance of rituals, such as the opening of the mouth ceremony, which would be conducted at the tomb by the lector priest in charge.

3

The Mummification Process: Stages, Rituals and Materials

Evidence for what would happen during the various stages of the mummification consists of indirect references, which interpretation is not always without uncertainties. In fact, despite the survival of a large number of documents relating to various aspects of the funerary industry during the period under analysis, there are but rare mentions of the mummification process and its various stages, and none that throws clear, unambiguous light on what it entailed. The process appears to have been divided into specific stages, with days 4, 16, 35 and 70 seemingly being of special significance, while additional days mentioned are 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 45, 52, 60 and 63. As noted above, the nouns pr-nfr (per-nefer) and wꜥb.t (wabet) are used to denote specific phases within the embalming process. The other stages mentioned are the ḳs.(t), the 35 and the (ḥb) ḳs, although the identification of the specific stage they denoted is hindered by their apparent use as synonyms in a number of the relevant texts. The analysis of the sources suggests that an ideal mummification and burial consisted of five specific phases: an initial 1. purification; 2. the excerebration, evisceration and desiccation of the corpse; 3. the anointing of the body with a variety of substances and the initial wrapping of some body parts; followed by 4. the wrapping of the entire body; and finally 5. the burial in the tomb.60 However, the identification of the specific stage they denoted is not always without uncertainties. In particular, it is unclear whether the noun wꜥb (wab) in P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC) and P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) refers to the same stage as that identified by the term ḳs (stage 2), or to the one before (stage 1).61 In addition, in P. Florence 7127 (264 BC), and possibly in 60 61

See Table 4 infra. On the basis of the items listed under this heading, I have understood it as referring to the same stage as that termed ḳs (see below).

224

chapter 11

P. Florence 3667 (111 BC), the compound noun pr-nfr appears to refer to the entire mummification process, rather than to a specific stage within it, while in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC), and possibly P. Berlin P. 3115 (108 BC, Text C) the ḳs stage seemingly encompasses both this and the following pr-nfr stage. The use of the nouns wꜥb and pr-nfr to denote the entire mummification process is, of course, in keeping with the fact that both terms were used to denote an embalming place. Thus it follows that they could be also be used interchangeably to denote the same stage in the mummification place.62 3.1 The Period between the 1st and the 4th Day A number of sources indicate that the first four days after death were of special significance and that body treatment started only at the end of this period. The stela of Annos/Anemher (Stela Cairo 31099, 73 BC) records that ‘he was mummified from the fourth month of the winter season day 28, which was his fourth day’ (i҆r=w n=f ḳs.t ṯ i҆bt 4 pr.t sw 28 nt i҆w pꜣy=f hrw mḥ-4 pꜣy) (line 7).63 Thus the passage clearly indicates that in this case the mummification proper began on the fourth day from decease. In P. Leiden 374 (78BC), a sale of liturgies, party A declare that, should a deceased person part of the liturgies sold be given to them by mistake, they would return the body within four days. Given that party A undertakes to hand over the body to party B without requesting any compensation, it seems logical to suppose that no work would have been done on the deceased during the first four days. A similar agreement is recorded in P. Florence 7127 (264BC), an oath taken by some Theban embalmers, in which they agree that should they fail to report to an unnamed individual concerning some deceased persons within the ‘four days of the pr-nfr,’ they will pay 3 silver (deben) (line 8–9).64 Another document that suggests the fourth day marked an important stage within the mummification process is P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) in which it is agreed that five cloths will be given on the fourth day.65 A strict four-day fasting was also observed by the worshippers of the Apis Bull.66 In addition, according to Herodotus, the body of a deceased person would be taken to the embalming place only 62 63 64 65 66

At least this appears to be the case in P. Berlin P. 3115 (108BC) Text C, line 2, for which see below. For this reading of the noun ḳs.t see Cannata 2007 and Appendix §1. For the transliteration of this phrase see below. On this document see below Chapter 11 § 4. See Vos 1993, 31 and note 34. Although, as Vos notes, the four-day fast could take place either at the beginning or at the end of the mourning period, it would be too much of a coincidence to find a reference to this four-day period that has no relation to that mentioned in other texts.

mummification

225

after the initial mourning ceremonies had taken place, although he does not specify for how long these would last (Herodotus II.85). However, he writes that women of high status and those of beauty would not be taken to the embalmers until the third or fourth day after death in order to prevent acts of necrophilia (Herodotus II.89). Herodotus’ account may not be entirely accurate, but it is interesting to note that he also mentions a period of possibly four days when no work was done on a corpse.67 The same custom continued into the Roman Period as shown by the letter recorded in P. Fouad 75 (AD 64) from Oxyrhyncha, a village in the Fayum, where a father is informed of his daughter’s death.68 The letter, dated to the 18th of Phaophi, instructs him to return home quickly so as to be able to see his daughter, who has now been taken to Alabanthis, possibly to the embalmers. The person in question had died on the 13th of the same month and could still be viewed five days later, thus again showing that the mummification did not start immediately after death. The custom may have had both a practical and a religious significance. On a practical level, its purpose was to confirm death and to allow friends and family to pay their last respects to the deceased. A religious significance for this practice is perhaps suggested by a short inscription in the tomb of queen Meresankh III, at Giza, which describes the funerary rites through a series of captions:69

rnp.t-sp 1 ꜣbd 1 šmw sw 21 ḥtp kꜣ=s ḫp.t=s r wꜥb.t Regnal year 1, first month of the harvest season, day 21. The resting of her ka. Her proceeding to the embalming place.

rnp.t-sp tpy ꜣbd 2 prt sw 18 ḫp.t=s r i҆s=s nfr

67

68 69

It is possible that he only focused attention on women not being taken to the embalmers until the fourth day after death as a way of making his account more salacious and thus more appealing to his audience. Again, it seems too coincidental to find a reference to this four-day period that has no connection with the same period mentioned in other texts. Youtie 1958, 374–376; Montserrat 1997, 37. After Dunham and Simpson 1974, 8, Pl. IIa; fig. 2; Sethe 1933, I 156–157.

226

chapter 11

Regnal year 1, second month of the winter season, day 18. Her proceeding to her beautiful tomb.70 Here the resting of the ka denotes a stage prior to the mummification proper, although it is unclear what the exact ritual significance of this stage was. According to Assmann, ‘[b]ecause the ka and the self were created simultaneously, they had a symbiotic relationship in this life, one that fell apart at death and had to be restored, albeit in a different form, by ritual.’71 It is, therefore, possible that the resting of the ka, its being at peace,72 denoted this state of dissociation of the person and the ka, which is perhaps to be understood as a state of sleep, comparable to the state of death,73 prior to being ritually reawakened.74 As noted above, this stage refers to one prior to the mummification proper, and it is possible that it corresponded to the time the deceased spent in the tent of purification (i҆bw),75 or an equivalent area perhaps inside the mummification place, according to Pharaonic pictorial sources. Here, the deceased underwent the initial purification rites, which would have involved large quantities of water, hence the location of the tent by the river bank. The rites would have included both the physical washing of the corpse, and the spiritual cleansing of the body with pure water.76 No information on what happened during this stage can be gathered from the documentary sources analysed. However, that this particular rite continued beyond the Pharaonic Period is indicated by P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Late Ptolemaic), concerning the embalmment of the Apis Bull, which was first taken to the ‘house of purification’ (ḥ.t ḳbḥ.t), for a ritual washing, where it perhaps stayed for the first four days after death. This is perhaps

70

71 72 73 74

75 76

The time elapsed between death and burial is 272 days. Such delay may have been due to her sudden death, which meant that her tomb and funerary equipment were yet to be readied (Capel and Markoe 1996, 104). Assmann 2005, 100. Kaplony 1980, 277. Assmann 2005, 104. Because the ka was separated from the body at death, it would have to be reunited with it before the deceased could reach the afterlife. Indeed, the dead could also be identified as ‘those who have gone to their kas’ (Taylor 2001, 20). It seems possible that an echo of such a tradition was still found centuries later among the Copts. According to Giamberardini’s (1965, 28–29 and note 1) ethnographic observations, on the third day after death the priest went to the house of the deceased in order to perform a specific ritual at the end of which the spirit would depart from the house. The i҆bw was a tent-like construction consisting of slender poles covered with matting or cloth, likely located at the water-edge (Hoffmeier 1981, 167–169). Theis 2011, 50.

mummification

227

also the stage depicted on the coffin of Djebastetiuefankh,77 which shows the deceased laying on a body of water, while two priests on either side of him pour lustral water over him.78 Tomb representations of the i҆bw-tent usually include depiction of the funerary equipment and food offerings,79 and it is possible that the latter were linked to a particular ritual (the ḏꜣ.t-rꜥ ritual) involving perhaps the offering of a kind of ‘viaticum’ to the dead during the stay in the i҆bw-tent.80 This rite may be the stage shown on the coffin of Mutirdis, which depicts two priests standing on either side of a table with offerings piled on top, facing a mummiform image, while another priest appears to be reading from a ‘ritual’ text (Fig. 4).81 The main problem with keeping a body untreated for four days would be that the process of decomposition would soon set in, especially in view of the hot Egyptian climate. Indeed, this is what provides additional evidence for the custom, since a number of mummies clearly display signs of advanced state of decomposition when the mummification began.82 It is possible that, in order to obviate to this problem, the deceased would spend the four-day period prior to the mummification proper in this tent of purification, or in an area within the mummification place serving the same function, where a ritual washing would be performed and where family and friends would come to mourn their dead and say their farewells.83 Once all of the rites had been completed, Pharaonic tomb depictions indicate that the body was placed once again in the coffin with which s/he was 77 78

79 80 81

82 83

Thus also Theis 2011, 50 note 54. The coffin is in the Roemer and Pelizaeus Museum in Hildesheim (Inv No. 1954). The parallel depiction on the coffin of Mutirdis only shows the deceased laying on a low bench, though it could be simply a case of missing detail since these two images are almost identical in all other respects. It is also interesting to note that in these initial vignettes the deceased is shown as a ‘shadow,’ thus in human- rather than mummy-form as in the successive vignettes, indicating that the mummification process had not yet started (Fig. 4). It is suggested that these would also be purified before entering the necropolis proper, since the latter was a sacred place that required ritual cleansing (Hoffmeier 1981, 171). Theis 2011, 51. This vignette is inserted between one in which the deceased is undergoing purification by means of lustral water, and one in which Anubis is approaching the embalming bed with the deceased laying on it (Fig. 5). In both cases the deceased is shown in human- rather than mummy-form, thus indicating that the mummification had not yet started, although in the ‘offerings’ vignette the deceased is shown mummy-form. The ‘offerings’ vignette is not part of the decoration on the coffin of Djebastetiuefankh. Elliot Smith and Dawson 1924, 125–126. It seems probable that already by the Middle Kingdom the purification tent and the embalming place had been merged into a single structure, while they were separate in the Old Kingdom (Willems 1997, 348).

228

figure 4

chapter 11

The El-Hibeh coffins in the Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum in Hildesheim belonging to Mutirdis and Djebastetiuefankh [RPM/PM 1953] (left), [RPM/PM 1954] (right)

mummification

229

transported from the house to the west bank to be now moved to the embalming place. The coffin appears to have been placed either on a funerary bier, decorated with the head and paws of a lion,84 or on simple poles, so as to be easily carried, by hand, by a variable number of individuals.85 The list of funerary expenses recorded in P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) includes two such funerary beds (˹s.t˺-sḏr) one for 400 and another for 80 deben (Col. I lines 12–13). Presumably one would be employed for the transport of the deceased to the necropolis (with or without coffin), while the other would be used during the embalming of the deceased. 3.2 The Period between the 4th and the 16th Day The now purified deceased is ready to enter the place of embalming. During the following thirty days or so the deceased would be excerebrated, eviscerated, dehydrated and anointed. In documentary sources these stages are identified using the nouns ḳs, wꜥb.t and pr-nfr.86 The existence of two separate stages (ḳs and pr-nfr) is suggested by P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) and P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC) in which the members of the association agree to contribute to the cost of the ḳs.t and pr-nfr of a deceased member. As I have argued before,87 the noun ḳs, and its variants ḳs.t and ḳs.w, also denoted a stage of the mummification process, in this instance one prior to that known as the pr-nfr. However, although still denoting a stage within this process, in P. Berlin P. 3115 (108 BC) the noun ḳs.w appears to indicate a longer stage than in the previous two documents, one lasting up to the 35th day, and thus including also the pr-nfr. In this document the members agree not to go to ‘the ḳs.w and (the) 35 (days) (of) the šty-ceremony’ (ḳs.w ḥnꜥ 35 tꜣ šty) (Text C line 2). Yet, further down, the same document mentions ‘the choachyte who goes to (the) ḳs, the wꜥb (and the) 35 (days ceremony)’ (wꜣḥ-mw mtw=f šm r ḳs wꜥb 35) (Text C line 11), where it is not clear if the clause refers to two or three different stages. De Cenival understands wꜥb as qualifying the 35 days, and translates the clause as ‘Qu’il aille aux enterrements et aux 35 jours purs.’88 However, if wꜥb is understood as an adjective, it would be qualifying the noun ḳs, while, if it was being used as a noun, it would refer to the same stage as that of the pr-nfr men-

84 85 86 87 88

Theis 2011, 51. Régen 2009, 467–468 and Fig. 10. Their identification as separate phases of the mummification process is based on the word order within the sentence. See Table 4 infra. Cannata 2007 and Appendix § 1. De Cenival 1972, 119, 124 note 11,4.

230

chapter 11

tioned in P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) and P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC).89 The existence of a wꜥb stage is indicated by two documents, P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC), in which the noun appears to refer to the entire mummification process, and P. Florence 3667 (111BC), in which it denotes either the same stage as that of the pr-nfr, or the one before it, thus the same as the ḳs phase. In P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270 BC), an embalming agreement stipulated between Pagonis son of Pasemios, probably the embalmer, and Thotortaios son of Paoros, the father of the deceased, Party A states: ‘You have provided (for) the purification (wꜥb) (the) natron, the mummification wrappings and every matter which concerns the mummification of Pausis your son’ (wꜣḥ=k90 pꜣ wꜥb ḥsmn tꜣ mtn wyt ḥnꜥ mt nb nt sh̭ n r pꜣ ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ n pa-wsr pꜣy=k šr). lines 4–8

Similarly, the accounts recorded in column I of P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) include: 17. […] 100 deben on account of his purification (wꜥb.t) ([…] ḥḏ 100 ẖr tꜣy=f wꜥb.t); 18. [… from(?) Nechthmonthes], Taues, Osoroeris and Petosiris ([… nḫṱ-mnṱ] ta-wꜣ wsi҆r-wr ḥnꜥ pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r) 19. […] specification: ([…] wp-st): 20. […] 40 (deben) for (the) price of honey (and) his gtn-robe, ([…] 40 n swn i҆by tꜣy=f gtn); 21. […] 30 deben: price of the ring of Osoroeris ([…] · 30 swn tꜣ glṱ n wsi҆r-wr); 22. […] 23. […] ˹man,˺ together with 3 (measures of) salt (for the?) last day ([…] ˹rmṯ˺ ḥnꜥ ḥmꜣ 3 sw ꜥrḳ); 24. [… Taues] 2 silver (deben) ([… ta-wꜣ] · 2).91

89 90 91

I am not sure whether the difference in terminology could be attributed to a geographical variation, since the latter two texts originate from the Fayum. The flesh determinative is clearly written in copy B of the document which excludes the reading mḥ and suggests a scribal error of ḥr in place of wꜣḥ. This entry is preceded by another in line 15 which reads ‘[…] 400 silver (deben) (vacat?) death of Horos’ ([…] · 400 (vacat?) mwt i҆.i҆r Ḥr), and it is followed by a list of payments for materials and objects made by the offspring of the deceased. In column II, the list

mummification

231

The range of items mentioned in these two documents seems more appropriate for a stage of the mummification proper, rather than the preceding fourday period. However, column III of the same document starts again with the date of death of Horos, and a heading identifying the following expenses as those which were paid for ‘his pr-nfr in(?) his places of embalming:’ 1.

2.

3.

4.

The expense which came out for Horos in regnal year 6 fourth month of the inundation season, day 19, the day in which he died: (pꜣ hy i҆.i҆r šm ˹r˺ bnr wbꜣ ḥr (n) ḥꜣ.t-sp 6 i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw 19 pꜣ hrw mwt ˹i҆.i҆r˺=f […]) The list of the properties that came out for his pr-nfr (in) his places of ˹embalming.˺ The first day: (pꜣ wn nꜣ nkt.w r bnr wbꜣ pꜣy=f pr-nfr nꜣy=f ꜥ.wy.w ˹ḳs.(t)˺ pꜣ hrw tp), ˹½˺ hin of resin and one ḥbs-cloth for the lector priest; one mnḫ-cloth; another mnḫ-cloth […], ([hn] syf ˹½˺ ḥbs 1 pꜣ ẖr-ḥb wꜥ mnḫ ky mnḫ […]), five ˹hins˺ of resin, (˹hn˺ syf 5).

The fact that the expenses listed in column III include those undertaken on the first day, followed by those for day 16, suggests that the wꜥb stage was considered part of all the operations carried out up to the 16th day.92 Unfortunately, the documentary sources do not provide any information on what operations were carried out during these stages. The closest one gets to ‘seeing’ what happened inside the mummification place during these initial phases of the embalmment is the deceased lying, still in human, or shadow

92

continues with mention of payments made to the embalmers, the cost of a number of materials, including the cost of transport, and a record of a payment made to a named individual. Because of the way the document is arranged, I am uncertain whether the cost for his purification (wꜥb.t) refers to the stage prior to the mummification proper, or if it is a reference to the first day in the embalming place, although the latter seems the more probable of the two. See Appendix 2 for a consecutive translation of P. Florence 3667 (111 BC). In my opinion, here the first day designates the first day in the embalming place, thus the beginning of the mummification proper, although it seems strange that the same materials and substances do not appear in both lists. However, further down, the same document lists items given on the first, the 16th and the 28th day, which suggests that, at least in this case, the term pr-nfr covered the entire period from the beginning of the mummification up to the 35th day. For the identification of day 16 with the pr-nfr stage see below.

232

chapter 11

form, on the funerary lion-bier, over a fibre-mat, surrounded by priests. This can be seen on the coffins of Djebastetiuefankh and Mutirdis where Anubis, holding something in his hand, approaches the deceased laying on the embalming bed, while three other priests, in the first coffin, and four in the second, follow behind (see Fig. 4). Some additional information can be gathered from three other sources, the Embalming Ritual, preserved on P. Boulaq 3 (1st–2nd century AD),93 as well as P. Rhind 1 (P. Edinburgh 908+504) and P. Rhind 2 (P. Edinburgh 909) both dating to 9BC, beside the Apis embalming Ritual (P. Wien ÄS 3873, Late Ptolemaic). The preserved portions of the Embalming Ritual concern the anointing and wrapping of the body, with no mention of the earlier stages of lustration, evisceration and desiccation.94 On the other hand, the second section in P. Rhind 1 (9BC) includes a summary account of the initial stages of the person’s embalmment.95 The first operations carried out in the embalming place, aptly identified in the Apis Embalming Ritual (rt. IV 23, VIa 11) and in the Embalming Ritual (3/1) as the ‘slaughtering room,’ are the excerebration and the evisceration. It is in sections three and four of P. Rhind 1 (9 BC) that we find a mention of the latter operation, which is said to have taken place in the wabet (wꜥb.t). The various operations are rather concisely described using metaphors and allusions. Consignment to the embalming place without interruption of the mummification process, all ceremonies at their proper time, resting upon a mat of fresh reeds,96 performing the rites of the lector priest of the day for him so that he attacks the enemy of the sound eye on the first day, Osiris not regarding him on account of [the] limbs which he harms which emerged from him, and so that the overseer of the mystery provides a remedy for them (…). O Osiris, well are you moored, having arrived at the perfect house. I will lay my hands upon your body as I do [for] my father Osiris. I

93

94 95

96

Sections of the embalming ritual are preserved in four hieratic papyri: P. Boulaq 3, the longest of the three, P. Louvre E 5158, P. St. Petersburg 18128 and P. Durham O.M. 1983.11, of which only six fragments survive. See Töpfer 2015, Smith 2009, 215, and Reeves 1985. It is not possible to determine whether they were ever part of the manuscript’s missing sections (Smith 2009, 217–218). The contents of P. Rhind 1, of which P. Rhind 2 is an abridged version, can be divided into four broad themes concerning 1) the deceased’s life on earth, 2) his mummification, 3) the judgment of his character, 4) and his status and mode of existence following the previous assessment (Smith 2009, 304, 310, 312, 337). It is interesting to note that the deceased is indeed shown laying on a reed-mat in both the coffin of Djebastetiuefankh and that of Mutirdis (see Fig. 4).

mummification

233

will make your limbs sound, for I am Anubis in my guise as lector priest. I will make the channel for your efflux to the sea in order to allow it to unite with the efflux of Osiris.97 Here the ‘enemy of the sound eye (= Osiris) on the first day’ refers to the person who was responsible for making the initial incision on the side of the abdomen for the removal of the internal organs. Diodorus Siculus I (91) identifies this person as a paraschistes, although there is no evidence at all in the documentary sources for the existence of a separate class of ‘priests’ whose task was solely that of making this incision. Rather, it was the lector priests themselves who performed this operation, as the passage from the Embalming Ritual implies.98 According to the Apis embalming ritual (P. Wien ÄS 3873, Late Ptolemaic), the embalmers would also need to undergo a ritual purification before being able to start to work on the deceased, part of which involved shaving and donning a particular garment (ḥbs-cloth), a pair of sandals and a pyr-bandage around their neck.99 This particular garment given to the embalmers may be same as that listed in one of the entries recorded in P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) and in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC). In the first document the cloth is listed under the items that were provided on the first day and identified as ‘1 ḥbs-cloth for the lectorpriest.’100 That this ḥbs-cloth was probably not given as payment is suggested by the fact that one of the items listed in the embalmers’ agreement recorded in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) is ‘one ḥbs-cloth of taking entry’ (ḥbs ṯ-ꜥḳ 1) (line 14). The use of the compound verb ṯ-ꜥḳ, which survives into Coptic as ϫⲓ-ⲁⲉⲓⲕ with the meaning of ‘consecrate, consecration,’ to qualify this type of cloth indicates that it probably refers to a special ceremonial garb, worn by the lector-priest during the mummification process.101 The successive lines in P. Rhind 1 (9BC) describe the removal of the internal organs, which are to be treated to prevent their decay:

97 98 99

100 101

Smith 2009, 319–321. Pestman 1981, 4–8; Smith 2009, 320 note 92. Vos 1993, 43, 72–73. As noted above (Chapter 10 § 1), this bandage, it is suggested, may be linked to the mourning band worn on the head of the mourners, though its use was perhaps limited to individuals more closely associated with the embalming of the deceased, as opposed to mourners in a funeral cortège (Collombert 2006, 236–237). Column II, line 3, for which see above. Crum 1939, 3a; Shore and Smith 1960, 286 note h. The same compound verb is used in P. Cairo 30646 (Setne I) in which pharaoh is said to have granted ‘an entry into the house of rejuvenation’ for his dead son (tw pr-ꜥꜣ ṯ=w n=f ꜥḳ r pr-nfr) (4/24–25) (Shore and Smith 1960, 291; Smith 2009, 306 and note 24).

234

chapter 11

The liver rejoices, having been taken on board at the embalming pavilion. The lungs are in exaltation, as they have removed themselves from their woes. The spleen is jubilant because it has already passed beyond its troubles. The large intestine is happy because it has already emerged from the embalming place (and) from weariness. All of your members are in perfect condition through my handiwork.102 A number of the vessels in the embalmers’ cache from the shaft tomb of Menekhibnekau at Abusir are inscribed with the phrase ‘red linen of the children of Horus’ (pꜣ ṯms n nꜣ ms.w ḥr.w) while one mentions the ‘[n]atron of the children of Horus’ (pꜣ [ḥ]smn n nꜣ ms.w ḥr.w),103 thus seemingly referring to this stage of the embalming process, the removal and treatment of the internal organs.104 The internal cavity would now be washed with water and possibly treated with herbs and spices, both for their aromatic qualities and for the sterilizing properties they were thought to possess.105 The next phase of the mummification process involved the desiccation, or dehydration, of the body with natron.106 Remains of natron wrapped in cloth have been found among the embalmers’ deposits in several localities around the country, together with large and small inscribed amphorae said to contain natron, among other substances and materials.107 In the embalmers’ cache found in the shaft tomb of Menekhibnekau at Abusir, the most frequent inscription is ‘red linen and bags’ (pꜣ ṯms ḥnꜥ nꜣ ꜥrf.w).108 With respect to the use of bags, modern experiments on human and animal corpses show that natron was placed inside the body cavity in small bags. Around thirty of these would be needed to fill the abdominal and thoracic cavity, and they would need changing at least twice during 102 103 104 105

106

107 108

Smith 2009, 321. Landgráfová and Janák 2011, 175, vessels XXII, XCIII, XVIII and LXXXVIII. Töpfer (2015, 338) suggests that, in view of the dates mentioned on the vessels, the ‘children of Horus’ could also be a reference to the priests connected with the embalming process. Jackowski et al. 2008, 1483. It is possible that the day between the 4th and the 16th mentioned in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC), though unfortunately in a lacuna, refers to the beginning of this stage, when, following the removal of the internal organs, the corpse would undergo the natron treatment. Natron is white-colourless when pure, and gray-yellow if impure. It is a compound of sodium salts, which include, for example, sodium carbonate, bicarbonate, sulphate, or chloride. Deposits of Natron occur naturally in saline lakebeds in the arid Egyptian environment (Jackowski et al. 2008, 1483–1484). For which see, for example, Eaton-Krauss 2008; Aston and Aston 2010; and Smoláriková 2011, with further references. Landgráfová and Janák 2011, 172.

mummification

235

the entire process.109 In addition, experimental artificial mummification on an eviscerated corpse showed that 273kg of Egyptian natron were insufficient to completely desiccate a body weighing 70.9kg.110 An analysis of the inscribed amphorae found in the Abusir cache (three containing just natron, and six natron and linen), indicates that these would be enough only for the abdominal and thoracic cavity, thus suggesting that the rest of the natron needed for the process may have been stored in loose form in the rest of the uninscribed amphorae. With respect to the noun ṯms, which shows the cloth determinative, the excavators suggest it could designate a type of red cloth, known to have been used in the Apis’ embalming.111 On the basis of this, the excavators suggest that the association of the red linen and bags in the inscribed amphorae may indicate that, while the body cavity was filled with natron bags, natron would be applied in loose form over and around a cloth-sheet covering the body, thus also protecting it from the damaging effects of the salt if put in direct contact with the skin.112 The next question concerns the length of time required for a body to be desiccated and ready to be wrapped. Herodotus states that dehydration took about 70 days (II.86), which can be discounted on the basis of the relevant textual sources discussed. The modern experiment noted above was performed over a period of 35 days, while, according to Goyon, this process may have been accomplished within an Egyptian week, thus for a period of ten days.113 An indication of the length these initial operations would take, including the process of dehydration by means of natron, is provided by a passage in The Stories of Setne Khamwas. Here it is narrated that ‘Pharaoh caused to be made for him an entry into the pr-nfr in 16 day(s), bandaging in 35 day(s), a mummification of 70 day(s))’ (tw pr-ꜥꜣ ṯ=w n=f ꜥḳ n pr-nfr n hrw 16 tbe.t n hrw 35 ḳs.t n hrw 70) (P. Cairo 30646 (Ptolemaic Period) col. 4 lines 24–25).114 The text clearly indicates that 109

110 111 112 113 114

Landgráfová and Janák 2011, 172. Modern experiments in fact suggest that frequent changes of the natron that was in direct contact with the skin was necessary to maintain the osmotic movement of moisture through the skin (Notman and Aufderheide 1995). However, a reduction of the body weight to 35.9 kg was observed, with several body parts being already well preserved during the process (Zimmerman et al. 1998, 417–420). Landgráfová and Janák 2011, 173; Quack 1995, 127. Jackowski et al. 2008, 1484; Landgráfová and Janák 2011, 174. Goyon and Josset 1988, 75; Shore 1992, 231–232. Griffith 1900, 29. The preposition n can be translated as ‘of’ or as ‘in,’ though I have opted for the latter translation because it would mean that these operations started on day 16 and 35 respectively, which are identified as being important landmarks within the entire mummification process. A translation of the preposition n as ‘of’ is also correct since this would mean that they lasted for sixteen and thiryfive days respectively, as it appears was the case.

236

chapter 11

the next phase of the mummification process started with the entry of the deceased into the ‘place of rejuvenation’ (pr-nfr), either literally or symbolically, where he would undergo a stage of the process known by the same name, and that this lasted until the 35th day when the next stage began. A number of other sources identify the 16th as an important day within the process of mummification. In P. Rhind I (9BC) it is on this day that the first of eight ceremonies began, which would be conducted over the ensuing period until the 36th day.115 In P. Florence 3667 (111BC) sbn-bandages and resin, amongst other items, are listed as having been given on this day. Similarly, in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) it is agreed that ten cloths will be given on this day, while in P. Lille 29 (223 BC) the members agree to give 50 rations to pay for the cost of the deceased’s prnfr.116 This in turn implies that all of the preceding operations (evisceration, excerebration and desiccation) would have been completed during the first 16 days.117 3.3 The Period between the 16th and the 35th Day As noted above, the 16th day would mark the beginning of a new stage whereby, through the ritual washing and anointing of the body, the deceased would be rejuvenated.118 An indication of the materials and substances used during this nexts stage of the mummification process is provided by P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) and the short inscriptions on the pots found among the Abusir embalmers’ deposits. The list of items recorded in the first document under the heading ‘Day 28’ (sw 28) (col. III line 8), and thus falling between the 16th and the 35th day, include: 15. herb(s): 8 deben and 2 ½ kite, (sm · 8 ḳt 2 ½),

115 116

117

118

Smith 2009, 305. Although the latter document does not mention a specific day, the fact that it is listed before the 35th day, and that it makes reference to the pr-nfr, with which the 16th day is associated, indicates that it probably referred to the same day as the above examples. Indeed, this possibility is also, indirectly, indicated by the stela of Psammetichos son of Hergemefbakef (Stela Florence 2551, Saite Period) in which the deceased is said to have spent only 20 days in the embalming place. Thus also Shore 1992, 231–232. It is possible that this is the occasion when the choachytes agree ‘to assign to his (scil. the deceased member) people two days of drinking of (the) pr-nfr within the association’ (mtw=w šp tr.t nꜣy=f rmṯ=w hrw 2 n swr n pr-nfr ẖn [tꜣ] 6-nt tꜣ ḳs.t wꜥ hrw n šp ẖn tꜣ 6-nt) (P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC) Text A line 6), which suggests that the relatives of their deceased colleague would be allowed to partake of drinks within the association with the other members.

mummification

237

17. unguent: 10 deben, (sgn · 10), 19. embalming ˹wine:˺ 10 deben,119 (˹i҆rp˺ ḳs · 10), 20. another ˹wine,˺ […] day one which makes 45 deben, (ky ˹i҆rp˺ […] hrw 1 nt i҆w i҆r ḥḏ 45), 21. another wine […] which ˹makes˺ 45 deben, (ky i҆rp […] nt i҆w ˹i҆r˺ ḥḏ 45), 22. another ˹wine˺ (and) natron: 2 deben, (ky ˹i҆rp˺ ḥsmn · 2). The items and substances recorded on the embalmers’ vessels include for this date range the following: Amphorae 53 and 60

24th day: Red linen and bags (hrw mḥ-24 pꜣ ṯms ḥnꜥ nꜣ ꜥrf.w) Amphora 68 Drop-jar b Text A: To be put on the flesh, ḏbꜣ- and mnḫ.t-bandages—28th day (Text A: di҆.(t) r i҆wf ḏbꜣ mnḫ.t120 hrw mḥ-28) Text B: ˹unguent˺ ¼, myrrh ¼, incense ¼ (Text B: ˹gs˺ ¼ ꜥnti҆w ¼ snṯr ¼) Drop-jar 169 First–32nd day: to be put on his flesh to sweeten its smell (mḥ-1 hrw mḥ-32 di҆.(t) r i҆wf=f snḏm sti҆=f ) Amphora 225 32nd day: red linen and bags (hrw mḥ-32 pꜣ ṯms ḥnꜥ nꜣ ꜥrf.w).121 From the preserved portion of the Embalming Ritual (P. Boulaq 3, 1st–2nd century AD) it is clear that the internal organs have already been removed and the work of the embalmers consists of anointing the corpse and of applying cloths and bandages over parts of it. Thus it is possible that part of the surviving section of this ritual was performed during this stage of the mummifica119 120 121

It is possible that this wine was used as a base with which to mix other substances such myrrh, see Chapter 13 § 1. This phrase is also found on Amphora drop-jar 135 A, which Töpfer (2011) suggests should be read as ‘to be put/placed on the flesh, to clothe with mnḫ.t-bandages.’ After Landgráfová and Janák 2011, 177. A bag containing myrrh is placed under the tongue of the Apis during the embalment of the tongue (Vos 1993, Rt. II 12, 45, 335), thus the bags mentioned here need not necessarily be associated with natron and the actual desiccation of the body.

238

chapter 11

tion process. In column four the officiant is instructed to ‘[take up the internal organs]122 again and place in a vessel of faience in which is the unguent of the children of Horus, letting the unguent of this deity permeate the god’s limbs, since the internal organs are regenerated by means of the perspiration which has issued from the body of the divinity. (…) Deposit them in a box (until it is time) to seek them again.’123 In column five the technical note instructs the ritualist to ‘[replace the internal organs]124 on his stomach’ and to ‘coat his back with the precious ointment used previously, after his back has been positioned as when he was on earth (= in an upright position), since all the work of the perfect house (= pr-nfr) has been carried out for him and [lower the mummy]125 to lie prostrate.’126 Following a liturgical section in which are mentioned ointment, various resinous substances, plants, bands and cloths, as well as fat, wax, precious stones and moringa oil,127 the text continues with the technical section: ‘after coating his back with ointment and (applying) a bandage, corresponding to his earthly state, take care not to turn him over on his chest, his face, or his stomach when packed with medicaments, (or) the gods who are within his abdomen will be displaced from their position.’128 Has as been stated before, the surviving portion of the ritual does not give a full account of all the stages of the mummification process. No mention is made, for example, of the suturing of the incision through which the internal organs would have been removed.129 A possibility is that this operation is referred to, indirectly, with the statement that all the work of the pr-nfr has been carried out.130 Nevertheless, the exhortation at the end of column five to take care when moving the body, lest the internal organs be displaced, indicates that the incision was not yet sutured. Another possibility is that the compound pr-nfr is used here in the same way as in P. Florence 3667 (111BC) where it apparently encompasses the period between the first and the 35th day. However, this being the case, it is unclear whether the remainder of the ritual concerns only the work carried

122 123

124 125 126 127 128 129 130

For this restoration see Smith 2009, 220. Smith 2009, 227. Part of the text is not preserved, and it is not entirely clear what the ritualist is meant to do with the previously removed internal organs. Whatever it is, it is to be done in full view of the mummy before depositing them in a box (Smith 2009, 220). For this restoration see Smith 2009, 221 and note 29. The word mummy, or bandages is suggested by Smith (2009, 221, 227 note 48) on the basis of the word ending and the traces of the ‘cloth’ determinative. Smith 2009, 227. Smith 2009, 228. Smith 2009, 229 (in this quote, italics replace the underlining of the original edition). Smith 2009, 224. Smith 2009, 224 note 38.

mummification

239

out up to the beginning of the next stage, or if it also includes the ceremonies performed during this successive stage, the 35 days ceremony. On the basis of a passage in one of the dream texts in the archive of Hor from Saqqara, I would suggest that all of the Embalming Ritual’s operations had been completed by the end of the 35th day. The passage concerns a conversation between the dreamer and ‘a great man’ who assures the former that he ‘(shall) have a living soul (= Ba) from the 35th day.’131 Clearly, the body would not be able to receive a new life if the actual embalming had not been completed. This means that from this point onwards the work of the embalmers concerned the wrapping of the entire corpse, as opposed to individual body parts which had already been bandaged during this first stage of the embalming process. 3.4 The Period between the 35th and the 70th Day Both documentary and religious sources indicate that the 35th, and especially the ensuing 35 days, were of ritual significance. According to P. Rhind I (9 BC) another nine ceremonies would be conducted for the deceased from the 36th day onwards, although the nature of these, and of the preceding eight ones, is not specified.132 In P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) the contractual parties agree to give ‘10 (cloths for) the 35th day’ ((ḥbs) 10 pꜣ hrw mḥ-35) (line 15), and that no one (else) will be allowed to ‘do the ceremonies of the 35th day’ (i҆r ḥb n pꜣ hrw mḥ-35) (line 17). Further down, the same document makes a reference to ‘the [priest] of Wepwawet who will die, and the one who will be embalmed, together with his 35 (days ceremonies)’ (pꜣ [wꜥb] wp-wꜣw.t nt i҆w=f mwt ḥnꜥ pꜣ nt i҆w=w ḳs=f ˹s˺ ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f 35) (line 21).133 In P. Lille 29 (223BC) the members undertake to give ‘25 ⟨rations⟩ (for) his 35 (days ceremonies)’ (nꜣy=f 35 ⟨ꜥḳ⟩ 25) (line 18). In P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC) the association’s members agree that ‘they will not go to the ḳs.w and (the) 35 (days) of the šty-ceremony, besides those on the heart of134 the choachyte’ (bn=w šm r ḳs.w ḥnꜥ 35 tꜣ šty m-sꜣ nꜣy.w ḥr-ḥꜣ.ṱ pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw) (Text C lines 2–3), and again further down there is mention of the ‘choachyte who goes to (the) ḳs, (the) wꜥb (and the) 35 (days ceremony) to give cloth (and a) bed (for) his šty-ceremony’ (wꜣḥ-mw mtw=f šm r ḳs wꜥb 35 r ty ḥbs glg pꜣy=f šty) (Text C lines 11–12). P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC) identifies this 35-day period as ‘the 35 (days ceremony) of single wrapping’ (nꜣ 35

131 132 133 134

Ray 1976, text 8 line 21, 41, 43 note z. Smith 2009, 306, 321–322 col. 5. Shore and Smith 1960, 284; the editors translated the verb ḳs as ‘buried,’ but given the following reference to the 35 (days) it seems more logical to translate it as ‘mummified.’ That is, those chosen by the family’s choachyte, possibly referring to his assistants or subordinates, and any other person whose participation he might request.

240

chapter 11

n wꜥ wyṱ) (line 17), possibly referring to the bandaging of the entire corpse, as opposed to the wrapping of individual body parts.135 Thus the šty-ceremony to which the choachytes’ regulations refer is the same wrapping ceremony as that mentioned in the latter document.136 In the passage from The Stories of Setne Khamwas, the bandaging is also said to have lasted 35 days (tbe.t n hrw 35) (P. Cairo 30646 (Ptolemaic Period) col. 4 line 25). This extended bandaging period is also mentioned by Diodorus Siculus according to whom ‘the Egyptians carefully dress the whole body for over thirty days, first with cedar oil, and certain other preparations, and then with myrrh, cinnamon, and such other material as had the faculty of giving it not only preservation, but also a fragrant odour’ (I 91.6). The stela of Annos/Anemher (Stela Cairo 31099, 73 BC) adds more detail as to the operations actually carried out during this period since it records that from the ‘second month of the harvest season day 20 until day 24 they (= the embalmers) cooked for him mtḥ-unguents and ˹brought˺ for him the mnḫ-bandages (and) the royal-byssus’ (i҆bt 2 šmw sw 20 šꜣꜥ sw 24 psy=w [n=f ] mtḥy.w ˹i҆n=w˺ n=f nꜣ mnḫ.t nꜣ šs.w-nsw) (line 8). Thus, according to this source, from day 52 to day 56 the embalmers prepared the unguents and fetched the cloths and bandages to wrap the deceased.137 Among the items and substances listed in the inscribed vessels among the Abusir embalmers’ deposit there are ḏbꜣ and mnḫ.t bandages (under day 40, 44, 45 and 52), an unguent (day 52), as well as sfy-resin and myrrh (day 60 and 63).138 Indeed, chemical analyses of mummies reveal the presence of a range of substances coating the mummy wrappings. The wrappings of the Mummy ÄS 73B in Munich, for example, were coated with a blend of beeswax, oil, resin, gum, soda, and bitumen.139 The last few days (after day 61 in one case and 63 in the latter case) may have been devoted to a different phase, when, perhaps, the elaborate decorative mummy 135

136

137

138 139

If this interpretation is correct, then the Embalming Ritual preserved in P. Boulaq 3 possibly concerns only the operations performed up to the 35th day, since it does not appear to refer to the wrapping of the entire corpse, but only of individual body parts (head, hands, toes and legs). De Cenival (1972, 118, 121 note 2,2) interprets the šty as referring to the ceremonies that were performed by the choachytes following the burial, and renders line 2 as ‘nul ne devra aller aux enterrements ni aux 35 jours de la liturgie’ (P. Berlin P. 3115, text C). This is also corroborated by the evidence of P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Late Ptolemaic) in which the wrapping of the Apis Bull is said to have lasted for 16 days, up to his 68th day (Vos 1993, 36). According to Sauneron (1952, XV) the presence within the mummy wrappings of insects and even rodents suggests the wrapping lasted several days. After Landgráfová and Janák 2011, 177. See table 4 infra. Serpico and White 2006, 467; Storch and Schäfer 1985, 331, table I. Similar findings are attested from other studies on a range of mummies from different museums, for which see Connan 2005, tables 5 and 6.

241

mummification table 4

Stages of the ideal mummification and burial on the basis of the documentary sources listed

Documents

PurifiEvisceration Anointing + cation + + desiccation partial wraprituals (10 + days) ping + rituals (1–4) (c. 16 days)

P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270 BC)

wꜥb

P. Florence 7127 (264 BC)

pr-nfr

P. Lille 29 (223 BC)

[pr-nfr]: 50 rations

P. BM EA 10561 (157 BC)

his ḳs

P. Cairo 30606 (157 BC)

his ḳs.t and

his pr-nfr

P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC)

his ḳs.t and

his pr-nfr

Final wrapping Night before + rituals (c. 35 burial in place days) of embalming + day of burial

his 35 (days): 25 his ḥb ḳs: 25 rations rations 35 (days)

P. Prague (137 BC)

give 5 deben for his ḳs.t

P. Berlin P. 3115 (109 BC) A

2 days drinking of the pr-nfr

1 day drinking for ḳs.t

P. Berlin P. 3115 (109 BC) A

go to the ḳs.t

35 (days)

P. Berlin P. 3115 (108 BC) C

go to the ḳs.w

35 (days) of the šty- ceremony

P. Berlin P. 3115 (108 BC) C

goes to the ḳs wꜥb

35 (days) = give (the) cloth (and the) bed for his šty-ceremony

P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) Col. I

wꜥb.t

P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) Col. III

pr-nfr

P. Cairo 50127 (1st cent. BC)

the 35 (day ceremony) of single (= one) wrapping

242

chapter 11

wrapping was executed,140 or the time when cartonnage elements/case were fixed to the bandaged body, or they may have been taken up entirely with the recitation of rituals. Finally, on the night before burial a last ritual would be recited for the deceased in the embalming place. A reference to these rituals is found in the stela of Annos/Anemher (Stela Cairo 31099, 73BC) where it is recorded that ‘it was made for him a great and fine ḳs from the third month of the harvest season, day 6 until day 10’ (i҆r=w n=f ḳs ꜥꜣ.t nfr.t r-ẖ pꜣ nt i҆y n sẖ ṯ i҆bt 3 šmw sw 6 šꜥ-twꜣ n sw 10) (line 9).141 Since the noun ḳs here cannot denote the mummification or the actual burial, it is likely that it refers to the rituals performed for the benefit of the deceased before the actual interment. Examples of the religious compositions that would be recited at this time include the third composition preserved in P. BM EA 10507 (Late Ptolemaic—Early Roman Period) titled ‘The stanzas of awakening the ba which are recited on the night of mummification for a god’s-servant, a wꜥb-priest, a magistrate, a scribe, and the rest of the men who are great and before whom it is fitting to recite them’ (col. IV lines 1–3).142 Because Osiris’ mummification was performed in the course of a single night, the embalming process of ordinary individuals would be made to conform to that of the god by re-enacting, on the night before the burial, all of the ceremonies that had been performed during the entire mummification process. Thus, in accordance with its title, this particular composition would have been recited at night, that is, the final night in the embalming place, on the eve of the deceased’s interment.143 Other examples of Afterlife texts recited in the embalming place on the eve of the deceased’s burial are P. Rhind 1 and 2, as well as P. Harkness (Section 1).144 Throughout this chapter reference has been made to the 70 days of the mummification process, which is the length of the ideal embalmment. However, it is important to bear in mind that its actual duration would have been influenced by practical, financial and religious factors. Practical considerations, such as the need to wait for the resin to dry before beginning the next stage of bandaging, for example, would have influenced the timing of the different operations. Most importantly, though, the process of mummification consisted not only of actual operations performed on the corpse to create a mummy, but also of rituals and utterances which created a god. Thus it was religious and mythological 140 141 142 143 144

Shore 1992, 230. For the correction to the reading of the dates see Smith 2009, 37 note 143. Smith 1987, 24–25, 38. Smith 1987, 26–28. Smith 2009, Texts 12–15, and 211, 274.

243

mummification table 5

Attestations of the mummification process’ length in textual sources

Name of deceased

Time in the embalming place

Document and date

Herennia Naneferkaptah Petobastis Tnapheros Ken son of Harsemtheus Pharaoh Psammetichos Timinis Psenptais Annos Petobastis Taimouthes Amasis Teos Pausis son of Thotortaios

9 days 70 days 70 days 70 days 70 days 70 days 80 days 71 days (75 from death) (80 days?) 72 days (76 from death) 73 days (from death to burial?) 70 days(?) 80 days 79 days (83 from death) 71 days (given to choachyte on day 72) 70 days(?) 42 days

P. Fouad 75 (AD64)a P. Cairo 30646 (Roman Period) Stela BM EA 188 (Roman Period) Stela BM EA 184 (Ptolemaic-Roman Period) P. Berlin P. 13588 (1st century BC) P. Berlin P. 13588 (1st century BC) Cairo Inscription (1st century BC)b Stela BM EA 886 (41BC) Stela Cairo 31099 (73BC) Stela H.M.V. 82 (76–75BC) Stela BM EA 387 (132BC) Stela Bologna KS 1943 (183BC) Stela H.M.V. 162 (224–223BC) P. BM EA 10077 a (270BC)

32 days? 20 days

Stela SCA 149 (Saite Period) Stela Florence 2551 (Saite Period)

70 days 70 days 72 days 70 days 70 days 70 days

P. Rylands III (610? BC) Sarcophagus Cairo 31566 (26th Dynasty) Statue-stela Cairo 86125 (21st Dynasty) Statue-stela Cairo 86125 (21st Dynasty) Theban Tomb 110 (18th Dynasty) Theban Tomb 164 (18th Dynasty)

Herib Psammetichos son of Iahweben Psammetichos Psammetichos son of Hergemefbakef Psammetichos Petesemtheus Anchefenamun Irmutpanefer Thotes Intef

Stela BM EA 378 (163BC) Stela Leiden V, 18 (Saite Period)

a Youtie 1958, 374–376; Bataille 1952, 216; Montserrat 1997, 37. b Piehl, 1886, 36.

considerations that would have determined its timing, rather than the actual time needed, for example, to bandage the body.145 Nevertheless, it is clear that, in practice, there could be a variation in the actual length of the mummification process, as can be seen from the preceding table. Such a variation would have been influenced also by economic factors, since the number and elaborateness of the rituals performed for the benefit of the deceased during this process would have a bearing on the final cost of the mummification and burial.

145

Shore 1992, 230.

244 4

chapter 11

Funerary Priests Involved in the Mummification Process

According to the Embalming Ritual ‘[s]eeking out what pertains to the rites along with what relates to the images is the responsibility of the overseer of the mystery (ḥry sštꜣ), since it is necessary to observe what is in writing,’146 thus indicating that he is in charge of the mummification process. In his tasks he is assisted by a god’s seal-bearer and lector priests, where the latter group appear to have had a lower standing than the first two, since the same text prescribes that ‘After this, Anubis the overseer of the mystery sits down by the head of this god with no lector priest approaching him until the overseer of the mystery completes all work on him, except for the god’s seal-bearer who can have access to the head under the supervision of the overseer of the mystery.’147 An overseer of the mystery of the Apis, Peteimouthes, who also bears the title of god’s seal-bearer, is attested among the Memphite documents, in P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC) (line 8).148 However, the latter is the only attestation of an overseer of the mystery among the documentary sources analysed. All other examples concern individuals who were apparently involved in the embalmment of sacred animals.149 The overseer of the mystery is, for example, in charge of the embalming of the Apis Bull in which he is assisted by four lector-priests,150 as well as of a falcon in which he is, again, assisted by lector-priests,151 and of the Buchis bull.152 The documentary sources indicate that the individuals in charge of the mummification process were the lector priests (ẖr-ḥb), or individuals bearing a different title though clearly performing this function, as in the case of the mortuary priests at Memphis and Hawara. In addition, there is also some indication that in this they were assisted by embalmers (ḳs), thus suggesting there was a division of roles according to rank, although the evidence is not conclusive. In P. Florence 3667 (111BC) the funerary expenses include: The reckoning of the corn for the hand˹s˺ of ˹the people˺ who embalm (pꜣ i҆p sw pꜣ ꜥ.wy˹.w˺ [˹nꜣ rmṯ˺].w ḳs); col. II line 1 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

P. Boulaq 3, col. 7 (Smith 2009, 231). P. Boulaq 3, col. 7 (Smith 2009, 230) (in this quote, italics replace the underlining of the original edition). Martin 2009, 101–109. For a survey of the title ḥry sštꜣ see Rydström 1994, and Balanda 2009. But see Vos 1978, 262–265. Vos 1993, 37, 43, recto I,2. Spiegelberg 1917; Vleeming 2001, 209–211 no. 206. Spiegelberg 1920; Vos 1978, 260–267.

mummification

245

˹½˺ hin of resin and one ḥbs-cloth for the lector priest ([hn] syf ˹½˺ ḥbs 1 pꜣ ẖr-ḥb) col. III line 3

lector priest half hin of syf-resin (and) 1 ⟨cloth⟩ (ẖr-ḥb gs hn syf ⟨ḥbs⟩ 1) col. III line 9

the expenses for the embalmers (pꜣ hy nꜣ ḳs.w). col. III line 10

The fact that the title lector-priest is used only in the singular, while that of embalmer appears in the plural in both instances, is perhaps an indication of the range of people who took part in the process of embalming and possibly of their different ranks. Thus the embalmers would have been responsible for the actual operations, while the lector-priest may have been in charge of overseeing the proceedings. Different people are also mentioned in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC),153 again suggesting that there would have been a division of competences possibly based on rank. From Thebes there is also evidence to suggest that the choachytes were partly involved in the mummification process, in that they were responsible for the provision of some of the embalming materials and equipment used for the embalmment of the deceased in their care.154 These materials were probably taken out of the association’s stock as suggested by the fact that choachytes are supposed to issue a receipt for them to their house (mtw=f i҆sw r pꜣy=f ꜥ.wy) (line 12), a term used throughout the text to refer to the association itself.155 At Siut the provision of particular cloths fell under the competence of the lector priests themselves, according to P. BM EA 10561

153 154 155

See below. For the relevant passages see above Chapter 11 § 3. A more involved role in the embalming of a deceased relative is suggested by the evidence of P. Turin Suppl. 6083 (105 BC) where the door-keeper Pichos confirms that his sister has paid him for her ⅓ share in the burial of their father Psemminis, son of Zmanres, stating that ‘I will prepare him for burial (and) will lay him to rest in the ḥ.t-tomb’ (mtw=y ḳs=f mtw=y ti҆ ḥtp=f n tꜣ ḥ.t) (lines 4–5). One might have expected Pichos to state that he would cause the father to be mummified, rather than he would mummify him. However, in Text D of P. Berlin P. 3115 (108 BC) the choachytes agree ‘not to apply (embalming)-medicaments to the dead of our house’ (r tm ḥwy pẖr.(t) r mwt n pꜣy=n ꜥ.wy) (line 3), which perhaps suggests it is something that may have happened, or there would not have been any need to prevent it by including such a clause in the association’s regulations.

246

chapter 11

(157BC), an agreement stipulated between two groups of lector-priests. The latter is often identified as an embalming agreement, although most of it, in fact, concerns the provision of cloth to individuals performing different operations during the mummification process.156 Party A promises (tw=n ꜥš r-r=k) (line 12) Party B that ‘(as for) the man among us who will be approached concerning a dead man from Siut, together with his colleagues,157 from today onwards, [forever], he will give: 10 cloths to his men;158 1 cloth of taking entry,159 1 lotus flower,160 (and) 2 cloth(s) to the man who will serve him (= the deceased); 5 cloth(s) (for) the 4th day; […] cloth(s) (for) the [˹8th˺] day; 10 cloth(s) (for) the 16th day; 10 (cloth(s)) (for) the 35th day; 10 cloth(s) (for) the day of burial; […] cloth(s) (for) the man ⟨˹who˺⟩ will be approached to anoint him, [(and) ˹we shall not be able to˺] go to any other man at all among them;161 10 cloth(s) (for) the man who will be brought out of the town;162 […] cloth(s) (for) the man who will be turned on the ground’163 (pꜣ rmṯ ni҆m=n nt i҆w=w i҆y n=f r-ḏbꜣ rmṯ i҆w=f mwt n sywṱ i҆rm nꜣy=f sn.w ṯ pꜣ hrw r ḥry [šꜥ ḏt]

156

157 158 159 160

161 162 163

This agreement is markedly different from that recorded in P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC) stipulated between an embalmer and the father of a deceased person, but similar to the oath recorded in P. Ashmolean D. 18–19 (1968.13+ 1968. 14) (70–60BC) stipulated between embalmers. I follow Shore and Smith (1960, 285 note d) in understanding the noun as ‘associates’ rather than literally as ‘brothers.’ Presumably the associates of the person who is ‘approached,’ thus either of the contracting parties. For this expression see above Chapter 11 § 3. White Lotus is one of the vegetable substances used during the mummification according to the technical notes in the Embalming Ritual (P. Boulaq 3 [1st–2nd century AD]). See, for example, col. 9 ‘Anoint as far as his fingers on the outside: white lotus, natron, resinous substance;’ col. 10 ‘Place white lotus, natron and resinous substance of the desert in his right hand, and coat with mestenu-liquid;’ col. 11 ‘Apply white lotus, natron and resinous substance, four parts, at the extremities of his legs’ (Smith 2009, 237, 240, 242). The mention of a lotus flower in conjunction with embalming and burial also has a parallel with the letter, possibly from Hermopolis, recorded in P. Louvre E 3334 (198BC) (Ray 1977, 111 note e). The restoration follows the suggestion by Shore and Smith 1960, 286–287 note m. The person to whom reference is made would seem to be the deceased, but the exact meaning of this passage escapes me. It is not clear who this person might be and what his role would be in the mummification

mummification

247

i҆w=f ty ḥbs 10 n nꜣy=f rmṯ.w ḥbs ṯ ꜥḳ 1 sšn 1 pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=f šms r-r=f ḥbs 2 pꜣ hrw mḥ4 ḥbs 5 [pꜣ hrw mḥ-[… ḥbs …] pꜣ hrw mḥ-16 (ḥbs) 10 pꜣ hrw mḥ-35 ḥbs 10 pꜣ hrw n ḳs ḥbs 10 pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=w i҆y ⟨˹n=f ˺⟩ r wrḥ=f ḥbs […] [˹n-mtw=n tm rḫ˺] šm n pꜣ gꜣ rmṯ pꜣ tꜣ n-i҆m=w pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=w i҆n=f pꜣ bnr tmy ḥbs 10 pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=w pnꜥ=f n pꜣ i҆tn [ḥbs …]) (lines 13–16). Party A further affirm that: ‘[˹no one at all shall˺] perform the ceremonies on the 35th day and on the day of burial beside these (men); (and) we shall not be able to give the cloths (with) which we make the ceremonies on the aforesaid days (to) any other man at all, o[˹r … g˺]o (to) another man among them’ ([˹bn i҆w rmṯ nb pꜣ tꜣ˺] i҆r ḥb n pꜣ hrw mḥ-35 pꜣ hrw n ḳs pꜣ bnr nꜣy n-mtw=n tm rḫ ty nꜣ ḥbs.w nt i҆w=n i҆r (ḥ)b n nꜣ hrw.w nt ḥry gꜣ rmṯ n pꜣ tꜣ š[˹m … g˺]ꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=w) (lines 16–18). Thus the agreement stipulates that a number of cloths, possibly ceremonial clothing as argued by Shore and Smith,164 are to be given to specific individuals involved in the mummification of a dead person and on specific days, or stages, of this process. Party A further states ‘we shall not be able to give (a) cloth, (an) i҆nw-cloth (or a) gtn-robe [˹besides˺] the cloths aforesaid, (and) we shall not be able to give a bed, a gnrṱ-cloth, a šty-cloth, (or) a funerary bed to an embalmer’165 (n-mtw=n tm rḫ ty ḥbs ˹i҆nw˺ gtn [˹pꜣ bnr˺] ḥbs.w nt ḥry n-mtw=n tm rḫ ty glg gnrṱ šty s.t-sḏr n rmṯ i҆w=f ḳs) (lines 18–19). The items that Party A promises not to give to an embalmer are exactly those that the choachytes were supposed to provide for the embalmment of a dead person under their care. This suggests that there probably was a group of mortuary priests who, if not identified by the same title, certainly performed the same tasks as the Theban choachytes with respect to the deceased. In addition, Party A affirm ‘we sha[ll not be able] to appoint a bandager,166 we ˹having a claim on you˺ to guarantee us concerning him (…) (and) he will take an oath saying: “the cloth is my own cloth of free-man”’ (n-m[tw=n tm rḫ] wꜣḥ-sḥn pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=f gyl r-i҆w=n [˹m-sꜣ=k˺] i҆w ꜥš r-ḥr=n ẖr-r=f (…) mtw=f (i҆r) ꜥnḫ ḏ pꜣ ḥbs pꜣy=y ḥbs rmṯ-nmḥ pꜣy) (lines 19–21). The document indicates that, aside from the lector-priest(s), the other individuals involved in the mummification process included the person who anointed the body, the embalmer, and the bandager. The latter, at least at Siut, was also responsible for the provision of the cloth used in the wrapping of the body, for which he would presumably be paid by the

164 165 166

process. For the last two clauses to make sense, one would need to amend them to pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=f i҆n=f pꜣ bnr tmy and pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=f pnꜥ=f n pꜣ i҆tn, thus understanding them as a reference to the individual who transported the deceased from the town to the necropolis, and to the person who perhaps dug the tomb (or freed its entrance pit of the backfill) or placed him inside it. But see Chapter 18 for a different interpretation. Shore and Smith 1960, 291 and note 30. Literally ‘a man who embalms’ (rmṯ i҆w=f ḳs). Literally ‘a man who wraps’ (rmṯ nt i҆w=f gyl).

248

chapter 11

deceased’s family. According to this document he would have been engaged by the lector-priest in charge, although there is no information on what basis the person would have been chosen. In particular, it is not known whether these individuals also divided their territorial competence, as the lector-priests did, or if they were chosen on the basis of personal affiliation with particular lectorpriests. P. Ashmolean D. 18–19 (1968.13+1968.14) (70–60 BC), an oath concerning the territorial competence of a group of god’s seal-bearers, indicates that these individuals belonged to the same class of mortuary priest, though some appear to have specialised in different operations of the mummification process. Party A, a group of god’s seal-bearers, undertakes to refrain from going to a series of named settlements in order ‘to do the work of lector-priest and to anoint’ (r i҆r bꜣk ẖr-ḥb wrḥ) (line 6), thus showing that both these operations fell under the competence of this class of mortuary priests. As has been remarked before, the ‘clients’ of the choachytes appear, in the main, to have belonged to the (upper) middle and lower societal levels, which is perhaps consistent with the fact that the rank of these mortuary priests was not the highest in the temple hierarchy. This suggests that there may have been higher status priests looking after clients from upper levels of society.167 This being the case, it is possible that the same criterion applied to the individuals responsible for the mummification, which may be the reason why there are no recorded individuals by the title of overseer of the mystery in charge of the mummification of the deceased attested in the documents under analysis. One aspect that should be remembered is that all of the individuals involved in the mummification and burial of a person (thus performing the function of choachytes, lector-priests and embalmers, whatever their actual title) would need to be remunerated, which amount would, presumably, depend on their status. Thus the higher the status of the priests attending the dead, as well as their number, the higher the cost of the entire process. However, as the old adage goes, ‘the dead do not bury themselves.’168 Thus the standing of the priests involved in the mummification would be a reflection also of the standing of the deceased’s living relatives, who would have strived to employ the services of someone of a comparable, if not higher, social status than their own. 167 168

Bataille 1952, 252–254; Schreiber 2007, 344–345. See also Chapter 14 §3 below. Parker Pearson 1999, 3.

chapter 12

Burial Whether professionally embalmed, or simply prepared by family members, the body was now ready for the final journey to the burial place. The responsibility for the care of the deceased now passed to the choachytes, or those funerary priests performing this function.

1

Role of the Funerary Priests Following the Mummification Process

Although, as noted above, it was the funerary attendants who performed the function of lector-priests that were in charge in the embalming place, choachytes appear to have been present too.1 It was them that at the end of the mummification process took charge of the deceased, although it is not clear from the documentary sources who were the individuals that would be performing the final rites before the actual entombment.2 In P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC), from Thebes, the embalmer undertakes to deliver the embalmed body to the family’s choachyte within the 72nd day, thus, again, suggesting that the latter was responsible for the deceased’s entombment. Additional evidence for the presence of choachytes in the embalming place is provided by O. Strassburg 189 (Roman Period) in which the ferryman undertakes to ferry over not only the deceased, but also his embalmer and his choachyte.3 By contrast, in those areas where the function of both choachytes and lector priests was performed by the same individual, with the title of god’s seal-bearer and embalmer, the latter would be in charge of the burial of the deceased, as well as its mummification. A clear indication that the burial was the responsibility of this class of mortuary priests is provided by P. Carlsberg 37a (220 BC) in which, with respect to the deceased person, party A declares: ‘I will take him to the ḥ.t-tomb of Teos son of Pasis, your father, in the necropolis of Hawara, he being embalmed, after he has been placed in my care (lit. hand) embalmed’ (i҆w=y ṯ.ṱ=f r tꜣ ḥ.t n ḏ-ḥr sꜣ p-si҆y pꜣy=t i҆ṱ n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḥ.t-wr i҆w=f ḳs i҆w=w ty s r ḏr.ṱ=y i҆w=f ḳs) (lines 7–8). And similarly in P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) where party A states: ‘I will bring him (scil. her deceased husband) to you for (the burial in) the ḥ.t-tomb of (…) Teos son of 1 See above Chapter 11 § 4. 2 See also below Chapter 12 § 2. 3 Vinson 1998, 176–177. On this document see also above Chapter 10 §3.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_014

250

chapter 12

Pasis, (…) my father, which is in the necropolis of Hawara, he being mummified’ (i҆w=y i҆n.ṱ=f n=k r tꜣ ḥ.t n (…) ḏ-ḥr sꜣ pa-si҆y (…) pꜣy=y i҆ṱ nt n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḥ.t-wr i҆w=f ḳs) (lines 5–6). The same is also shown by those contracts, stipulated among god’s seal-bearers and embalmers, concerning the sale or donation of assets generating funerary-income. This is the case in P. Rendell (232BC), P. BM EA 10605 (98BC) and P. Hamburg 2 (83BC), all of which concern the transfer of liturgies in ḥ.t-tombs, as well as P. Cairo 50126 (116–107 BC), P. Ashmolean D. 10 (1968.10) (99–98BC) and P. Hamburg 9 (79BC), concerning liturgies in ꜥ.wy-rmṯ-tombs, which indicate that the god’s seal-bearers and embalmers were involved in the burial as well. Were this not the case, they would not have any rights in these structures, since their responsibility would have ended with the mummification of the deceased.

2

Funeral and Burial

On the day of burial the deceased, accompanied by family and friends, would be conveyed from the embalming place to the tomb, in a solemn procession and amidst much mourning. These phases are often included in the decorative programme of tombs and funerary papyri, and consist of stages five and six of the seven main funerary ritual complexes: 5. Procession to the Tomb ‘funeral’ ( jrt ḳrst nfrt) 6. Opening of the Mouth ritual ‘opening of the mouth’ (wpt rꜣ) According to these images, before the deceased was finally laid to rest in the tomb, one last rite to be carried out was the Opening of the Mouth Ritual,4 or an equivalent, which would be performed before the deceased was placed in his/her final resting place.5 The ritual centred around two main themes: the (re)animation of the mummified body (or of a statue of the deceased), and the purification and presentation of offerings, which involved the feeding and clothing of the deceased. In sacramental terms, the presentation of offerings symbolised the social reintegration of the deceased in the community of the gods, allowing him to partake in the offerings presented to them.6 In fact, although the mummification had stopped the process of decomposition ensuring the material preservation of the body, while ritualistically averting the 4 See Smith 1993 and 2009 (Texts 16–19) for examples of this type of afterlife composition. 5 Assmann 2005, 310; Smith 2009, 40. 6 Smith 1993, 8, 13; Assmann 2005, 310–329.

burial

251

dangers present during the transitional state between the earthly and the eternal life, the bodily functions essential to life itself were yet to be restored to the deceased, who in this revivified state, had to be dressed and fed for the first time. The elaborate liturgy by which these operations were accomplished was the Opening of the Mouth Ritual.7 Of the dramatis personae involved in the performance of these rituals, the chief lector priest and the sem-priest,8 representing the son of the deceased, were the main officiants.9 In the archaeological record evidence for the performance of this cult would consist of the cultic instruments and tools used during the performance of the ritual. Among the embalmers’ deposits found in the tomb of Menekhibnekau at Abusir, for example, were discovered two faience offering tables, which may have been used for this purpose. What is very interesting in this context is the fact that these objects appear to have been among the last ones to be deposited in the tomb,10 thus one can envisage the priest at the end of the ritual performance depositing these inside the tomb before finally sealing it at the end of the mortuary proceedings. The actual interment of the body was followed by the recitations of additional mortuary texts. The second composition preserved in P. BM EA 10507,11 for example, prescribes that the ritual be recited in the presence of the deceased on the night of his ‘burial feast.’ As Smith argues, the fact that the document refers to the night (grḥ) of the deceased’s ḥb ḳs.t suggests that the feast took place within the course of a single day, which was probably also the day of the actual interment. Because the recitation is supposed to take place in the presence of the individual on the night of burial, thus after the deceased has been laid to rest, it follows that the text was recited at the tomb itself, and that this is also the place where the ḥb ḳs was celebrated.12 Another religious composition that may have been recited at the tomb after the deceased had been

7 8

9 10 11

12

Davies and Gardiner 1915, 57. His professional title was that of ka-priest and he was responsible for the mortuary cult in the tomb (Assmann 2005, 303), thus his role corresponded to that of the choachytes in the Ptolemaic funerary context. Assmann 2005, 302–303, and 311 fig. 5; Smith 1993, 15 (b). The offering tables were found at the end of corridor B, which is a continuation of the deposits found in corridors C and D (Smoláriková 2011, 87 and Figs. 13, 30–31). This second composition (P. BM EA 10507 columns II and III) is described as ‘The book which was made in exact accordance with his desire for Horemheb the son of Petemin to cause it to be recited as an opening of the mouth document in his presence on the night of his burial feast’ (mḏꜣ.(t) i҆r m i҆b=f (n)-tnf n ḥr-m-ḥb sꜣ pꜣ-ti҆-mn r ti҆ ꜥš=w s wpy-rꜣ m-bꜣḥ=f n grḥ n pꜣy=f ḥb qs.(t)) (lines 1–2) (Smith 1987). Smith 1987, 22.

252

chapter 12

laid to rest is the ‘Spell for Striking the Copper’ (P. Strasbourg 3 verso) (Early first century AD). This was to be recited in conjunction with the lighting of a torch, and was intended to protect and illuminate the way for the deceased, thus permitting movement.13 No evidence at all can be gathered from the documentary sources on the actual burial procedures, but the use of the same term ḥb ḳs, or festival of burial, in P. Lille 29 (223BC) from the Fayum, indicates that there would have been some kind of formal celebration to honour the deceased, perhaps involving the consumption of food. In this document, the association’s members undertake to give ‘25 rations (for) his (scil. the deceased’s) burial ceremony’ (pꜣy=f ḥb ḳs ꜥḳ 25) (line 18).14 In fact, there is some evidence that Egyptian funerals ended with a banquet, which took place in, or at, the tomb.15 Evidence for funerary repasts is also found in the archaeological record, which suggests this would have taken place at the time of burial,16 while another celebration may have taken place at the home of the deceased.17 As noted above,18 the regulations of some religious associations in the Fayum indicate that the association members would take the relatives to the association’s meeting place and share a drink with them, although there is no evidence for the actual consumption of a funerary repast. On the other hand, evidence for the latter is found in a small number of documents written in Greek which record a list of expenses undertaken on such an occasion, although they do not specify where and when such a repast took place. P. Tebtunis 118 (Late 2nd century BC) records three different accounts made on three different dates, although only the first is clearly labelled as an account relating to a ‘funeral repast’ (περίδειπνον). The text opens with the heading ‘Hathyr 17: for the funeral repast of Kalatutis’ (line 1), followed by a list of the people present, identified either as members or as guests, and the expenses undertaken: 1 6-chous-jar of wine: 2000 drachmae 6 dinner loaves: 190 drachmae

13 14 15

16

17 18

Smith 2009, Text 20, and 389–390, 392. In addition, in P. BM EA 10561 (157 BC) it is agreed that 10 cloths are to be given for the day of burial (pꜣ hrw ḳs). Smith 1987, 23 and note 66 with further references. There is also some evidence indicating that some of the Deir el-Medina workmen were given time off work to attend the various ceremonies that accompanied the burial (Janssen 1980, 138–141; Smith 1987, 23). Evidence for this is found in Egypt (see for example Emery 1962) and in Classical Greece whence there is also some evidence for food offerings made at the grave (Wilson 2006, 135). Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 146; Wilson 2006, 135. See Chapter 10 § 1.

253

burial

total for 22 persons: 2190 drachmae Total 22 at 100 drachmae (each): 2200 drachmae, in the house [10 drachmae?]. lines 2–3

The text specifies that of the 22 persons present 18 were members (σύνδειπνοι) while four were guests (ξένοι) (line 4). On the 20th, possibly of the same month, another such account is listed although it is not specified whether it refers to the same event: 1 6-chous-jar of wine: 2000 drachmae 1 garland: 120 drachmae total: 2120 drachmae. total 23 (persons) at 100 drachmae (each): 2300 drachmae, in the house 180 drachmae. line 9–15

On this occasion there were present 18 members and some individually named guests. The next list is dated Tybi 25th again without any indication of whether it refers to the same event: 1 jar of wine: 2000 drachmae 1 garland: [120 drachmae] total: 2120 drachmae total 21 (persons) at 100 drachmae (each): 2100 drachmae, expenses 20 drachmae.19 lines 16–18

The editors identified this document as ‘accounts of a dining-club’ without, however, commenting on the fact that at least one of these refers to a funeral repast in honour of a deceased person.20 It is tempting to see a connection 19 20

Grenfell et al. 1902, 491–492. Grenfell et al. 1902, 491. The same type of account is also recorded in P. Tebtunis 177 (1st century BC) which mentions a funeral repast, some people identified as guests, and some keramion of wine costing 2400 and 2300 drachmae. The text mentions Regnal year 6 which the authors suggest refers either to the reign of Ptolemy IX Soter II (112–111BC) or to that of Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysus (76–75 BC) (Grenfell et al. 1902, 525). Another document, P. Tebtunis 224 (Late 2nd century BC), is also identified by the editors as an ‘account of a dining-club’ (Grenfell et al. 1902, 491), like P. Tebtunis 118 and 177. However, in this document there does not seem to be any reference to a funeral repast (περίδειπνον) as in the

254

chapter 12

between this text and the Demotic documents concerning the regulations adopted by religious associations in some of which reference is made to the members’ obligation to drink with their bereaved colleague who has lost a relative, or to offer a drink to the relatives of the association’s member on the occasion of the latter’s death. Indeed, the fact that some of the people listed in the preceding texts are identified as members may indicate that they belonged to an association, religious or otherwise, while those identified as guests could have been the relatives of the deceased person.

3

The Lexicology of the Entombment

The documents from the Theban area employ a number of different verbal constructions to refer to the act of burying the deceased. The difference between them is not immediately apparent, but is possibly linked, at least in part, to temporal changes in scribal practices. A comparison of the date range attestation for each of these constructions indicates that there is certainly also a temporal change in the formulae used. In particular, such a comparison suggests that there may have been a perceived difference between the construction ‘to take to’ (ṯ r-r=s) and ‘to be buried in’ (ḳs r), with the latter denoting the final entombment, while the former perhaps denoted the simple deposition of the deceased in the tomb to await final burial. Similarly, the same type of difference may have existed between the construction ‘to appertain to’ (ṯ r) and ‘to rest in it’ (ḥtp ẖn=s), with the former being perhaps equivalent to ṯ r-r=s, ‘to take to,’ in use in earlier documents. 3.1 To Take to (ṯ r-r=s) One of the most common expressions is that which employs the verb ṯ ‘to take’ to refer to the act of placing the deceased in the tomb, using it, transitively, in the construction ṯ r-r=s (variant ṯ r-ḥr=s) ‘to take to it,’ attested in a number of texts from 302 to around 153BC. Examples are found in P. Philadelphia V (302BC) in which party A sells two tombs to party B. With respect to the first structure the seller specifies: ‘you may take your people whom you will wish to take to it’ (mtw=k ṯ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w nt i҆w=k r mr ṯ.ṱ=w r-ḥr=s) (line 1); also adding ‘I will not be able to take any person at all to the s.t-tomb aforesaid in order to leave him there, besides your people whom you will say to me “take them to it” ’ other two, although there is mention of guests (ξένοι), and some keramion of wine. The text mentions a total of 12 people 3 of which are identified as ἀφέσιμοι whom the authors suggest may indicate people who paid nothing for the event (Grenfell et al. 1902, 532).

255

burial table 6

Temporal variation in the use of the term ‘to bury’

Dates BC 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 ṯ r-r=s ḳs r ṯr ḥtp ẖn=s i҆y r rṱ ty r-ḥr=s ty ḥtp r ḫꜣꜥ

302 302

153 125 124 114 114 98

241 227 302 153 302

(i҆w bn i҆w(=y) rḫ ṯ rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ r tꜣ s.t nt ḥry r ḫꜣꜥ=f n-i҆m=w n-m-sꜣ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w nt i҆w=k r ḏ n=y ṯ s r-ḥr=s) (lines 4–5). While, with respect to the second tomb, party A specifies that it is destined for the buyer’s dead: ‘your people whom you will take to it’ (nꜣy=k rmṯ.w nt i҆w=k r ṯ.ṱ=w r-ḥr=s) (line 7). Similarly in P. Philadelphia VI (301BC), the cession document for the two tombs sold with the previous contract, party A states: ‘you are to take your people to it’ (mtw=k ṯ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w r-r=w) (line 7). In P. Philadelphia XXIV (227BC), the contract for the hire of a choachyte mentioned in the previous chapter, party A specifies that neither the choachyte nor his offspring will be able to bury anyone else there: ‘you (scil. the choachyte) will not be able to take any man at all to it (scil. the tomb)’ (r/i҆w bn i҆w=k rḫ ṯ rmṯ nb pꜣ tꜣ n-i҆m=w (read: r-r=w)) (line 4) (r bn i҆w rḫ ˹nꜣy=k ẖrṱ.w˺ ṯ rmṯ nb pꜣ tꜣ n-i҆m=w (read: r-r=w)) (line 4), beside the deceased people belonging to party A. In addition, party B stipulates: ‘you (scil. the choachyte) will serve me and any man belonging to me whom is taken to the said ḥ.t-tomb’ (mtw=k šms ṱ(=y) i҆rm rmṯ nb nt mtw=y nt ˹i҆w=w˺ ṯ.ṱ=w r tꜣ ḥ.t rn=s) (line 4). Finally, party A reserves the right to force the choachyte to remove any person whom he has placed in the tomb: ‘if it happens that I find people whom you have taken to the abovementioned ḥ.t-tomb (…) I have a claim on you to cause that you carry the people, whom you have taken to it, out again’ (i҆w=f ḫpr i҆w gm=y rmṯ i҆w ṯ=k s r tꜣ ḥ.t nt ḥry (…) i҆w=y m-sꜣ=k r ty fy=k nꜣ rmṯ.w ṯ=k n-i҆m=w (read: r-r=w) r bnr ꜥn) (line 5). The same construction also occurs in P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC), a list of liturgies inherited by a choachyte, party A states that party B is to place a certain deceased in the s.t-tomb of Tateletem ‘together with the rest of the men whom you will desire to take to them’ (ḥnꜥ pꜣ sp rmṯ nt i҆w i҆r=k r wḫꜣ n ṯ.ṱ=f ˹r˺ n-

256

chapter 12

i҆m=w (read: r-r=w)21) (col. 2 lines 27–28); while, with respect to other deceased people, he states: ‘they will not be able to hinder them from being taken to the ḥ.t-tomb of ˹ Paibeh˺’ (i҆w bn i҆w=w rḫ ꜥḥꜥ ḥꜣ.ṱ=w r ṯ.ṱ=[w] r tꜣ ḥ.t n ˹Pꜣ-i҆bḥ˺) (col. 2 lines 35–36).22 3.2 To Place (ty r-ḥr=s), to Lay to Rest (ty ḥtp r) Among the documents analysed there is only one, P. Philadelphia V (302 BC), that uses the verb ty ‘to place, put’ in the construction ty r-ḥr=s to refer to the burying of deceased people in a tomb: ‘I am also to ˹remove˺ the person whom I have placed inside it’ (mtw=y ˹rk˺ pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=y tw=f r-ḥr=s ꜥn) (line 6). The same verb is also used in the construction ty ḥtp r ‘to lay to rest’ also with the meaning of burying deceased people in a tomb. The only two examples occur in the list of liturgies recorded in P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC) where the text reads: ‘the s.t of Pagonis together with the rest of the men whom you will desire to lay to rest in the (tomb)-shaft’ (tꜣ s.t n pa-wn ḥnꜥ pꜣ sp rmṯ nt i҆w i҆r=k r wḫꜣ n ty ḥtp=f ẖn23 pꜣ šḳ) (col. 2 lines 23–24); while party A specifies: ‘you are to place to rest the woman of Harpaesis, the man from Crocodilopolis, in the s.t-tomb of Tateletem’ (mtw=k ty.t ḥtp tꜣ rmṯ.t n ḥr-pa-i҆s.t pꜣ rmṯ n ꜣmwl n tꜣ s.t n ta-tꜣ-i҆tm) (col. 2 lines 25–27). 3.3 To Rest in It/With Somebody (ḥtp ẖn=s/ i ҆rm=) In a large number of documents the deceased is said to be resting either inside a tomb (ḥtp ẖn=s variant ḥtp n-i҆m=w) or with someone (ḥtp i҆rm=). Examples span the period between 227 and 114BC. In P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC), a contract of sale of liturgies, the list includes ‘the s.t of the master Teos, the blessed one (…), together with his people, and with every person who rests in the said s.t-tomb’ (tꜣ s.t pꜣ ḥry ḏ-ḥr pꜣ ḥsy (…) ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f rmṯ.w ḥnꜥ rmṯ nb nt ḥtp tꜣ s.t rn=s) (line 3), and ‘this s.t-tomb (…) and the people who rest ˹within it˺’ (tꜣy s.t (…) ḥnꜥ nꜣ rmṯ.w nt ḥtp ˹ẖn=s˺) (line 5). Similarly in P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC), another contract of sale for a house and some liturgies, where party A sells ‘the half of the s.t-tomb within which I am to rest’ (tꜣ pš.t tꜣ s.t nt i҆w=y ḥtp ẖn=s) (line 7). Several other examples are also found in 21 22

23

Pestman 1993, 469 Ex. 10. Similarly, in P. Amherst 58b (153 BC?) (Pestman 1993, 469 Ex. 9), another list of liturgies inherited by the sister of party B in the previous contract, the document reads: ‘Tameseh, the heardswoman, and Sennesis, her sister, you will take them to the s.t-tomb of Tateitum’ (tꜣ-msḥ tꜣ ꜥꜣm.t ḥnꜥ tꜣ-šr.t-i҆s.t tꜣy=s sn.t mtw=k ṯ.ṱ=[w] r tꜣ s.t n ta-tꜣ-i҆tm) (col. 2 lines 7–8). Spiegelberg read the word as i҆n (1909, 20 line 24), but I think the word could be ẖn since there is enough space in the gap for the determinative. Thus also Pestman 1993, 468 note bb.

burial

257

P. BM EA 10073 (217BC), concerning the sale of a house and some liturgies,24 and in P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC), a contract of sale of tombs, which list of properties include ‘the master Petobastis together with the s.t-tomb in which he rests’ (pꜣ ḥry pꜣ-ty-bꜣst.t ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t nt i҆w=f ḥtp ẖn=s) (line 3). The specification of the neighbouring properties concludes with the statement: ‘totalling the neighbours of the s.t-tomb together with Petobastis who rests therein’ (r nꜣ hyn.w tꜣ s.t ḥnꜥ pꜣ-ty-bꜣst.t nt ḥtp ẖn=˹s˺) (line 4); while the contract continues: ‘the master Herpa[…] (…) together with the s.t-tomb in which he rests’ (pꜣ ḥry ḥr-pꜣ-[…] (…) ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t nt i҆w=f ḥtp ẖn=˹s˺) (line 4–5). In P. BM EA 10829 (209 BC), a document of division of tombs, the list includes ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Psansnos together with the master Psenoros who rests with him’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ pꜣ ḥry pꜣ-sn-sn.w ḥnꜥ pꜣ ḥry pꜣ-šr-ḥr nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ) (line 3). Similarly, in P. BM EA 10614 (175BC), a cession of tombs, the contract lists ‘the s.t of Thoteous son of Parates the door-keeper of Amun and those who rest with him’ (tꜣ s.t ḏḥwṱ-i҆w sꜣ pa-rṱ pꜣ i҆ry-ꜥꜣ i҆mn i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ) (line 5). In P. BM EA 10615 (175BC), another cession of tombs, there are several examples of both constructions. The contract begins with the opening statement by party A: ‘I am far from you with respect to your ḥ.wt-tombs, together with your s.wt-tombs, your mꜣꜥ-chapels, your plots of land, and those who rest therein’ (tw=y wy.ṱ r-r=k n nꜣy=k ḥ.wt ḥnꜥ nꜣy=k s.wt nꜣy=k mꜣꜥ.w nꜣy=k wrḥ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp n-i҆m=w) (line 2). Then it continues with their specification, which includes, for example, ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Mires, the master Parates and his people and those who rest with him’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ pꜣ ḥry mꜣy-rs pꜣ ḥry pa-rṱ i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ) (line 4); and ‘the tower-tomb in which rests the master Amenothes and his people’ (pꜣ mkṱr nt i҆w pꜣ ḥry i҆mn-ḥtp ḥtp n-i҆m=f i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w) (line 4).25 24

25

The same document also lists ‘the s.t-tomb of Tꜣ-[ḫꜣꜥ.t] (Ta-wn?) together with the person(s) (and?) those who rest therein’ (tꜣ s.t tꜣ-[ḫꜣꜥ.t] ḥnꜥ ˹rmṯ nꜣ nt˺ ḥtp ẖn=s) (recto IV line 3); ‘the s.t-tomb of Esminis the door-keeper of Montu, together with the door-keepers of Montu who rest therein’ (tꜣ s.t ns-mn pꜣ i҆ry-ꜥꜣ mnṱ ḥnꜥ i҆ry.w-ꜥꜣ mnṱ nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (recto V line 1); ‘the s.t-tomb of Totoes pꜣ nb ꜥnḫ together with every person who rests therein’ (tꜣ s.t twt pꜣ nb ꜥnḫ ḥnꜥ rmṯ nb nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (recto V line 2); ‘the half of the s.t-tomb of Taesis together with her people who rest therein’ (tꜣ pš n tꜣ s.t ta-i҆s.t ḥnꜥ nꜣy=s rmṯ.w nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (recto V lines 2–3); ‘the s.t-tomb of the master Esminis the blessed one toge[ther with] the mistress [Tai-…] who rests [˹therein˺] with him’ (tꜣ s.t pꜣ ḥry ns-mn pꜣ ḥsy ḥ[nꜥ] tꜣ ḥry.t [Tꜣy…] nt ḥtp [˹n-i҆m=w˺] i҆rm=f ) (recto V line 3–recto VI line 1); ‘[the] s.t-tomb of ˹Chronios˺ together with every person that rests therein’ ([tꜣ] s.t ˹grnys˺ ḥnꜥ rmṯ nb nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (recto VI lines 1–2). The same document also lists ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of Senmouthis and those who rest with her’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ tꜣ-šr.t-mw.t i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=s) (line 4); ‘the s.t-tomb of Satyros and those who rest therein’ (tꜣ s.t stwlys i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp n-i҆m=w) (line 4); ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Horos son of Esminis

258

chapter 12

In P. BM EA 10226 (185BC), a contract of sale of tombs, the list of liturgies includes ‘the master ˹Ḥmḳ˺ the younger and his s.t-tomb with their people and those who rest with them’ (pꜣ ḥry ˹Ḥmḳ˺ pꜣ h̭ m i҆rm nꜣy=w rmṯ.w i҆rm n ꜣnt ḥtp i҆rm=w) (recto IV lines 3–4). Similarly, P. BM EA 10612 (175 BC), an agreement concerning a tomb division, includes among the properties listed ‘the master P[sen]chonsis and those who rest with him and his s.wt-tombs’ (pꜣ ḥry pꜣ-[šr]ḫnsw ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f s.wt) (line 7); and ‘the mistress Taous and her s.wt-tombs and those who rest therein’ (tꜣ ḥry.t tꜣy-ꜥw ḥnꜥ nꜣy=s s.wt i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w) (line 20). In P. BM EA 10223 (171? BC), a document of transfer of tombs, the southern neighbour of one of the tomb listed is described as: ‘the path of the ꜥ.wy-ḥtp ` and those who rest therein´’ (pꜣ myt pꜣ ꜥ.wy-ḥtp`i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=s´) (lines 6–7a). Additional examples are found in P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC),26 in P. Amherst 60b (153BC), which list of liturgies includes ‘the mꜣꜥ of Paiu together with those resting with him’ (ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ) (col. 1 line 11);27 in P. Berlin P. 3119 and in P. Bibl. Nat. 218 + P. BM EA 10396 (146 BC), two documents of sale mortis causa(?) of liturgies in favour of two sons.28 In P. Berlin P. 5507 and 3098 (136 BC), a sale

26

27 28

and those who rest with him’ (tꜣ ḥ.t ḥr sꜣ ns-mn i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ) (line 5); ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Hetpheubastis and those who rest with her’ (tꜣ ḥ.t ḥtp-bꜣst.t i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=s) (line 5); ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Psenthotres and his people who rest with him’ (tꜣ ḥ.t pꜣ-šr-ḏḥwṱ-rs i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ) (line 5); ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Totoes the barber/mender and those who rest therein’ (tꜣ ḥ.t twt pꜣ ẖꜥḳ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp n-i҆m=w) (line 6); ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Pchorchonsis son of Onnophris and his ˹people˺ and those who rest with them’ (tꜣ ḥ.t pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw sꜣ wn-nfr i҆rm nꜣy=f ˹rmṯ.w˺ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=w) (line 6); ‘the half of the ḥ.t-tomb of Taishur and the people of your father who are dead and rest with her’ (tꜣ pš.t tꜣ ḥ.t tꜣ-i҆šwr i҆rm nꜣ rmṯ.w pꜣy=k i҆ṱ nt ḳs nt ḥtp i҆rm=s) (line 6); ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Nechthmonthes and his people and those who rest with him’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ pꜣ ḥry Nḫt.ṱ-mnṱ i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ) (line 7); ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Panas and those who rest with him’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ pꜣ ḥry pa-nꜣ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ) (line 7). The document includes also ‘the s.t-tomb of Psenamounis the craftsman together with those who rest therein’ (tꜣ s.t pꜣ-šr-i҆mn pꜣ ḥm-ḫt ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp n-i҆m=w) (col. 1 line 24); ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of Tanous [together with those who] rest therein’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ n ta-nwꜣ [ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt] ḥtp n-i҆m=w) (col. 1 line 26); ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of ˹ Shemaa˺ the gl-hb together with those who rest therein’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ n ˹Š-mꜣꜥ˺ pꜣ gl-hb ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp n-i҆m=w) (col. 1 line 27); ‘the s.t-tomb of Psenamounis son of [Horos] together with those who rest therein’ (tꜣ s.t pꜣ-šr-i҆mn sꜣ [ḥr] ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp n-i҆m=w) (col. 1 line 28); ‘the s.t-tomb of Paibis the craftsman together with his children who rest therein’ (tꜣ s.t pꜣ-hb pꜣ ḥm-ḫt ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w nꜣ nt ḥtp n-i҆m=w) (col. 2 lines 5–6); ‘the s.t-tomb of Pamenis the barber together with those who rest with them’ (tꜣ s.t pa-mn pꜣ ḫꜥḳ ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=w) (col. 2 lines 10–11); ‘the s.t-tomb of Pipes the dancer together with those who rest with them’ (tꜣ s.t pꜣy-pꜥ pꜣ ṯnfy ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=w) (col. 2 lines 12–13). Pestman 1993, 471, Ex. 13. The documents includes the following liturgies: ‘the šty-revenues of the pure ones who

burial

259

and cession of liturgies respectively, the list includes: ‘the half of the master [Pa-i҆]w the blessed one, together with those who rest with him’ (tꜣ pš.t pꜣ ḥry [pa-y]w pꜣ ḥsy i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp.w i҆rm=f ) (line 7). At the end of the contract the seller states: ‘total of the ḥ.wt-tombs and their ˹shafts˺ and those who rest in them’ (tmt nꜣy=w ḥ.wt i҆rm nꜣy=w ˹šḳ.w˺ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w) (line 7). Similarly in P. Berlin P. 3099 (124 BC), a donation of liturgies to a son, in which are listed ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Psenchonsis son of Pinas and those who rest therein’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw sꜣ pꜣy-nꜣ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (line 5); ‘together with the ¼ of the ḥ.ttomb of Nesbentit and those who rest therein, together with their women (and) their children’ (ḥnꜥ pꜣ ¼ n tꜣ ḥ.t ns-bntyt i҆rm n ꜣnt ḥtp ẖn=s i҆rm nꜣy=w sḥm.wt nꜣy=w ẖrṱ.w) (line 10).29 Another example is found in P. Berlin P. 3118 (116 BC), a hn-agreement between heirs, which lists: ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Psenchonsis son of Pinas, his wives (and) his children, with those who rest therein’ (tꜣ ḥ.t pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw sꜣ pꜣy-nꜣ nꜣy=f ḥm.wt nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (lines 2–3). Finally, a number of examples are found among the list of liturgies recorded in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC), including ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Psenchonsis son of Pinas together with those who rest therein’ (tꜣ ḥ.t pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw sꜣ pꜣy-nꜣ ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (col. 2 line 15); ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Nespertet together with those who rest therein’ (tꜣ ḥ.t ns-pr-dd ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (col. 2 line 16);30 and ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Tu[…] together with those who rest inside it, together with the ⅓ of the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Pichos who rests (= located?) in Djeme, together with the ⅓ of his people, who rest with him, (from) Hermonthis’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n tw[…] ḥnꜥ ⟨nꜣ⟩ nt ḥtp ẖn=s ḥnꜥ pꜣ ⅓ pꜣ mꜣꜥ [pꜣ ḥry pꜣy-k]ꜣ nt ḥtp n ḏmꜣ ḥnꜥ pꜣ ⅓ nꜣy=f rmṯ.[w] nt ḥtp i҆rm=f i҆wnw-mnṱ) (col. 3 lines 2–4).31

29

30 31

rest in the ḥ.t-tomb of Nebwenen’ (nꜣ šty.w n nꜣ wꜥb.w nt ḥtp ẖn tꜣ ḥ.t n nb-wnn) (line 3); ‘the šty-revenues of the s.t-tomb of Peteutemis together with his people and those who rest therein’ (nꜣ šty.w n tꜣ s.t n pꜣ-ty-nfr-tm i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (line 4); ‘the šty-revenues of the s.t-tomb of Petechons the carrier of the milk-jar, together with the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Kedjadja the blessed one, and their people and those who rest therein’ (šty.w n tꜣ s.t n pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw pꜣ fy mhn i҆rm pꜣ mꜣꜥ ḥry k-ḏꜣḏꜣ pꜣ ḥsy i҆rm nꜣy=w rmṯ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w) (line 4). P. Berlin P. 3100 and 5508 (124 BC), recording the donation of liturgies to the other two sons, include only ‘¼ of the ḥ.t-tomb of Nesbentit and those who rest therein, together with their women (and) their children.’ For the alternative to Erichsen’s reading Nespertet see Pestman 1993, 480. The document also lists ‘Philon, the man from Coptos, their brother, his woman (and) his children, (…) together with its people (from) Hermonthis who rest inside it’ (phyln pꜣ rmṯ ḳbṱ pꜣy=w sn tꜣy=f sḥm.t nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w (…) ḥnꜥ nꜣy=s rmṯ.w i҆wnw-mnṱ nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (col. 3 lines 8–10); ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Pestaus the mender (…) together with those who rest in it’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n pꜣ-ꜣstw pꜣ ẖꜥḳ ḥnꜥ ⟨nꜣ⟩ nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (col. 3 lines 11–12); ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Herieus the builder, together with those who rest inside ⟨it⟩’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n hry=w pꜣ ḳt ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn⟨=s⟩)

260

chapter 12

3.4 To Be Buried in (ḳs r) Another of the verbal constructions used is that which employs the verb ḳs ‘to bury’ followed by a preposition, ḳs r, literally ‘to be buried to,’ attested in texts ranging in date from 302 to 125BC. Examples for the use of the verb ḳs in this context are found in P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC), a contract of sale of houses, tombs and revenues, which includes ‘the šty-revenues of the s.t-tomb of the god’s father Pinuris son of Teephthaphonichos and those who are buried there’ (nꜣ šty.w tꜣ s.t i҆t-nṯr pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr sꜣ ḏ-ptḥ-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=s) (line 3a); and ‘the s.t-tomb of Harwa and those who are buried there’ (tꜣ s.t ḥlw i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=s) (line 3b). Another example is found in P. Amherst 51 (140 BC), a document of division of inheritance, which lists, among others, ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Petearpochrates (…) and those buried in it’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ (…) i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=s) (lines 15–16).32 Similarly in P. Amherst 57 (125 BC), another document of division of inheritance, which lists ‘the ḥ.ttomb of Petenephotes son of Payweten (…) and those buried in it’ (line 4).33 However, in all other instances where this verb is used with the same meaning, it is found in conjunction with the construction ḥtp ẖn=. Examples are also found in P. Louvre E 3440 A–B + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175 BC), a contract of sale and cession of a number of houses, tombs and revenues.34 Following a list of tombs the texts add ‘the šty.w-revenues and the offerings of those who are buried in them and those who rest in them’ (nꜣ šty.w nꜣ i҆ḫy.w nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=w ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w) (P. Louvre E 3440 B line 5; P. Louvre E 3440 A line 5; P. Berlin P. 3112 lines 10–11). Similarly in P. Naples Dem. 8414 (126 BC), a sale of liturgies and emoluments, in which the properties sold include ‘the half of my 1⁄9 of those who rest therein (scil. in the tombs sold), and those who are buried in them’ (tꜣ pš n pꜣy=y 1⁄9 n nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=w) (line 3); and ‘the half of my 1⁄10 of those who rest therein, and those who are buried in them’ (tꜣ pš n pꜣy=y 1⁄10 n

32 33 34

(col. 3 line 16); ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Sosichrates the husband of Lolous (…) together with those who rest inside it’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n swsygrts pꜣ hy n lwl (…) ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp.w ẖn=s) (col. 5 lines 21–22); and ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Timouthis together with those who rest inside it’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n tꜣy-mw.t ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=s) (col. 5 line 26). Pestman 1993, 85–86, 469. Pestman 1993, 118–119, 469, 479. Pestman does not give the full transliteration of this passage. In the sale document recorded in P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) Party A transfers to party B ‘the šty.w-revenues from the s.t-tomb of the divine father Pinuris son of Teephthaphonichos and those who are buried in it, together with the šty.w-revenues from the s.t-tomb of Harwa and those who are buried in it’ (nꜣ šty.w tꜣ s.t n i҆t-nṯr pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr sꜣ ḏ-ptḥ-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=s ḥnꜥ nꜣ šty.w tꜣ s.t ḥlw i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=s) (line 3). By contrast the clause i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=s is not included in the cession deed recorded in P. Louvre E 3440 A and the copy of the sale contract recorded in P. Berlin P. 3112.

burial

261

nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=w) (line 3). A final example is found in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) in which the liturgies listed include ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Sosichrates the husband of Lolous together with those buried in it and with those who rest inside it’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n swsygrts pꜣ hy n lwl ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḳs.w r-r=s ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp.w ẖn=s) (col. 5 lines 21–22). The fact that these texts distinguish between people who are buried (ḳs) in the tomb and those who are resting (ḥtp) there, suggests that the two terms refer to two different burial conditions, perhaps one definitive and the other temporary, or entombed as opposed to being in a chapel. It is also possible that the verb ḥtp had here the more general meaning of being inside a tomb, whereas ḳs may have had a more specific meaning and referred to mummies buried, for example, in underground chambers. The condition indicated by the verb ḳs is also contrasted with another, that of being ‘on the head-rest.’ This usage is attested in P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC) in which party A specifies: ‘you (scil. the choachyte) will not be able to take any man at all to it (scil. the tomb) either being buried or being on the head-rests’ (r/i҆w bn i҆w=k rḫ ṯ rmṯ nb pꜣ tꜣ n-i҆m=w (read: r-r=w) i҆w=f ḳs i҆w=f ḥr nꜣ wrs.(w)) (line 4). The fact that they are contrasted suggests that two different relationships are meant by these terms. An indication of the meaning and function of the ‘head-rests’ is found in P. Philadelphia V (302BC), a contract concerning the sale of two tombs one of which was to be used as a storage place for the buyer’s persons in waiting.35 The seller specifies: ‘I have given to you this s.t-tomb which is in the necropolis of Djeme (…) in order to place in it your persons awaiting burial, (and) you are to leave your people whom you will take to it on the headrests therein’ (tw=y n=k tꜣy s.t nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ (…) r ḫꜣꜥ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w ḥr pꜣ ḥrr n ḳs n-i҆m=s mtw=k ḫꜣꜥ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w nt i҆w=k r ṯ.ṱ=w r-ḥr=s ḥr nꜣ wrs.w n-i҆m=s) (line 7). The passage thus suggests that the term ‘head-rest’ refers to facilities inside a tomb where the mummies could be temporarily placed and indicates that the two expressions, ‘being buried’ (i҆w=f ḳs) and ‘being on the head-rests’ (i҆w=f ḥr nꜣ wrs.(w)), may refer to a distinction between being buried and being awaiting burial. Thus if the condition of being ḳs is contrasted with that of being on the head-rest, which seems to refer to the temporary storage of mummies, it follows that those individuals who, in this context, are said to be ḳs r a tomb must have already been laid to rest in their final tombs. This is also the meaning of the statement found in P. Ashmolean D. 3 (1968.3) (116–115 BC), a cession of a funerary endowment, where party A states ‘[I am far from you with respect to] your endowment (sꜥnḫ) of seal-bearer and embalmer that is in the necropolis

35

On this subject see Chapter 12 § 4 below.

262

chapter 12

˹which is written˺ above, together with the people who are without ḳs.˹t˺ and the people who are ḳs’ ([tw=y wy r-r=k] pꜣy=k sꜥnḫ ḫtmw wyt nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ˹nt sẖ˺ ḥry ḥnꜥ nꜣ rmṯ.w nt wš ḳs.˹t˺ ḥnꜥ nꜣ rmṯ.w nt ḳs) (lines 8–11). Reymond36 understood this as a reference to bodies with and without coffins. However, on the basis of the evidence of P. Philadelphia V (302BC), it seems likely that the passage refers to people awaiting final burial. In the first instance ḳs.t is a noun and refers to the entombment, while in the second instance ḳs is a verb and refers to the state of being buried inside a funerary structure. 3.5 To Appertain to (ṯ r) The deceased is in some texts also said to belong to a tomb, an expression which employs the verb ṯ with the meaning ‘to appertain.’ The verb is used intransitively in the construction ṯ r ‘to belong to,’ and it is attested from a small number of texts ranging in date from 241 to 124BC. In P. Philadelphia XVIII (241BC) the list of liturgies includes: ‘the s.t-tomb to which his (scil. the deceased) people belong’ (tꜣ s.t nt i҆w ṯ nꜣy=f rmṯ.w r-r=s) (line 2). Similarly, the list of liturgies recorded in P. BM EA 10829 (209 BC) includes ‘the s.t-tomb of Sesoosis the builder, and every person who belongs [to the s.t-tomb] named’ (tꜣ s.t s-n-wsr.t pꜣ ḳt ḥnꜥ rmṯ nb nt ṯ [r tꜣ s.t] rn=s) (lines 3– 4); ‘the s.t-tomb of Esminis the door-keeper of Amun and every person who belongs to it’ (tꜣ s.t ns-mn pꜣ i҆ry-ꜥꜣ i҆mn ḥnꜥ rmṯ nb nt ṯ r-r=s) (line 4); and ‘the s.ttomb of Tchalibis and every person who belongs to it’ (tꜣ s.t tꜣ-gr-hb ḥnꜥ rmṯ nb nt ṯ r-r=s) (line 4). The same construction is also used in three donation deeds, P. Berlin P. 3099, 3100 and 5508 (124BC), with which a father divides his liturgies between his three sons. In the first document party A transfers a share of them to his eldest son explaining that it includes ‘the ¼ of my share which devolves upon me in the ḥ.t-tomb of Abunefer and the ¼ of the pure ones which belong to me within the named ḥ.t-tomb’ (ḥnꜥ pꜣ ¼ n tꜣy=y tny.t nt pḥ r-ḥr=y ẖn tꜣ ḥ.t n ꜣbw-nfr ḥnꜥ pꜣ ¼ n nꜣ wꜥb.w nt mtw=y ẖn tꜣ ḥ.t n rn=s) (lines 5–6), further specifying ‘them belonging to the named ḥ.t-tomb’ (i҆w=w ṯ r tꜣ ḥ.t rn=s) (line 7). Similarly, in P. Berlin P. 3100 (line 4) and 5508 (lines 4–5) (124BC) party A states: ‘I have given to you ¼ of my share which devolves upon me in the ḥ.t-tomb of Abunefer together with the ¼ of the pure ones who belong to me, them belonging to the ḥ.t-tomb which is written below’ (tw=y n=k pꜣ ¼ n tꜣy=y tny.t nt pḥ r-ḥr=y n tꜣ ḥ.t n Ꜣbw-nfr ḥnꜥ pꜣ ¼ n nꜣ wꜥb.w nt mtw=y i҆w=w ṯ r tꜣ ḥ.t nt sẖ ẖry).

36

Reymond 1973, 62.

burial

263

3.6 To Leave (ḫꜣꜥ) On the basis of P. Philadelphia V (302BC) it appears that the verb ‘to leave’ (ḫꜣꜥ) could be used to refer to the temporary deposition, in tombs, of mummies awaiting burial. Party A clearly states ‘I have given to you this s.t-tomb which is in the necropolis of Djeme, besides the s.t-tomb whose neighbours are written above, in order to leave in it your persons awaiting burial, (and) you are to leave your people whom you will take to it on the head-rests therein’ (tw=y n=k tꜣy s.t nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ pꜣ bnr n tꜣ s.t nt i҆w nꜣy=s hyn.w sẖ ḥry r ḫꜣꜥ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w ḥr pꜣ ḥrr n ḳs n-i҆m=s mtw=k ḫꜣꜥ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w nt i҆w=k r ṯ.ṱ=w r-ḥr=s ḥr nꜣ wrs.w n-i҆m=s) (line 7). Similarly with respect to the first tomb sold with this contract, party A states ‘I will not be able to take any person at all to the s.t-tomb aforesaid in order to leave him there’ (i҆w bn i҆w(=y) rḫ ṯ rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ r tꜣ s.t nt ḥry r ḫꜣꜥ=f n-i҆m=w) (line 4). 3.7 To Come to (the Feet) (i ҆y r (rṱ)) Another expression commonly used to refer to the act of being placed in the tomb is that which employs the verb i҆y ‘to come’ in the construction i҆y r rṱ (variant i҆y r-r) ‘to come to (the) feet,’ attested in four texts ranging in date from 114 to 98BC. In P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC), a document concerning the division of liturgies between heirs, the list of deceased and their tombs includes ‘the ḥ.t of Sosichrates the husband of Lolous (…) together with those who will come to it (lit. to its feet)’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n swsygrts pꜣ hy n lwl (…) ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt i҆w=w i҆y r rṱ=s) (col. 5 lines 21–22); and ‘Philon, the man from Coptos, their brother, his woman (and) his children, together with their ḥ.t-tomb (…) and those who will come to it (lit. to its feet)’ (phyln pꜣ rmṯ ḳbty pꜣy=w sn tꜣy=f sḥm.t nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w ḥnꜥ tꜣy=w ḥ.t (…) ḥnꜥ ⟨nꜣ⟩ nt i҆w=w i҆y r rṱ=s) (col. 3 lines 8–9). Similarly, the list of liturgies sold in P. Turin 2130 (99 BC) includes ‘Heraclides son of Petous and his wife, their children, their servants, their nurse and those who will come to it (lit. to its feet)’ (hrglyts sꜣ pa-tꜣ.wy ḥnꜥ tꜣy=f sḥm.t nꜣy=w ẖrṱ.w nꜣy=w bꜣk.w tꜣy=w mnꜥ-i҆ry.t i҆rm nꜣ nt i҆w=w r i҆y r rṱ=f ) (lines 4–5). Another example is found in P. Berlin P. 3106 (98BC), also a contract of sale of liturgies, which lists ‘˹Snachomneus˺ (the) smith, his woman, his children, together with ˹those who will come to them˺ (lit. to their feet)’ (˹ns-nꜣ.w-ẖmn.i҆w˺ bsnṱ tꜣy=f sḥm.t nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w ḥnꜥ ˹nꜣ nt i҆w=w r i҆y r rṱ=w˺) (line 4). The last example is found in P. Berlin P. 3139 (98 BC), with which party A sells a number of liturgies and emoluments, declaring: ‘You have caused my heart to agree to ˹the money˺ for my share of the (religious)-services, the purificatory offerings, the šty-revenues of the pure ones, the ˹gods,˺ the people […] (and) ˹their children,˺ together with those who will come to it (lit. to their feet)’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=y n ˹pꜣ ḥḏ˺ n tꜣy=y tny.t pš n nꜣ šms.w nꜣ ꜥrš.w nꜣ šty.w n nꜣ wꜥb.w nꜣ ˹nṯr.w˺ nꜣ rmṯ.w […] ˹nꜣy=w ẖrṱ.w˺ ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt i҆w=w r i҆y r rṱ=w) (line 4).

264

chapter 12

On the other hand, P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC), also provides the only example for the use of the variant construction i҆y r-r. The latter is used in the listing of ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Pestaus the mender (…) together with those who will come to it’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n pꜣ-ꜣstw pꜣ ẖꜥḳ (…) ḥnꜥ ⟨nꜣ⟩ nt i҆w=w i҆y r-r=s) (col. 3 lines 11–12). 3.8 Removal from the Tomb (rk, fy r bnr, i ҆n r bnr) Finally, a range of terms is also used to refer to the removal of a deceased from a specific tomb. In P. Philadelphia V (302BC), Party A declares: ‘I am also to ˹remove˺ the person whom I have placed inside it’ (mtw=y ˹rk˺ pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=y tw=f r-ḥr=s ꜥn) (line 6). On the other hand, in P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC), where party A also reserves the right to force the choachyte to remove any person whom party B has placed in the tomb, the text employs the construction fy r bnr: ‘I have a claim on you to cause that you carry the people whom you have taken to it out again’ (i҆w=y m-sꜣ=k r ty fy=k nꜣ rmṯ.w ṯ=k n-i҆m=w r bnr ꜥn) (line 5). A third construction is found in P. BM EA 10074 (230 BC), a divorce agreement and cession of liturgies, where the husband states: ‘I shall not be able to bring a person out of your places’ (bn i҆w=y rḫ i҆n rmṯ n-i҆m=w r bnr n nꜣy=t mꜣꜥ.w) (lines 2– 3),37 in which the construction i҆n r bnr perhaps has more the meaning of taking away, in the sense of stealing mummies from a tomb.

4

Delayed Burial

At the end of the mummification process the deceased would normally be placed in his/her tomb. However, several documents from the Theban area clearly indicate that not all bodies were immediately buried. Direct evidence for the delayed burial of some individuals is found in P. Philadelphia V (302 BC) in which party A, the choachyte Teos, donates to party B, the kalasiris in the temple of Amun Parates, two tombs in the necropolis of Djeme. With respect to the first of these tombs, party A states: ‘I have given to you this s.t-tomb, which is in the necropolis of Djeme, together with its shaft, you may take your people whom you will wish to take to it’ (tw=y n=k tꜣy s.t nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n Ḏmꜣ ḥnꜥ pꜣy=s šḳ mtw=k ṯ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w nt i҆w=k r mr ṯ.ṱ=w r-ḥr=s). line 1

37

After Vleeming 1998, 157.

265

burial

The other tomb is explicitly designated as a storing place for the beneficiary’s mummies awaiting burial: ‘I have given to you this s.t-tomb which is in the necropolis of Djeme, besides the s.t-tomb whose neighbours are written above, in order to place in it your persons awaiting burial’ (tw=y n=k tꜣy s.t nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ pꜣ bnr n tꜣ s.t nt i҆w nꜣy=s hyn.w sẖ ḥry r ḫꜣꜥ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w ḥr pꜣ ḥrr n ḳs n-i҆m=s). line 7

This is the only document in which explicit reference is made to a completely separate tomb designated solely for the temporary storage of mummies, and it is therefore impossible to say whether it represents an exception, or if it was a common practice for which no evidence has survived. With regard to the first tomb the choachyte specifies: ‘I will not be able to take any person at all to the s.t-tomb aforesaid in order to leave him there, besides your people (or mummies) whom you will say to me “take him to it”’ (i҆w bn i҆w(=y) rḫ ṯ rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ r tꜣ s.t nt ḥry r ḫꜣꜥ=f n-i҆m=w n-m-sꜣ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w nt i҆w=k r ḏ n=y ṯ s r-ḥr=s). lines 4–5

This clearly indicates that the tomb referred to was not an individual burial place where there may not have been space for more than one mummy. But, if lack of space cannot account for the need of a separate temporary burial place, there must have been another reason why the buyer needed another tomb to store his ‘mummies in waiting.’ It is possible that those who could afford it would have had a separate tomb in which to place their mummies awaiting burial so as to avoid cluttering the tomb chapel and to ensure that no damage befell the mummies, which could happen if too many were stored in a relatively small area. This, however, does not explain the practice of leaving the dead unburied, a practice which continued throughout the Ptolemaic Period and well into the Roman Period. In P. Turin Suppl. 6071D (103BC) the door-keeper Pichos, son of Psemminis, confirms that he has already received from his sister payment for ⅓ of the funeral expenses of their father whom he has yet to bury (lines 7–8). Pestman suggests that their father had probably died around 110 BC.38 At any rate, by the time the second document was drawn up, Psemminis had been dead for at least

38

Pestman 1978, 196 ¶b.

266

chapter 12

two years, and was still unburied, as indicated by P. Turin Suppl. 6083 (105 BC) in which is recorded the payment of the ⅓ of the funeral expenses due by his daughter. In this document Pichos states: ‘I have been paid for your ⅓ share in the burial of Psemminis son of Zmanres, your father, our father. There is no claim that I will proffer `against you´ concerning him. I will prepare him for burial (ḳs) (and) will lay him to rest in the ḥ.t-tomb, without having asked you for other money, corn (or) anything at all’ (tw=y mḥ n tꜣy=y (sic. =t) tny.t ⅓ n tꜣ ḳs n pꜣ-šr-mn sꜣ wsr-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ pꜣy=t i҆ṱ pꜣy=n i҆ṱ mn mt i҆w=y ꜥš `m-sꜣ=t´ n-i҆m=s ẖrr=f mtw=y ḳs=f mtw=y ti҆ ḥtp=f n tꜣ ḥ.t i҆w bn-pw=y šn.ṱ=t r gr ḥḏ pr nt nb n pꜣ tꜣ) (lines 2–5). Among the surviving documents, there are only three more instances in which an approximate waiting time can be determined. The clearest example is that of Harmais, the prophet of Ptah, and Imouthes son of Esminis, who are attested in the care of the choachyte Horos son of Horos from 153 BC (P. Brussels E 6037) and are still unburied nearly forty years later in 113 BC (P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715). Two further examples are found in P. Amherst 58a (153 BC) in which the woman Taesis, daughter of Horos, is granted access to the s.t-tomb of the landmeasurers on account of Amenothes son of Thotortaios and to the s.t-tomb of Tateitum on account of Panoubis the blessed one. The two individuals are no longer mentioned in P. Berlin P. 5507 / 3098, and P. Leiden Gr. 413 (136 BC) with which the liturgies originally belonging to Taesis were later sold by her daughter, thus providing a terminus ante quem for their final burial, although this does not provide any information on their total ‘waiting period.’ Evidence for delayed burial and provisional storage of mummies is also indicated in P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113BC), the last division deed drawn up by Horos before he died. In the document it is specified that the three brothers will share in the emoluments received for Harmais, the prophet of Ptah, and Imouthes son of Esminis until their ταφή (taphe), a term that probably refers to the final entombment of these individuals in their own tombs, and after which the liturgies will be shared differently.39 Indirect evidence for delayed burial is provided by a number of contracts in which the seller reserves the right to access specific tombs on account of individuals, as in the case of P. Philadelphia XVIII (241 BC) and P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC). The clause generally used to indicate that a mortuary priest has right of access in a specific tomb because he or she might have some of the mummies in his or her care deposited there is: ‘you may go to …’ (i҆w=k nꜥ r …), which is the one used in the latter two documents. Similarly, in P. Marseilles 299–298

39

Thus Pestman 1988, 116–117; Pestman 1993, 439–440.

burial

267

(235BC) and P. Amherst 58a (153 BC) the buyer is granted the right to access specific tombs on account of individuals who are there. In particular, P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC) specifies that the buyer has three individuals inside the tomb of a named deceased. That this was only a temporary measure is confirmed by the fact that the individuals named in P. Amherst 58a (153 BC), on account of whom the buyer could access specific tombs, were no longer listed in P. Berlin P. 5507, P. Berlin P. 3098 and P. Leiden Gr. 413 (136BC) with which these specific tombs were later alienated. Further indirect evidence is perhaps provided by P. Louvre Gr. 2330 (126– 127BC) in which Osoroeris lodges a complaint concerning a robbery in one of the tombs in his care. The thieves plundered the mummies there, and stole the equipment that he had stored inside the tomb, leaving its door open and the bodies at the mercy of jackals that destroyed them. The fact that he used this tomb for the storage of tools, suggests that it may have been also one of those used by the choachytes for the temporary storage of mummies awaiting final burial in their own tombs.40 These texts, therefore, indicate that, rather than being placed in purpose built tombs destined solely for the storage of mummies awaiting burial, the deceased was more commonly placed in private, or collective tombs, used both as a burial and as a storage place, and large enough to accommodate several (coffined) mummies. Interestingly, P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC), a contract for the hire of a choachyte, perhaps provides not only indirect evidence for such a practice, but also suggests that less scrupulous mortuary priests may use tombs as storage without the consent of the tomb owners. In fact, Party A goes to some lengths to ensure that neither the choachyte, nor his offspring, will bury anyone else there beside the deceased people belonging to party A, even reserving the right to force him to remove any stranger placed in the tomb, which may indicate that the practice was a relatively frequent one.41 The passage from P. Ashmolean D. 3 (1968.3) (116–115 BC) from Hawara, discussed above, indicates that the practice was probably not limited to the Theban area, since the sentence refers to people who are entombed and those who are not buried.42 The delayed burial could also have meant a delay in the burial ceremonies performed at the tomb before the interment of the deceased until he or she was finally taken to his or her final resting place. However, it is possible that burial ceremonies would be performed on both occasions (with the final one perhaps

40 41 42

Pestman 1993, 101. For this document see above Chapter 12 § 3.8. See above Chapter 12 § 3.4.

268

chapter 12

being less elaborate than the first one) particularly given the importance of such ceremonies for the restoration of the deceased’s bodily functions essential to life itself. The practice appears to have continued into the Roman Period, as indicated, for example, by a text on a mummy label in which the deceased is said to have gone ‘to her fathers in year nine, month three of spring, day 10, of Caesar,’ while it was only in ‘year 11, month 1 of the inundation, day 19, of Caesar’ that ‘She was brought to Djeme. Her Salvation occurred,’ that is, sixteen months after her death.43 A similar case is attested from another mummy label, S.B. I 1195, in which the woman Senbesis is said to have died on the 25th of Mesore, but was buried only on the 11th of Pachon, almost nine months later.44 The extensive damage observed by Petrie in the Roman necropolis at Hawara both on mummies with gilded masks and on those with portraits, which they had apparently sustained prior to their final interment, indicates that they had remained unburied for an undetermined period of time. Petrie’s observations of the damage sustained by the mummies in the Hawara necropolis, which showed signs of water damage, chipping and breakage due to fall, and were encrusted with flies excrements, birds droppings, and dirt, led him to speculate that the mummies had been kept at home for a period of time prior to their final interment.45 Confirmation of Petrie’s theory was sought for in the descriptions of Egyptian funerary practices given by several classical authors. Diodorus Siculus, for example, states that ‘those families having private tombs lay the body in the niche assigned to it, but those who possess no tomb add a new chamber to their own houses and prop the coffins upright against the stoutest wall. And the ones who are prohibited from burial because of accusations, or according to the pledges on a loan,46 they also cause to be interred in their own dwellings; but of these, sometimes the sons of their sons later become rich and acquit them of their bond or of the accusations against them; at which time they are deemed worthy of splendid funerals’ (Diodorus Siculus I 92). Similarly Cicero, who states that ‘the Egyptians store away their dead and keep them in structures (domi)’47 (Tusculan Disputations I 108.2). However, as noted by Monserrat,48 had these structures existed in private dwellings one would expect to find mention of them in at least some of the many surviving

43 44 45 46 47 48

D’auria et al. 1988, 229, label 184; Montserrat 1997, 38. Montserrat 1997, 38. Petrie 1911, 2. On this aspect see Chapter 7. For the translation of the Latin term domi as ‘structures’ see Montserrat 1997, 39. Montserrat 1997, 39.

burial

269

contracts that deal with the sale, or lease, of private houses and that often give detailed information on their ground plan. Most importantly, one would expect to find some evidence for this in the archaeological record, for example, in the form of remains of coffins or mummies stored away in structures within settlement sites.49 Other classical authors describe the places where these mummies were stored as ‘recesses,’ ‘stony carapace,’ ‘structures’ or simply state that they were kept ‘above ground,’ which make no reference to areas in private houses used for the purpose of storing mummies.50 The documents do not provide any clear explanation for the reasons why these people were not entombed soon after death. In some instances the final burial rites may have been delayed to allow relatives living some distance away to reach the place were the deceased was.51 However, not all instances of delayed burial can be explained in terms of travel difficulties, certainly not for an interval of several years, and some other factors must have effected such a practice. These could be linked to the individual’s wealth and status, be of ritual or religious significance, or be the result of practical considerations. In the first instance, the fact that an important individual such as Harmais, the prophet of Ptah, for whom offerings were paid for nearly four decades, was placed in a waiting tomb for so many years shows that wealth and status, or rather their lack thereof, were not determining factors in the delayed burial of some individuals.52 The same is also true of the Hawara mummies, which, elaborately decorated as they were with gilded masks and portraits, clearly shows that these were individuals of some wealth. In the second instance, it is possible that the bodies were kept overground in a tomb-chapel were offerings could be presented to the deceased, until the chapel was filled up, the coffins too damaged to be kept on display, or the 49 50 51

52

Chapel tombs looked like houses—houses for eternity—hence it is not surprising that ancient authors may have thought the Egyptians kept their dead at home. Montserrat 1997, 39. See for example P. Princ. III 166 and S.B. XIV 11939 quoted in Montserrat 1997, 38 and notes 51–52. Among modern Australian Aborigines, for example, it is customary to display the body of a deceased person on a bed-like structure for a period of three days to allow friends and family time to travel to where the deceased is to pay their respects (C.A. Suthrell personal communication). It could be suggested that individuals with insufficient financial means might have had just enough resources to pay for the mummification of their deceased relatives but had to leave them in waiting tombs until such time when they could afford their own funerary structure. However, the fact that the new owner of the tomb listed in P. Philadelphia V is given two tombs, one of which specifically for the temporary storage of his deceased relatives awaiting burial, indicates that this was probably not the reason behind the practice, at least not in every instance.

270

chapter 12

individual forgotten.53 This would explain why the mummy of an important individual such as Harmais, the prophet of Ptah mentioned above, remained unburied for nearly forty years, and could, therefore, indicate that some mummies were kept in temporary tombs for as long as their mortuary cult was maintained. However, despite this being an attractive and plausible explanation, it does not entirely explain the practice. In fact, if these were venerated individuals, hence their display in tomb-chapels and the maintenance of their mortuary cult for a length of time, one would expect them to be identified by the epithet blessed one, or even master.54 In addition, one would probably expect to find more frequent mentions of ‘waiting tombs,’ of chapels, and indeed of ‘mummies in waiting.’ Rather, these mummies are stored away in other people’s tomb, to which private individuals did not have access.55 The custom of keeping some mummies unburied evokes a ritual that was part of the Sokar festival. Part of this ceremony involved the fashioning of a statuette of the god that was eventually placed in a chest inside a temple chapel, which would serve as its tomb for the coming year. At the same time the previous year’s figurine would be taken out of its chest and its bandages changed, before being given final burial in the necropolis of the gods.56 However, an analysis of the relevant Ptolemaic documentation on the delayed burial of some individuals shows that there could be a considerable variation in waiting times, thus suggesting that the practice did not have the same ritualistic connotations as this aspect of the Sokar rite, which one would expect had all mummies been kept unburied for the same length of time.57 The practice of leaving some mummies unburied shares parallels also with the cult of the sacred animals. Evidence for this practice is found in the archive of the priest Hor, which shows that a mass burial of the sacred ibises at Saqqara took place annually, although they would probably have been mummified throughout the year.58 Text 19 in this archive provides evidence for the exis-

53 54 55

56

57 58

Montserrat 1997, 39. On these epithets see Chapter 14 § 2. Had the public been allowed to enter whichever tomb they pleased, there would not have been the need for a contract clause granting the mortuary priests access to specific tombs, since the latter would have even more right to be there in the performance of their profession than the general public. Meeks and Favard-Meeks 1999, 170–172. Another private habitation frequently identified as a storage place for mummies awaiting burial is the house jointly owned by the choachytes on the east bank of Thebes. However, as discussed in Chapter 9, there is no evidence to support such a suggestion. Thus also Montserrat for the Roman period (1997, 38). Ray 1976, 140; Texts 19 v. 8–9; 21 v. 10–11. It is interesting to note, however, that this prac-

burial

271

tence of waiting tombs for the mummified ibises, called ꜥ.wy-(n)-ḥrry, which Ray suggests may refer to the side galleries where the vessels containing the remains of the birds were stored, and which would be sealed once the available space inside had been exhausted.59 The periodical burial of sacred animals is also attested for crocodiles as indicated by the regulations of the religious associations attached to the cult of the god Souchos.60 In the case of these sacred animals it is possible to see why their burial would take place annually, since the large number of mummified birds would probably have resulted in incessant funeral ceremonies throughout the year. However, this factor cannot account for the phenomenon of human mummies in waiting that, even in a country with a high mortality rate, would have been considerably fewer in number than the sacred animals.61 In the light of the available evidence it seems probable that the custom of annual mass burial of sacred animals was not dictated by religious factors, rather, it seems more likely that it was linked to practical considerations. If practical considerations were at the root of this custom, the most logical explanation appears to be one linked to the architecture of the tombs themselves, which may have consisted of two parts: an overground structure used for the mortuary cult of the deceased person, and a subterranean chamber, sealed and reopened only at the time of a burial. It is possible that, if the tomb shafts were sealed with rubble, or, depending on the typology of the burial place, perhaps with a wall, it would be impractical to have it removed every time a person in the family died, hence a burial may have taken place only at specific intervals.62 In this case, a separate tomb may be needed if the above ground chapel was too small to use as storage place for mummies. The need for the careful sealing of tomb shafts may have been dictated by security problems in the necropolis, evidence for which is found in a small number of documents. Aside from P. Louvre Gr. 2330 (127–126BC) mentioned above, problem of security are also indicated by O. Uppsala 611 (117–116 BC), an oath taken by a man

59 60 61 62

tice was not followed throughout the country as indicated by the surviving ostraca relating to the cult of the sacred ibises at Kôm Ombo (Preisigke et al. 1914; Ray 1976, 140 note 2). Ray 1976, 80 note h, 140, Text 19 v. 7. See also Smelik 1979, 234–235. Muhs 2001, 14–15; Dils 1995, 170; for these associations see De Cenival 1972. Ray (1976, 138), for example, estimates the Ibis burial rate at ten thousand per year in the Memphite necropolis. For an example of blocked tombs’ entrances see TT32—while the inner section of the corridor was blocked with a brick wall, the floor covered with mud plaster and the walls with a layer of gypsum (Kákosy 1994, 25).

272

chapter 12

named Petosiris, son of Hewen, in which he declares that in the tomb robbed by a certain Pꜣ-ty-[…] there was property with which he made offerings(?) (tẖb) for his father (lines 2–5).63 On the basis of the foregoing analysis, therefore, it appears that the custom of delaying the final burial of some of the deceased was linked to practical consideration, as was the case with the burial of some of the sacred animals. However, while in the latter case the practice was dictated by the large numbers of mummified sacred animals, in the case of individuals it was related to the specific architecture of the tomb and of the security measures in place. In the case of tombs where the burial chamber(s) were not easily accessible, the deceased would be placed in above-ground chapels, or in easily accessible tombs, where the mortuary cult could be performed before the deceased for his or her benefit.

5

Mortuary Cult

Once the deceased was laid to rest in the tomb, it was the duty of the choachytes to perform his or her mortuary cult at regular intervals. On the basis of those contracts in which the seller either reserves, or grants, right of access to individuals provisionally placed in other people’s tombs, it is clear that the choachytes performed the mortuary cult of these people in their temporary burial places. This is clearly indicated in P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113BC) in which different arrangements are made with respect to the mortuary service for the period preceding, and that following, the ταφή of Harmais, the prophet of Ptah, and Imouthes son of Esminis (col. 3 line 1; col. 17 lines 9–11; col. 30 line 1; col. 29 lines 9–10). The extant documentary sources provide no direct information as to what the performance of the mortuary cult for the deceased entailed. Rather, the services of these mortuary priests, are simply qualified as the ‘work as a choachyte.’64 A number of documents specify that the mortuary priest is entitled to perform the (religious) services and to make the purificatory offerings for the

63

64

Indeed, funerals may have represented a good opportunity for theft, given that the family and probably the neighbours would all have been away in the necropolis, as indicated by the hypomnema concerning a theft that took place during such an occasion and recorded in DH Zürich 1894 (2nd half of 2nd century BC) (Wångstedt 1965–1966, 45–50; Worp 2012, 75; Vandorpe and Waebens 2009, 192). P. Louvre E 2429 bis (292 BC), P. Louvre E 2428 (277BC), P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC), P. BM EA 10026 (265–264 BC), P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC), P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC), P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC) and P. Turin 2137 (123 BC).

273

burial

deceased,65 while the etymology of their occupational title, wꜣḥ mw, shows that one of their ritual activities, probably the main one, consisted in pouring water as libation. The performance of the mortuary cult also entailed the recital of mortuary liturgies, in particular the Offering Rite, which consisted of the presentation of offerings to the deceased. The offerings would be placed, either concretely or symbolically, on the offering table, and would then be ‘activated’ through the vocal recitation of the offering rite. Funerary texts provide some information on the nature and variety of offerings presented, and included, for example, libations (water, milk, wine and beer), solid foods (loaves, cakes and dates), as well as incense, fresh flowers and plants.66 A number of these foodstuffs, the most important ones of the mortuary meal, could be represented on the offering table, while a channel, provided with a drain, could be carved around them. In presenting the offerings the priest would be pouring water on the table, and the representations on it, while reciting the offering rite. These would ‘activate’ the offerings, endowing them with revitalizing force, and thus allowing the deceased to partake in the provisions for the gods in the afterlife.67 With respect to the intervals at which offerings were supposed to be presented to the deceased, funerary literature suggests that this would have taken place at the beginning of each decade.68 Thus in Bodl. MS Egypt c.9 (P) and P. Louvre E 10605 (1st century AD) the deceased is promised: your name will be pronounced at the offering tables of Horus the choachyte at the decade;69 col. II line 1

and similarly in P. Wien ÄS 3865 (1st–2nd century AD) which writes: ‘Horus (…) shows himself in Waset, at the beginning of each decade, to bring offerings to his forefathers’ (lines 3–4); ‘Your son Horus (…) pours water for you at the beginning of each decade’.70 line 28 65 66 67 68

69 70

P. Turin 2130 (99 BC), P. Berlin P. 3106 (98 BC), P. Berlin P. 3139 (98 BC) and P. Turin 2132 (98 BC). Smith 1993, 7. Assmann 2005, 362. Funerary texts also suggest that libations would be poured for the deceased on the occasion of particular festivities such as that of Khoiak, for which see Smith 1987, 1993, and 2005. Smith 1987a, 70, 80 note (c); Donker van Heel 1992, 21 note 8. See also the parallel passage in col. II line 1 of P. Berlin P. 8351 (1st century AD) (Smith 1993, 30). Herbin 1984, 107, 109; Donker van Heel 1992, 21 note 8.

274

chapter 12

During the recitation of the embalming ritual (P. Boulaq 3) the deceased is promised: Amenope will pour out water for you upon the offering table when he is in the valley pouring out water for his father and mother each decade.71 line 3/21

The same is also suggested by a number of temple reliefs and private monuments which indicate that the god sailed at the beginning of each decade to Djeme in order to perform the funerary offerings for his ancestors buried there. Hence it may be expected that such was also the time when offerings would be presented to the deceased in the care of the choachytes. An inscription on the statue of the God’s-father Esminis in Linköping Museum (Ptolemaic Period), reads: An offering given by Amenope of Djeme (…) who presents offerings (…) at the beginning of each decade;72 lines 1–5

and similarly an inscription on a coffin, Edinburgh L. 224/3002 (Ptolemaic Period), which promises the deceased: Amenope the great one of Djeme (…) will pour water for you at the offering tables as a libation at the three decades each month.73 lines 1–5

By contrast, P. BM EA 10223 (171BC), a contract of transfer of two tombs, includes a clause in which party A states: ‘if I do not perform on your behalf one (liturgical) day out of two I will give 10 silver (deben)’ (mtw=y tm i҆r n=k wꜥ hrw ẖn hrw 2 i҆w=y ty ḥḏ 10) (line 10). If the reference to the two days is to be understood as referring to a period of time within the three-week Egyptian month, the evidence suggests that different arrangements could have been made with the choachyte in charge as to the frequency with which the mortuary cult of the deceased was performed.74 71 72 73 74

Smith 2009, 230. Doresse 1973, 93–97, Nº 12bis. Smith 1987a, 81 note 59; Barns 1952, 69–71; Donker van Heel 1992, 21 note 8. It is also possible that all the text says is that party A has to perform at least one liturgical day every two, but without reference to the total number of liturgical days. A decrease

275

burial

Funerary texts also suggest that libations would be poured for the deceased on the occasion of particular festivities such as the Khoiak Mysteries and the Feast of the Valley. The latter was an annual Theban festival during which the living commemorated their ancestors with meals taken at the tomb itself. Information on how part of this ritual was conducted during the fourth century is provided by P. BM EA 10209 (c. 305 BC). The text places particular emphasis on the act of libation, so much so that it has been described as a choachyte’s manual.75 The third formula, for example, following the introductory words ‘Praising Osiris foremost in the West, the great god and lord of Abydos. Extract from the ritual of the Feast of the Valley,’ continues with the recitation: Words to be recited (…) Accept this cool water for yourself as a libation, namely a libation consisting of the coolest water, wine and milk;76 line 1/19–20

and again in the fifth formula which, following the introductory words, continues with the recitation: Water is yours, yours is the water of millions and millions. Yours is the water of millions of nemset-vessels and hundreds of thousands of mekerjars. Yours is the water of the great river, from the pools of Horus in the Heliopolitan nome. Yours is the water from the beginning of eternity to the end of everlastingness.77 line 2/12

Such emphasis can be accounted for by the embodiment of all other rites into the act of pouring libation, and/or by the assimilation of the Feast of the Valley into the Feast of the Decade, which thus became an annual version of the latter.78 Documentary sources do not specify where the mortuary cult of the deceased was performed. On the basis of P. Louvre Gr. 2330 (127–126 BC) Hengstl suggests that, since the choachyte’s equipment was stolen from inside the tomb, this is the place where he must have performed the mortuary cult

75 76 77 78

in the frequency of the performance of the mortuary cult could, of course, also mean a decrease in the expenses paid to the mortuary priest. Smith 2009, 183 and note 23 quoting Assmann 2005. Smith 2009, 185. Smith 2009, 183. Smith 2009, 183 and note 23; see also Bietak 2012 and 2012a.

276

chapter 12

rather than in a chapel.79 However, it is clear that the setting for the performance of this activity would have depended on the architecture and typology of the funerary structure. Thus the mortuary cult could be performed in open air courtyards, in above ground chapels, in underground vestibules fronting the burial chamber(s), or simply by the entrance of the tomb or by the burial pit. In P. Philadelphia V (302BC) party A states: ‘to you belong the offerings of our master (ḥry) Parates, our god inside its upper places within the said s.t-tomb to its western side (lit. place/area)’ (mtw=k nꜣ ḥtp.w pꜣy=n ḥry Pa-rṱ pꜣy=k nṯr ẖn nꜣy=s ꜥ.wy.w ḥry ẖn tꜣ s.t rn=s r pꜣy=s mꜣꜥ i҆mnṱ) (line 2), which refers either to the entire above-ground structure or to niches, possibly set up high on the wall, where offerings would be placed. An ‘upper chapel’ is also mentioned in Text 3 of the archive of Hor where the author suggests may refer to the stone shrine at the entrance of the southern ibis-galleries, or to a number of other mud-brick structures located within the same area and presumably serving the same function (Text 3 line 15 recto).80 In the archaeological record evidence for the performance of cultic activities is attested in a variety of forms. In the tomb of Harwa (25th dynasty) (TT37), for example, excavations in the courtyard unearthed a damaged offering table carved in relief with libation vessels and loaves of bread, dated on stylistic grounds to the Ptolemaic Period.81 The offering table was apparently part of a sandstone base found at the centre of the first pillared hall, an attribution also supported by the discovery of a number of fragments that joined with the damaged offering slab. This is interpreted as evidence for the reuse of the tomb as a cultic place, a theory that, according to the excavator, is supported by the architectural modifications made at this time in the tomb for the addition of doors. When closed, these would block the passage from one hall to the next, while when open they would completely obscure the inscriptions on the northern wall of the passageway. Finally, it is postulated that the need to separate one hall from the other was dictated by ‘cultic necessities,’ and that the tomb had been ‘transformed into a sanctuary during the Ptolemaic Period.’ Such a conclusion is apparently based mainly on the study of potsherds which highlighted a ‘high concentration of votive cups and bowls dating to the Ptolemaic Period.’82 Such an interpretation, however, fails to take into account the possibility that these artefacts were evidence for funerary cultic activity, which is clearly indi79 80 81 82

Hengstl 1978, 149. However, this cannot be taken as firm evidence since the tools could simply have been stored there. Ray 1976, 20–29, 137–138. Tiradritti 2005, 169–170, and fig. 1; Tiradritti 2006, Tomb plan. Tiradritti 2005, 170.

burial

277

cated by the textual sources that demonstrate the use of this tomb as a burial place from at least as early as 273–272BC.83 Similarly, in TT411, a tomb originally belonging to a man called Psammetichos-tierneheh (Saite Period),84 excavations in the courtyard unearthed the remains of a cultic emplacement built in mud bricks that probably served as an offering place. This was located in the courtyard in correspondence to the entrance to the subterranean areas of the tomb with which it was probably connected.85 In addition, a finely carved sandstone offering table was discovered among the debris under the stairs leading down to the underground structure. It was inscribed with the name of Apathes, and probably originally stood over the mudbrick base in the courtyard.86 83

84 85 86

For archaeological evidence of pottery used during the performance of offering ceremonies for the deceased see Martin et al. 1985. Broken vessels were stored in one of the magazines in the tomb of Paser, while a large quantity of potsherds, perhaps intentionally broken as part of the funerary rituals, were also found heaped against one of the walls in the forecourt (Martin et al. 1985, 20, 47–48). Arnold and Settgast 1966. Arnold and Settgast 1966, 81. Arnold and Settgast 1966, 85, and Pl. XIVb.

chapter 13

Funerary Expenses Depending on the length and elaborateness of the embalming process—the rituals performed, the richness of the wrappings and decoration of the embalmed body—the mummification and burial of an individual could represent a considerable outlay of resources. A range of funerary accoutrements was available for those who could afford it, including cartonnage masks and cases, painted shrouds, wooden coffins, (linen) amulets and religious compositions. A number of artisans and artists would probably be involved in their production—including the individuals who crafted the cartonnage and/or coffin, those who decorated them, and those who painted the funerary shrouds— and a large variety of materials would thus be required (paints, gold leaf and gold paint, papyrus, linen, plaster, glue, and so on). Given the range of people involved and of the materials required one would expect some of these transactions to have generated some ‘paperwork.’ Records of a variety of transactions could have been made at different points, for example, during the acquisition of the necessary materials, or in the form of agreements between the family of the deceased and the various artists, or as grants of governmental concessions on the performance of specific crafts involving materials that were state monopolies. Yet, textual evidence about these various aspects is almost inexistent.1 Several factors may have contributed to this apparent invisibility of ‘funerary artists.’ A determining factor in this respect is the fact that evidence relating to several of these transactions would probably be kept (if at all) in urban contexts (either by the family or by the artisans themselves). Textual evidence is less likely to survive in settlements than in funerary contexts, which are less subject to continuous building activity, and where the, prevalently, dry conditions have permitted, in some areas, the survival of much textual evidence relating to funerary priests and their activities. It is also possible that this lack of evidence is simply due to the fact that, like for other life commodities, the production, sale and purchase of mummy ornaments and tomb equipment did not generate, as a rule, any written documentation, although their continued use, albeit in smaller quantities, is still attested archaeologically.2

1 For the same problem in Roman times see Cannata 2012. 2 Indeed, Janssen’s (1975, 512) analysis of the type of objects which exchange warranted the

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_015

funerary expenses

279

Another point worth considering is the extent of craft specialisation in the ancient world. We are used to the idea of funeral homes organising the entire funeral service, and providing the relatives of the deceased with all that is required in such circumstances in terms of body treatment, coffin, and tomb paraphernalia. Undoubtedly, as time went on, crafts became more and more specialised, with a progression from house economy, in which each household produced much of what was required, to city economy, in which commodities were produced by full-time professionals who took over the household’s production.3 However, the scant evidence available suggests that, with the exception of the funerary priests (lector-priests/embalmers and choachytes), and despite a certain level of craft specialisation, a class of artists specialising solely in the production of funerary furniture probably did not exist.

1

Mummification Materials and Burial Equipment: Production, Acquisition and Provision

As it is to be expected, very little information survives on the actual place of work of artists and craftsmen.4 In some cases the location of a workshop5 would be dictated by the specific craft, for example, near the source of the required

issuing of a receipt showed that, although a large number of daily transactions simply went unrecorded, and that what survives is but a tiny fraction of what once existed, in general, only the barter of costly commodities (including coffins), worth more than ten deben, would be recorded. See more recently the detailed analysis of funerary production at Deir el-Medina by Cooney 2010. 3 Burford 1972, 97. 4 Images of various artists and craftsmen formed, during the Pharaonic Period, part of the decorative scheme of tombs. For example, images of the manufacture of sarcophagi, wooden coffins, and anthropoid cases are found in the tomb of Mersyankh III (Old Kingdom), in that of Nefer and Kahay at Saqqara (Old Kingdom) (Kanawati and Woods 2009, 5), in the tomb of Tjoy at Thebes (Spencer 1982, Fig. 46), and in the tomb of Ipuy, also at Thebes (TT217) (New Kingdom) (Davies 1927, Pl. XXXVI). Here different activities are often shown as taking place in a workshop shared by several artisans, perhaps due to a similarity in the materials used, or to the common typology shared by the items being made. This could reflect the actual arrangement, though it is equally possible that the various artists were located in different parts of the same building, or in different buildings, which are not shown as such because of artistic conventions (Kanawati and Woods 2009, 5). In fact, the various scenes provide but an idealised view of a workshop, subject to artistic conventions, as well as social and religious mores, with the viewer never getting a real sense of what these workshops must have been truly like, filled with dust, dirt, noise, and chaotic activity (Burford 1972, 70–71). 5 The term ‘workshop’ is used here to denote simply a place of work, without any of the possible ramifications that the term can have.

280

chapter 13

raw materials.6 This would clearly be the case of the embalmers, whose workshops were located in the necropolis. Similarly, the individuals responsible for the wrapping of the body,7 if different from those who performed the mummification, would be based in the necropolis too. A unique reference to an individual identified as ‘the man who wraps’ is found in P. BM EA 10561 (157 BC) (Middle Egypt),8 which records an agreement drawn up between two groups of lector-priests concerning the provision of cloths, and other items, during the various stages of the mummification process. Here party A declares ‘we sha[ll not be able] to appoint a man who wraps’ (n-m[tw=n tm rḫ] wꜣḥ-sḥn pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=f gyl) (line 20), thus, apparently, indicating that there was a separate class of funerary priests who specialised in the wrapping of the body.9 Indirect evidence for the possible existence of bandaging specialists is perhaps found in the Inaros-Petubastis cycle (P. Krall, Third Intermediate Period), in which the king grants the equipment and personnel necessary for the mummification of Inaros: ‘Give (or may it be given) the equipment (pꜣ sbty) to their bandagers (mnḫy.w) (I), their unguent-makers (ꜥnṱ.w)10 (II), their dignitaries of the temple (i҆ꜣw.t n ḥ.t-nṯr) (III) and their ritualists in chief (ẖry-ḥb ḥry-i҆b) (IV), who go [to] the embalming workshop (tꜣ wꜥb.t). May they go to Busiris, and may they enter ≤the embalming workshop≥ of the Osiris-king Inaros in the Chamber of the oil, and prepare him ointment and embalming […]’ (P. Krall VIII.13–16).11 The term mnḫy.w, it is suggested, may indicate a professional title formed from the name of the material used in the performance of the function, and thus refer to a class of individuals specialising in the bandaging of the embalmed body, and corresponding to the Greek stolistes.12 The latter were responsible for clothing divine statues and also for the wrapping of sacred animals, such as the dead Mnevis, according to P. Fayum 246 (1st–2nd century AD) and P. Tebtunis II.313 (AD210–211).13 6 7

8 9 10 11 12

13

Burford 1972, 80. A rare image depicting the wrapping of the body is that found in the tomb of Tjoy at Thebes (Spencer 1982, Fig. 46). The image on the top left quadrant shows two individuals winding bandages around the body. Shore and Smith 1960. However, given that the ‘evidence’ consists of a single document, it is not possible to reach any firm conclusion in this regard. On this title see below. Translated from Colin 2003, 82. Colin 2003, 83. However, the terms mnḫy.w and ꜥnṱ.w could also indicate the substances themselves and represent a kind of summary designation for all that was required for the mummification. In P. Rhind I, for example, the deceased is told ‘A mummification with unguent and bandages was carried out for you’ (IV d 11) (Smith 2005, 231 note b to line 23 col. V). Derda 1991, 21–22; Colin 2003, 83 note 64; see also Chapter 4 §3 above.

funerary expenses

281

A number of artisans probably worked in urban centres plying their trade from a workshop attached to their own dwellings, perhaps in a backroom or in the courtyard, with particular crafts being either grouped within the same city quarter, or scattered around the settlement.14 Here were perhaps based the craftsmen that produced wooden funerary furniture, including embalming beds and funerary biers, coffins, and any material culture intended for deposition in the tomb (statuettes, canopic boxes, wooden stelae etc.), and for whom no evidence survives. The only documentary text in which funerary equipment is mentioned is O. Leiden 288 [Inv. No. F 1897/6.70] (Ptolemaic Period), an oath concerning a dispute over ownership of a coffin and some copper. The defendants, Pete[…] son of PN and another individual whose name is lost, are to take an oath concerning a coffin, which they gave to a woman, possibly the wife of one of the parties concerned. If they take the oath, they will sell the coffin to the woman, if they refuse to swear it, they will have to give the coffin and copper to the plaintiff, Snachomneus son of Piuris.15 Two funerary-beds are listed in P. Florence 3667 (111BC) among the accessories and materials provided by the family for the embalmment of the deceased, and in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106BC), concerning their provision by the choachytes during the mummification of individuals under their professional care.16 However, it seems likely that the craftsmen or woodworkers that produced such items did not specialise solely in the production of funerary furniture (for one thing they would find it difficult to be in continuous employment and thus make a living), but rather made different kinds of furniture and wooden utensils too (as was, in fact, the case with carpenters in general till perhaps half a century ago), hence our difficulty in ‘seeing’ them in the archaeological and textual record.

14 15 16

Cannata 2012, 601. Nur el-Din 1974, 234. The document probably comes from Thebes. Depictions of funerary beds and/or biers are also found in a number of religious compositions [see for example the Book of the Dead of Men[…] (Late Period-Ptolemaic Period) BM EA10098,11; the Book of the Dead of the Priest of Horus, Imhotep (ca. 332–200 B.C.) (Meir) MMA 35.9.20a–w; the Book of the Dead of the overseer of the royal ships, Hekaemsaf (Ptolemaic Period) Princeton Pharaonic roll 8.A; and the Embalming Ritual portion on P. Louvre E 5158 (1st century AD)], as part of the decorative scheme of some coffins [similar imagery is found on the coffins of Djebastetiuefankh and of Mutirdis in the Roemerund Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim; and the coffin of Artemidoros (2nd century AD) BM EA 21810] and on the walls of some tombs [see for example the depictions in the tomb of Petosiris at Gebel el-Muzawaka (Roman Period) and the tomb Reliefs in Catacombs of Kom ash-Shuqqafa at Alexandria (Roman Period)], while actual remains have also been found among embalmers’ deposits (Smoláriková 2011) and in tombs [for examples of Roman Period funerary biers (from tombs at Dush) see Castel and Dunand 1981].

282

chapter 13

Similarly, no evidence survives for those craftsmen that produced the plaster or clay mummy masks, the cartonnage masks and cases.17 The fact that the painters and goldsmiths named in P. Vindob. Barbara 58 (between 183–182 and 159–158BC)18 were granted permission to decorate the mummy masks suggests that the actual manufacture fell under the competence of a different class of artisans. Tax records of the Roman Period [BGU 471,15 and P. Fayum 23a, verso (2nd century AD)] suggest that some artisans could have been attached to temples,19 with the latter paying the tax due on specific trades, such as that of painters and plasterers. This in turn suggests that in some cases mummy masks and painted portraits were produced in temple workshops.20 The process of manufacture of cartonnage masks and cases consisted of wrapping layers of bandages (or papyrus scraps) soaked in plaster, or glue, around a mummyshaped core made from straw and mud, perhaps built around a light reeds frame. The core was then removed from a slit at the back of the case while the linen or papyrus sheets were still pliable. The cartonnage shell was then fitted around the mummy and secured with cords threaded though holes punched on the back of the case. Once hardened, the latter would be painted with the chosen decoration.21 Given that the discarded inner core consisted of organic materials, it is unlikely that traces of this process would be left in the archaeological record, hence the difficulty of finding evidence for possible workshops specialising in the production of this type of funerary material culture. With respect to the scrap papyrus needed in the manufacture of cartonnage, there is also very little surviving evidence on their mode of acquisition. On the one hand, the discovery of documents in dumps, particularly at Oxyrhynchus where virtually all of the papyri were recovered from rubbish heaps, suggests that used papyrus material was simply discarded.22 This means that it would have been freely available to any one, and thus that no paperwork would be generated, and possibly no money paid, for its acquisition, hence the almost total lack of documentation on the topic. On the other hand, the clerk Menches regularly reused papyrus from his own office, and even papyri belonging to other 17

18 19 20 21 22

The mention of a plaster-worker (γυφικῆς) in a list of temple’s tax payments (BGU 471, 15) from the Roman Period possibly suggests that these individuals may have been employed in the manufacture of mummy masks by the temple (Johnson 1936, 643). See below. As also suggested by the discovery of a possible Ptolemaic workshop near the main temple at Tebtunis (Anti 1930–1931, 389–391; Cannata 2012, 601). Johnson 1936, 539, 643; Grenfell et al. 1900, 130. Adams 1966, 55–66; see also Taylor 2004, 42–43 for a depiction of the various stages of the construction of cartonnage mummy cases. Skeat 1995, 82–83.

funerary expenses

283

people,23 thus possibly suggesting that there was a kind of central repository where one could acquire such scrap papyrus.24 This is, perhaps, indicated by P. Col. Zenon II 73 (258BC), a fragmentary text in which it is reported that a certain Teos, possibly a ship captain, is taking Herakleides downstream to an emporium in order to sell scrap papyrus that has been collected from various accounting offices and clerical bureaux.25 Receipt of used papyrus and linen to be used for the burial of crocodiles is recorded on a fragmentary temple record, P. Köln VIII 347.15–27, 24–25 (193? BC).26 Presumably these items were to be used for the manufacture of cartonnage cases and for the wrapping of the bodies of the animals sacred to the god Sobek. Verhoogt suggests that papyrus no longer usable as writing media had been donated by the inhabitants of a town, in this case Kerkeosiris, since this is the place whence originated a considerable number of the documents recovered from the Tebtunis crocodile mummies.27 However, it remains unclear whether scrap papyrus to be used in the manufacture of cartonnage for private individuals would have to be bought, or if it also came from ‘donations.’ Finally, whether produced in a temple setting or in a workshop attached to the artisan’s dwelling, masks and/or cases would need to be taken to the necropolis where, following the deposition of the bandaged mummy inside, they would be decorated.28 In addition, textual evidence indicates that there also existed a class of itinerant artists who travelled around the country and set up a temporary studio wherever they received a commission.29 This was the case of the painters and gilders Phatre and Psenobastis who were granted permission to travel around the Arsinoite nome to practice their trade (P. Vindob Barbara 58 (183–182 or 159–158BC)),30 and of the Alexandrian painter Theophilus who was responsible for the interior decoration of elite housing at Philadelphia.31 P. Vindob. Bar23 24 25

26 27 28

29 30 31

Verhoogt 1998, 29–31. It seems unlikely that this clerk would go around rubbish dumps collecting scrap papyrus. Westermann et al. 1940; Youtie 1943, 214; Winter and Youtie 1944, 255–256. The sale of new papyrus, on the other hand, is recorded in SB 12 11078 = SB 6 9629 (c. 100 BC), a letter from three contractors of the retail sale of papyrus rolls in which they inform officials in Tebtynis of the name of their new assistant in the papyrus trade and ask them to cooperate with him (Lewis 1974, 124–125). Gronewald et al. 1997, 129–135. Verhoogt 1998, 15. It is likely that the cartonnage would have been slightly damaged while depositing the mummy inside, by painting it afterwards it would have been possible to repair any visible damage. Ling 2000, 101; Nowicka 1984, 259. Clarysse 2001, 67–70. Nowicka 1984, 256.

284

chapter 13

bara 58 (between 183–182 and 159–158BC) also suggests that the professions of painter and gilder of funerary objects could be combined together. Both classes of artists are slightly better attested in the textual record than craftsmen and plaster/cartonnage workers. A gilder is known from a short inscription on a gilt mummy bust from Hawara (Berlin 11746) (Ptolemaic Period), which reads ‘Musthas son of Alexander, the gilder.’32 Two graffiti (SB I 4274,2) (Ptolemaic Period) naming a painter, possibly the same individual, are found at Abydos,33 while the Alexandrian painter Theophilus is attested from documents in the Zenon archive. However, the sources never explicitly indicate their expertise, but rather suggest that neither group specialised in particular media (wall, wood, linen and so on), or in specific spheres (temple, funerary, domestic and so on). This is indicated by P. Cairo Zenon III 59445 (PSI IV 407) (263–229BC) which shows that the painter Theophilus was responsible for both mural and panel painting (pinakes). The latter writes to Zenon explaining that ‘[s]ince the jobs to execute for you are completed, and there is no more work, I remain without the necessities (of life); if you have any panels (pinakes)34 to paint, you should give them to me so that I have work and (enough) to live on. If you cannot give me (any), then you should give me some money for the journey so that I may return to my brothers in the city. Farewell.’35 Similarly, the gilders named in P. Vindob. Barbara 58 (between 183–182 and 159–158 BC) were engaged in the decoration of both temples and funerary masks. Both textual sources and the surviving material culture indicate that a wide range of materials were required during the various stages of a person’s mummification and burial and for the decoration of funerary equipment. The surviving evidence indicates that there were no strict rules concerning the provision of materials, which in some instances would be provided by the family, while in others they would be acquired by the artists themselves who would be reimbursed of the expenses. This is clearly shown by the estimate produced by

32 33 34

35

Depauw 2004, 235 and note 26. Perdrizet and Lefebvre 1919, 61 no. 319, 45 no. 247. Possession of painted panels was popular in Greek society during the third century BC (Nowicka 1984, 259) and already from the Ptolemaic Period there is evidence for the commissioning of a portrait (eikon) of rulers, officials, and members of the gymnasium, which would be displayed in public buildings or temples (Whitehouse 2010, 11; Łukaszewicz 1987; Nowicka 1979, 23). After the French translation by Nowicka 1984, 259. Interestingly, as noted by Nowicka (1984, 259), the fact that Theophilus requests a travel allowance in order to return home, may suggest that he belonged to that class of itinerant painters—half artists, half artisans—who did not make their fortune in the province, but rather travelled around taking commissions for any type of work relevant to their profession.

funerary expenses

285

Theophilos for his client giving alternative prices depending on who supplied the materials.36 Similarly, in P. Vindob Barbara 58 (183–182 or 159–158 BC) it is specified that the concessionaires are free to purchase the required products anywhere they wish,37 and would presumably be reimbursed these expenses by their clients.38 The latter document is a loan contract stipulated between the farmer of the goldsmiths’ tax and a goldsmith, which suggests that the latter acquired the raw material from the village farmer, undertaking to repay it within an agreed period of time.39 In P. Vindob Barbara Dem. 58 (183–182 or 159–158BC) the tax farmer is identified as the person ‘responsible for the gilders’ trade’ (nt ḥr tꜣ wp.t ḥm-nb-pḳe) (lines 2–3).40 This document also indicates that a form of governmental control existed on painting and gilding, since Maron and Marres, farmers of the painters and goldsmiths’ tax in the Arsinoite nome, grant Phatre and Psenobastis permission to exercise the trade of painter and goldsmith in both the religious and the funerary sectors. A monthly tax payment to the royal bank is due from the named individuals.41 That the sale of gold was a state monopoly during the Ptolemaic Period is indicated by P. Demotic Lille II 64 (226BC) and BGU VI 1242 (2nd–1st century BC). The state may have provided the gold extracted from mines and auctioned it in each nome to the highest bidder, who may have been forced to acquire a certain quantity at a fixed price. In turn, the nome farmers may have sold the gold to the various village farmers, who may also have been required to buy a certain quantity of 36

37 38

39 40 41

Nowicka 1984, 256–259; Ling 1991, 217. Additional evidence for customers providing the artisans with the required materials is found in a much later document, P. Vindob. G 29843 (6th–7th century AD), a list of pigments and colouring materials, with their quantity and prices, necessary for the production of specific colours. A certain Andronikos is also named in the list, whom, in view of his high ranking title (vir illustris), was more likely a customer than a trader in such substances, or a painter (Mitthof 2004, 181–182 note to line 1). Clarysse 2001, 68. In the Roman Period, documents mentioning the cost of gilt decoration suggest that during the 1st and 2nd centuries, 1 meaiaion (c. 28 grams) of gold cost 300 silver drachmae, or 2100 obols (Kramer and Hübner 1976, 132–133; documents include CPR 12 (AD93); BGU IV 1065 (AD 97); P. Oxy. III 496 (AD 127); and P. Oxy. unedited (AD158)). An indication of the process employed in the manufacture and gilding of the masks is given by P. Köln I 52 (AD 263), concerning the decoration of the ceiling in the Gymnasium at Antinopolis. Here it appears that the plasterer would first apply a layer of plaster, which would then be painted on with gold-coloured paint, to which the gold leaves would be applied by means of the glue (130–131, 141–142 note to lines 11 /12 = 59/60). Depauw 2004, 245–246. Depauw 2004, 235–236. Thus the document indicates that the decoration of mummy coverings was under the control of the state administration and, as such, subject to a tax (Clarysse 2001, 67–70).

286

chapter 13

gold at a fixed price. Like the nome farmers, they would also be required to provide sureties guaranteeing their presence in the village and their payment of the gold borrowed.42 In P. Florence 3667 (111 BC), listing the funerary expenses undertaken by the family at the death of one of their members, there is a reference to ‘the ˹gilding:˺ 2 silver (deben)’ (tꜣ hḏ43 ˹nb˺ · 2) (col. II line 13), although without further specification. The entry is inserted between the cost of salt and that of unguent, and therefore it may be a reference to the gilding of fingernails during the mummification of the body, rather than to any gilt decoration applied onto the mummy coverings. The technical section in the embalming ritual [P. Boulaq 3 (1st–2nd century AD)], in fact, instructs the priest thus: ‘After this, attach his nails of gold to his hands and his feet, starting from the tips of his four fingers to the base of his nail(s)’ (col. 6/15).44 The same document [P. Florence 3667 (111BC)] also lists one i҆nw-cloth, some ḥbs-cloths as well as another type of cloth,45 the deceased’s gtn-robe, two mnḫcloths, and 29 sbn-bandages, among other materials. Cloth is also listed among the items the father of the deceased is to provide for the embalmment of his son in P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC), and in P. Cairo 30960 (104 BC). In the latter document a man petitions the temple for ‘a cloth from among the šp-cloth of the clothing of [the] great [godde]ss Hathor’ (wꜥ ḥbs n pꜣ šp ḥbs n tꜣ mnḫꜣ.(t) n [tꜣ nṯr].t ꜥꜣ.t ḥ.t-ḥr)46 (lines 5–6) in order to pay for the burial of his dead father formerly employed in the said establishment. Indeed, the cost of linen would probably have been the largest single outlay in the entire funeral procedure.47 For the head alone, for example, the Embalming Ritual prescribes the application of a fringed cloth, four bandages, and forty-six wads, with the whole wrapped with a bandage measuring two fingers in width.48 Both new and old cloth would be used for the bandaging, depending on the family’s financial resources, and could come from a variety of sources, though, in general, it was household articles such as towels and cloths, as well as clothing, that would be used for this purpose.49 Wealthier individuals would be able to purchase new

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Depauw 2004, 245. CDD letter ḥ, 100; Glossar 282; Pestman 1992, 219, note 17. Smith 2009, 229 (in this quote, italics replace the underlining of the original edition). The only traces visible are those of the determinative which is the same as that for i҆nw, gnrṱ and šty (Pestman 1992, 218 note 6). CDD 103, letter š. In P. Florence 3667 (111 BC), for example, the i҆nw-cloth alone cost 290 silver (deben) (col. I line 10). Smith 2009, 231 col. 7; Jonckheere 1953, 64–65. Benson et al. 1979, 123; Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 295; Andrews 1984, 25; Bataille and Bruyère 1939, 102–103. Mummy 1770 in the Manchester Museum was wrapped using

funerary expenses

287

linen especially for the occasion, or, it is suggested, use the ‘cast-off garments’ of divine statues.50 An allusion to this is perhaps found in documents from the Searapion at Memphis, dating from around the middle of the second century BC, which refer to the sale of (probably old) garments.51 Given the variety of sources of the cloth used, it is not surprising that the quality of the wrappings could be quite variable, ranging from the finest texture to a coarse cloth, with the finer specimens reserved, at least in some cases, for the outer layers of wrapping.52 Beside plain bandages used in the wrapping of the corpse, decorated and inscribed cloths were also to be used. Their application is depicted in the second vignette above the third column of P. Louvre E 5158 (1st century AD), which shows the deceased laying on a bier and Horus of Hebenu approaching him with a strip of fabric in his hand,53 while in P. Boulaq 3 (1st–2nd century AD) the deceased is promised that ‘[c]loth will be fabricated for you in Sais as protection’ (Col. 6).54 More specifically the Ritual prescribes the application of inscribed or decorated linen bands over different parts of the body, and which, because of their apotropaic function, can be described as ‘amulets.’55 In particular, the ninth, tenth and eleventh operations described in the Ritual are concerned with the wrapping of the left hand, the right hand and the legs and feet of the corpse respectively. According to the Ritual’s technical notes, the left hand is to be wrapped with two fringed cloths on which Hapi and Isis have been drawn; while the right hand is covered with two fringed cloths of a special kind identified as the ‘august bandages of Horus the Behdetite.’ Of these, one is to be decorated with an image of Isis and Nephthys, and the other with an image of Re and Min. In addition, the latter is to be inscribed with the words ‘Grasp the sun for yourself, seize the moon for yourself.’56 The eleventh operation prescribes the application of two cloths on each leg, each decorated with an image of a jackal, an example of which may be that discussed by Sauneron.57 Of direct

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

household items, including parts of tunics and possibly even sacking, although, all of good quality (Benson et al. 1979, 135–136). Andrews 1984, 25; Vogelsang-Eastwood 2000, 295. Dunand 1979, 56; UPZ I, 378–381. Andrews 1984, 25; Benson et al. 1979, 123. Smith 2009, 223–224; Maspero 1875, plate II; Schreiber 2007, 338 and fig. 2. Smith 2009, 230. For an in-depth analysis of the surviving examples see Kockelmann 2003; for the examples found in TT32 and their contextual analysis see Schreiber 2007. Smith 2009, 222–223. Kockelmann 2003, 250 note 88; Smith 2009, 223; Sauneron 1952a, 53–55. For an analysis of the deities mentioned in the Embalming Ritual and their possible match with the decorated linen amulets from TT32 see Schreiber 2007, 337–340, Table 1 and Figs. 4–27.

288

chapter 13

relevance here is the fact that the ritualist is instructed to execute depictions and inscriptions using specific materials: ‘draw Isis in pure orpiment on a single fringed cloth’ (Col. 9); ‘[a]dorn with a fringed cloth (…) on which Isis and Nephthys are depicted with fresh ink, frankincense, and the juice of tekhu-plants. Add a fringed cloth with an image of Re painted on it in orpiment, an image of Min in Nubian ochre and honey being painted on this cloth as well. Make into twelve folds after inscribing (20) them with black ink (…). Paint these things on the august bandages of Horus the Behdetite, the great god and lord of the sky’ (Col. 10); ‘Two jackals should be painted on two fringed cloths, one facing the other, on the cloth of Anubis lord of Hardai and the cloth of Horus master of Hebenu, with ink and extract of frankincense.58 Place Anubis on his right leg and Horus on his left leg’ (Col. 11).59 The fact that the ritualist is instructed to draw, inscribe and paint these cloths clearly indicates that decorated mummy linens were produced by the embalmers themselves directly in the embalming place. Interestingly, the residues of resin found on some mummy labels indicate that they too lay in the embalming place before being attached to the body, which, in turn, raises the possibility that these objects were also inscribed by the embalmers themselves.60 The same is also suggested by textual evidence dating from the Roman Period. SPP XXII 56 (2nd century AD)61 and possibly P. Société Fouad inv. 99 (2nd–3rd century AD),62 mention the provision of cloth by the family, as well as the pigment needed for dyeing them, which, again, suggests that they had yet to be decorated, and that this task fell with the necrotaphoi.63 58 59 60

61 62

63

Note that several scholars identify this substance as myrrh, see, for example, Colin 2003, 101 note 196; LiDonnici 2001, 66 and note 23, 68; and CDD 92 letter ꜥ. Smith 2009, 238, 240, 242 (in this quote, italics replace the underlining of the original edition); Kockelmann 2003, 250. The combination of titles held by the Old Kingdom painter Kaiemtjenenit, from Meir, who is variously identified as ‘inspector of outline draftsmen,’ ‘scribe of the house of sacred books of the palace,’ and, most importantly, as ‘lector-priest’ (Kanawati and Woods 2009, 12), further suggests the possibility of a link between funerary priests and a specific class of artists, those who inscribed and/or decorated some of the mummy bandages. Montserrat 1997, 40. The document originates from the Hermopolite area, and lists two tunics and some cushions, followed by the names of three vegetable substances, with their quantities in mines, two of which, thapsos and krimnos, were employed in the dyeing industry in antiquity (Fournet 2004, 91). However, it is important to note, that we do not know who wrote these ‘funerary expenses,’ or what their purpose may have been. They could have been drafted by the family as a kind of aide-memoire for the funeral outlay of a relative, or could represent accounts presented to the family by a mortuary priest listing the various expenses for work carried out by different individuals. In the latter instance, the dyeing of the bandages and the wrapping of the body could easily have been the responsibility of two separate groups of craftsmen.

funerary expenses

289

Textual sources and chemical analyses of surviving specimens64 also clearly indicate that a variety of materials and substances would be required during the actual process of mummification. The list recorded in P. Florence 3667 (111BC), for example, includes several hins of unguent (mtḥ), three (measures of) salt (ḥmꜣ), honey (i҆by), sgn-unguent (sgn), fat (ꜥt), two minas of mrḥ-resin (mrḥ mnꜣ), several hins of syf-resin (syf ), natron (ḥsmn), various hins of wine (i҆rp) and of embalming ˹wine˺ (˹i҆rp˺ ḳs),65 herbs (sm), and a mina of flowers (ḥrr mnꜣ). Similarly, the fragmentary list found in O. Leiden 96 [Inv. No. F 1897/6.24] (Ptolemaic Period) includes 35 hins of oil (nḥḥ), three hins of resin (syf ), some ˹flowers of Thebes˺ (˹ḥrry n nw.t˺) and some wine (i҆rp); while provision of natron (ḥsmn) is also mentioned in P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC). Among the substances mentioned in the technical notes of the Embalming Rituals are: natron, very high quality frankincense (or myrrh), oil, moringa oil, unguent (with the ten oils in it), ointment, resin, resinous substance, juice of the gum of the ebony tree, mestenu-liquid, plants, white lotus, seneb-plant, menes-plant, a shoot of the aru-tree.66 A hieratic inscription on a bowl found among an embalmers cache at Saqqara (5th century BC) provides additional information on the range of substances that may have been used during the mummification: ‘gum resin 15, shr.t-resin 16, wax 16, coniferous oil, Libyan oil, soda 16, fresh frankincense 11, shaped frankincense 11, sfj-oil of cumin 10, sfj-oil of Lebanon 16; for the hand of Psammetich(?).’67 A number of them would probably have been common household ‘spices,’ or at least readily available in marketplaces,68 while others would have been imported into Egypt.69 Myrrh and incense, for example, came from Yemen and Somalia through trade routes linking Berenice to Coptos. A Demotic graffito along this caravan route, at the site of Al-Buwayb, by a certain Paches son

64 65

66 67 68

69

See for example Connan 2005; Buckley and Evershed 2001; Facchetti et al. 2014 and 2012. Wine in this context would probably have been used mixed with myrrh to bring out the fragrance. On the use of wine mixed with myrrh see Colin 2003, 85; and Manniche 2009, 2. Of these, some actually served for the preservation of the body, while others, particularly plants, had apotropaic powers. Töpfer 2015, 339; Lauer and Iskander 1955, 178; Aston 2011, 51–52. LiDinnici 2001, 63. Among the documents analysed here, ‘resin seller(s)’ (s-n-ꜣwš) are attested at Memphis (P. Louvre E 3266, 5) and in Middle Egypt (P. Count. 2.91 and 10.56), a ‘gum maker’ (s-n-ḳmꜣ) is attested at Memphis (P. Leiden I 380A–B, 3), a possible ‘pitch(?)dealer’ (s-n-nḏpṱ) is attested at Hawara (P. Hamburg 9, 9), and an ‘incense seller’ (s-n-snṯr) is attested from Thebes (P. Louvre E 3440 A–B and P. Berlin P. 3112). For the title of ‘incense modeller’ (sꜣḳ snṯr) see Quegebeur 1993. Manniche 2009, 2; Colin 2003, 73–74.

290

chapter 13

of Panebweres, the unguent-maker (pꜣ ꜥnṱ)70 (or unguentarius), provides evidence for another class of specialists, and suggests that some of these may also have been involved in the import of aromata.71 In particular, these specialists appear to have been part of temples’ personnel, and to have played some role in the mummification rites.72 Indeed, the presence of unguent-makers among the individuals responsible for the mummification is implied by the stela of Annos/Anemher (Stela Cairo 31099, 73BC) where we read that from day 52 to day 56 they cooked for him mtḥ-unguents and ˹brought˺ for him the mnḫbandages (and) the royal-byssus (line 8). Thus, according to this text it was the embalmers who prepared (at least some of) the unguents used during the mummification.73 Indirectly, this is also indicated by the presence of ‘cookingpots’ among Late Period embalmers deposits.74 With regards to the acquisition of specific materials, unpublished tax receipts and a contract in Greek (Late Ptolemaic Period) from the Cynopolite nome, indicate that some substances, specifically kedria and pharmakon, were subject to government control and thus a tax.75 With respect to the herbs and plants necessary during the mummification, there is no evidence from Egypt for the existence of a specialised profession of drug-seller or plant-collector, such as the Greek rhizotomoi.76 Rather, the presence of an illustrated herbal from the second century AD, giving indication of where particular plants grew, and medical handbooks from different periods, explaining the appearance and use of particular plants, seem to imply that healers collected these plants personally.77 Thus, considering the level of specialistic knowledge the unguentmakers working in the embalming place possessed, it seems likely that they would also collect some of these plants personally. Finally, some indirect reference to funerary equipment may be found in P. Turin Suppl. 6083 (105BC), the acknowledgment of receipt of burial expenses. In the document party B,78 Tateathuris, the sister of party A makes a

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

For the reading of this title see Colin 2003. See also Quaegebeur 1993 and 1994. Colin 2003, 73–74. Two more individuals by this title are perhaps attested as house owners in one of the Hawara Papyri (P. O.I. 25258 [285–246]) (Colin 2003, 84). Colin 2003. Spiegelberg 1904, 32, line 9; Griffith 1900, 29–30, note to line 25. Smoláriková 2011; Aston and Aston 2010. Clarysse 2007. Lang 2013, 178. On these documents see Ryholt 2013 and Lang 2013, 177–181. That this is a statement of party B is shown by the use of the second person singular suffix pronoun to address the other party, and by the fact that the scribe left a gap in the text before this passage.

funerary expenses

291

statement and declares: ‘you will be the one to have authority over the things which you will desire to give for Psemminis, your father’ (scil. the deceased) (i҆w mtw=k pꜣ nt i҆r-sh̭ n nꜣ nkt.w nt i҆w tw=k mr ty s(t) ⟨˹n˺⟩ pꜣ-šr-mn pꜣy=k i҆ṱ) (line 5–7). It is possible that one of the entries in P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) provides some evidence for what ‘things’ the family could give for the deceased since it lists: ‘[…] 30 silver (deben): price of the ring for/of Osoroeris’ ([…] · 30 swn tꜣ glṱ n wsi҆r-wr) (col. I line 21).79 Possibly this ring represents something the eldest son gave for the mummification and burial of his father, either as (part) payment for mummification requisites, or as one of the items used during this process, and the amount shown corresponds to its value.80 An attractive possibility is that of linking this ring to a passage in the Embalming Ritual where the technical note referring to the wrapping of the left hand instructs the ritualist to ‘place a gold ring on his finger’ (Col. 9). In some cases, the commissioning of funerary items may have been arranged by the deceased himself during his lifetime. This certainly appears was the case of the Theban priest Nesmin, who served in the cults of several deities at Thebes and at nearby Hutsekhem, and was buried with at least four funerary papyri.81 A short Demotic note, inscribed in his hand on an adjoining sheet to P. BM EA 10209, gives instructions for the placement of the latter papyrus: ‘Let a text be written for me in the receptacle of pine wood into which I shall be placed. Let the papyrus roll to be inserted within my mummy wrappings. Sminis has written’ (my sẖ=w n=y sẖ r-ẖn-n pꜣ ḥnw n ḳty nt-i҆w=w r ti҆.ṱ=y r-ẖn=f my tw=w pꜣ ḏmꜥ r-ẖn tꜣy=y ḳs sẖ ns-mn).82 The fact that Nesmin requests that a document be written for him, together with the fact that the Demotic note appears to have been written before the actual funerary composition, suggests that he commissioned the papyrus himself.83 Funerary papyri could also be purchased ready made with spaces left blank for future insertion of the beneficiary and his parents.84 Compositions could, in some cases, be copies owned by the deceased

79

80

81 82 83 84

Pestman (1992, 211 d, 218 note 8) suggests that the use of the definite article indicates this must have been a particular ring, and that it would have been given to Osoroeris (my italics). However, if this was the case, it is unclear why its price would be shown in a list of items provided by the family for the deceased. The eldest son was entitled to a greater share in the father’s inheritance, but would have to provide for the mummification and burial of the latter. It is possible that this additional payment was made by Osoroeris because he was the eldest son. P. BM EA 10188, P. BM EA 10208, P. BM EA 10209 (on which see Smith 2009, Text 2, 3, and 8) and P. Detroit Institute of Arts 1988.10 (Smith 2009, 96–97). Martin and Ryholt 2006; for the corrections to their reading see Smith 2009, 178 note 4. Martin and Ryholt 2006, 272–273. Smith 2009, 217.

292

chapter 13

during his life, as perhaps is the case of P. Boulaq 3, the Embalming Ritual. The presence of short notes written in Demotic above each column indicates that the composition was actually used during the performance of the mummification rituals in the embalming place by the overseer of the mysteries. It is conceivable that Hatres, himself an overseer of the mysteries, was the one who actually used the manuscript before it was inscribed with his name and placed with him in his tomb.85 As the previous survey shows, with the exception perhaps of the artisans that manufactured wooden, plaster, and/or cartonnage funerary items, much of what could be classed as production of ‘decorative’ items, or decoration of such items, was executed in the embalming place. This is perhaps the reason for the elusiveness of the funerary artists. On the one hand, some of the items were crafted by the embalmers themselves, hence the lack of documentation relating to specific classes of funerary artists. On the other hand, individuals specialising in the gilding and painting of funerary items would have been based in the embalming place itself, hence the lack of remains from their work in the archaeological record.

2

Provision of Mummification Materials and Burial Equipment

Evidence on whose responsibility it was to provide mummification materials and burial equipment is found in a small number of documents from around the country. The earliest of these is P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270 BC), an embalming agreement between embalmer and the father of the deceased. Here Party A confirms receipts of natron, mummification wrappings, and everything else that will be required for the mummification of Party B’s son. Provision of embalming materials is also mentioned in P. Florence 3667 (111 BC), the aforementioned accounts of burial expenses, which lists contributions from the deceased’s offspring, and perhaps also from other choachytes, who were likely work colleagues.86 Thus, in these two instances, it seems clear that the provision of the mummification requisites was the responsibility of the family.

85

86

Smith 2009, 224. However, not all the spaces were inscribed, some were accidentally left blank, others were filled in carelessly. Interestingly, in the vast majority of cases where the name of the deceased has been omitted, the space still includes the words ‘Osiris of the god’s father’ written in the same hand as the main text. This suggests that, even if not inscribed for a specific person, the manuscript was still intended for someone with this priestly title and rank (Smith 2009, 217). The list of funerary expenses found on O. Leiden 96 [Inv. No. F 1897/6.24.] (Ptolemaic

funerary expenses

293

In addition, individuals belonging to associations may expect a contribution either for part or for the entire cost of their mummification and burial. The most detailed of these is the list of the associations’ regulations recorded in P. Lille 29 (223BC). As mentioned before, the specific clause prescribes that the members’ representative will give ‘100 rations for the mourning (ꜥḳ nhpj)’87 (ꜥḳ nhpy 100) divided as follows: the price of hi[s ˹pr-nfr˺]: 50 rations; his (day) 35: 25 ⟨rations⟩; his ḥb ḳs: 25 rations (pꜣ swn pꜣ[ y=f ˹pr-nfr˺] ꜥḳ 50 pꜣy=f 35 ⟨ꜥḳ⟩ 25 pꜣy=f ḥb ḳs ꜥḳ 25) (line 18).88 In P. Cairo 30606 (157BC)89 and P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC) the members agree to give their dues, in the amount stipulated by ‘those of the house,’ for the deceased’s ḳs.t and pr-nfr (mtw=n ty n=f pꜣ ḥḏ ꜥl nt i҆.i҆r nꜣy=w pꜣ ꜥ.wy mt r=f ty st wbꜣ tꜣy=f ḳs.t ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f pr-nfr) (line 13 and line 14 respectively), while the regulations set down in P. Cairo 30619 (137BC) prescribe that members’ dues are to be given for the deceased’s ḳs.t (i҆w=n ty [ḥḏ ꜥl]? wbꜣ tꜣy=f ḳs.t) (line 7). In P. Prague (137BC) the amount of the individual contribution is set at five deben and it is intended for the person’s ḳs.t too (i҆w=n ty ḥḏ 5 r wꜥ rmṯ n-i҆m=n wbꜣ tꜣy=f ḳs.t) (line 24).90 In P. Berlin P. 3115 (Text A 109BC), the list of regulation of the association of the Theban choachytes, it is agreed that, in case of death of one of the members, the others are to give for him 1½ hin of syf-resin for/in 10 days. ‘(as for) the man, from among the people who are written above, who will die, they (scil. the members) will give for him 1½ hin(s) of resin, for each of the man written above, for/in 10 days’ (pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=f r mwt ẖn nꜣ rmṯ.w nt sẖ ḥry mtw=w ty n=f syf wꜥ ½ hyn r pꜣ rmṯ nt sẖ ḥry n hrw 10). Text A, col. 3, line 5

P. Cairo 30960 (104BC) from Pathyris, mentioned above, suggests the possibility of priests working in a temple having some entitlement to help with burial expenses. In the document Party A requests that the temple of Hathor contribute for the burial expenses of his father in consideration of his service there.

87 88 89

90

Period) is fragmentary and does not give any indication of who was responsible for the provision of these materials. For this word see Sethe and Partsch 1920, 428 § 61. The members will also give 2 kite each to the ‘house’ for him (i҆w=n ty ḥḏ r-r=f r pꜣ ꜥ.wy tn 2 r s 1) (line 18), but I am not sure of the reason for this contribution. In this document the members stipulate to give for him eight rations (mtw=n ty ṯ=w n=f ꜥḳ 8) (line 14), in addition to their contribution towards the deceased’s ḳs.t and pr-nfr. Presumably these are to be understood as mourning rations, which would be taken to the house of the bereaved family. Contributions are also prescribed in the event of death of a close relative of one of the members.

294

chapter 13

On the other hand, a number of clauses in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC), concern the provision of accessories and materials for use during the mummification of individuals who may have been under the professional care of a specific choachyte. One of the regulations prescribes that: ‘they will not go to the ḳs.w,91 (the) 35 (days ceremonies), (and) the štyceremony besides those on the heart of (scil. chosen by) the choachyte of the house (and) besides the person whom the choachyte of the house will request’ (bn=w šm r ḳs.w ḥnꜥ 35 tꜣ šty m-sꜣ nꜣy.w ḥr-ḥꜣ.ṱ pꜣ wꜣḥ–mw pꜣ ꜥ.wy m-sꜣ rmṯ mtw (scil. nt i҆w) pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw ꜥ.wy tbḥ=f ); Text C lines 2–4

the members also agree: ‘not to give [cloth] to a man of Djeme who is dead, not to give ḥbs-cloth (or) i҆nw-cloth to a man who stands in (the) ˹house of rejuvenation,˺ (nor) a bed, (nor) a cover, not to administer (embalming)-medicaments to (the) dead of our house’ (r tm ty.t [ḥbs] r-ḥr rmṯ ḏmꜣ i҆w=f mwt r tm ty.t ḥbs i҆nw n rmṯ i҆w=f ꜥḥꜥ r ˹pr-nfr˺ glk prḫ r tm ḥwy pẖr.(t) r mwt n pꜣy=n ꜥ.wy), Text D lines 2–3

except for the person who was in their personal care. In addition, P. BM EA 10561 (157BC), an agreement stipulated between two groups of lector-priests from Siut, indicates that one of their activities concerned the provision of, mainly, cloths during the various stages of the mummification process. The agreement prescribes the number of cloths to be given during specific stages of this process, and the individuals to whom they are to be given. The parties also stipulate that they are not to give any other item besides the cloths listed, and that they will not be able to appoint any other man for the performance of specific tasks (anointing and wrapping), beside the man who will be approached. The latter statement indicates that their services would be enlisted by another person, either the family of the dead person, or their choachyte.92 This is further indicated by a clause in Text C of P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC) which stipulates that: ‘no man at all within the association will bring doctors (scil. embalmers) to the association of Amenope besides the choachyte who goes to (the) 91 92

A stage in the mummification process. On this see further Chapter 11 §3, Appendix §1 and Cannata 2007. Or a person acting in such a capacity. On this text see further Chapter 11 §3.

funerary expenses

295

ḳs, (the) purification, (and the) 35 (days ceremonies) to give (the) cloth (and a) bed (for) his šty-ceremony’ (i҆w bn.w rmṯ pꜣ tꜣ ẖn tꜣ 6-nt i҆n swnw r tꜣ 6-nt I҆mn-i҆py mtw93 bnr wꜣḥ–mw mtw=f šm r ḳs wꜥb 35 r ty ḥbs glg pꜣy=f šty). Text C lines 10–12

Taken together, the evidence suggests that, in general, the provision of embalming materials was the direct responsibility of the family. However, they could delegate such a task to their choachyte, who was already in charge of the deceased. Alternatively, it was also possible for the deceased’s relatives to request the lector-priest to acquire the necessary materials on their behalf, who would then receive a total payment for both their activity and the materials. This may have been the case if perhaps the family did not have the means, or did not want to, employ the services of a choachyte for the organisation of the entire process. This type of arrangement is found in P. Brussels E 6032 + P. BM EA fragments (301BC), a contract of sale of a house to a lector-priest as payment for the mummification of deceased individuals. A similar type of agreement is also attested in P. Louvre E 7450 (532BC) where a person gives a bull to the overseer of the necropolis ‘instead of the things one (normally) gives’ (lines 4–5). The latter perhaps indicates that already during the Late Period it was customary for the family to provide the necessary materials, and that different arrangements were simply the result of personal circumstances.

3

Burial Taxes

Evidence for the payment of a burial tax is found only at Thebes and Edfu, although it is unlikely that an equivalent tax was not charged in the rest of the country.94 At Thebes two different types of funerary taxes are attested for the Ptolemaic period: the transfer-tax for the amount of 2½ kite paid on the purchase of immoveable property in the necropolis,95 and the tax, or money, of the overseer of the necropolis (tny / ḥḏ mr-ḫꜣs.t), for the sum of ½ kite paid on each of the deceased individuals brought into the necropolis. In a number of cases, 93 94 95

A comparison between the writing for mtw and that for m-sꜣ in lines 2 and 3 above suggests that this is also the reading of mtw here in line 11. For a detailed study of funerary taxes and bibliographical references to earlier studies see Muhs 2005 and 2011. On the transfer-tax see Chapter 15 § 3.

296

chapter 13

the latter receipts state that the payment has been made to the temple (r ḥ.tnṯr) without formal identification of the tax paid. Both types of taxes were paid by the choachytes, on behalf of the family, as shown by the extant receipts in which some taxpayers are clearly titled as choachytes, while several others can be identified with the door-keepers that appear as contracting parties in the surviving contracts.96 That this tax was not charged to the choachytes themselves, but rather to the family, is shown by its inclusion in the list of expenses produced by the choachyte for the building of a s.t-tomb recorded in P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301BC).97 The published Theban burial taxes can be divided in two groups, a group of 97 receipts98 spanning approximately the period between regnal year 7 of Alexander IV (310 BC?) and regnal year 23 or 24 of Ptolemy III (224BC?),99 and a second group of only seven currently known ostraca,100 and seven wooden mummy labels, all dating to the late Ptolemaic Period or later.101 The tax amount in the first group, the overseer of the necropolis tax, appears to have been increased by 1 obol, thus raising from ½ kite (= 6 obols) to ½ 1/12 kite (= 7 obols) per interment, during the reign of Ptolemy III.102 Typically this type of tax receipt would read: (1) Pa-i҆mn-i҆mnt(?) son of Petemestous has brought ½ silver kite for the money of (2) the Overseer of the necropolis in the name of the daughter of Psenenteris (3) who was brought to the necropolis. Has written Petemestous son of Poulemis in (4) regnal year 23, month four of the harvest season (Mesore), day 20 of pharaoh Ptolemy (5) son of Ptolemy, with Ptolemy his son.103 Indirect evidence for the overseer of the necropolis tax during the first century BC is provided by P. Brooklyn 35.1462 (P. Brooklyn Museum 14) (225? BC), a note 96 97 98 99 100

101

102 103

See Table A.1 and A.5. On this text see Chapter 16 § 3. See Table A.1 for a list of published burial tax receipts, and Table A.34 for a list of the variant formulae used in these documents. Muhs 2005 88–95; Muhs 2011, 149–176. These are: O. VOK 1 (152 BC or 141 BC), and O. VOK 2 (151BC or 140BC) (Muhs 2009, 394–395); O. Wångstedt 69 (Wångstedt 1981, 23–24); O. BM EA 25886 (Wångstedt 1964, 50); O. IFAODeir el-Médineh 1 and 2 (Devauchelle 1987, 151); and possibly OIM 19301 (Muhs 2005, 144 ¶13), on which see Muhs 2009, 394–395 and Muhs 2003, 104. The mummy labels date range falls either in the reign of Augustus (between 16BC and AD 7) or in the reign of Ptolemy X (between 100 and 88 BC) (Muhs 2009, 393 and note 3, 394). Between the Egyptian year 13 and 20 of this king. See further Table A.1 and Muhs 2005, 89. For the transliteration see Muhs 2005, 178 ¶ 60.

funerary expenses

297

which urges the recipient not to hinder a third party with respect to the tax of the overseer of the necropolis. Other payments to the overseer of the necropolis are attested in P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC), P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) and O. Leiden 96 [Inv. No. F1897/6.24] (Ptolemaic Period), although it is not clear whether they refer to the payment of the tax known by this name. The accounts recorded in P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC) include ‘the reckoning of the money: what belonged to me from his reckoning as money as chief of the necropolis: 35 silver (deben)’ (pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ ḥḏ.w r-wn-nꜣ.w mtw=y ḥr pꜣy=f i҆p ẖr nꜣ ḥḏ.w n tp ḫꜣs.t ḥḏ 35) (lines 6– 7), ‘the reckoning of the money: ⟨whi⟩ch came to me here in Djeme for ⟨regnal year⟩ 39: 15 silver (deben) as money as chief of the necropolis’ (pꜣ i҆p n nꜣ ḥḏ.w ⟨i҆.⟩i҆r i҆y r ty n ḏmꜣ ẖr ⟨ḥꜣ.t-sp⟩ 39 ḥḏ 15 ẖr ḥḏ n tp ḫꜣs.t) (lines 11–12).104 P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) lists as part of the expenses undertaken at the death of a choachyte ‘[the] overseer of the necropolis: 15 silver (deben)’ ([pꜣ] mr-ẖꜣs.t ḥḏ 15) (col. III line 14), and similarly O. Leiden 96 (Ptolemaic Period), also relating to funeral expenses, which lists ‘the overseer of the necropolis: 5 silver (deben)’ (pꜣ mr ḫꜣs.t ḥḏ 5) (col. 1 line 10). However, it is difficult to reconcile these amounts with a specific number of people. The first document records the accounts of two lector-priests, and thus the sums could refer to multiple burials, but in P. Florence 3667 (111BC) and O. Leiden 96 (Ptolemaic Period), the amounts refer to a single deceased. It is to be wondered whether the difference is temporal, and thus indicative of an increase in the tax amount, or if it does not concern the tax by the same name, but a different type of service (perhaps during the embalming process or during the funeral) provided by the overseer of the necropolis, which cost could depend, for example, on the elaborateness of the service. The second group of Theban ostraca, on the other hand, is characterised by the use of a clause granting permission to bury the deceased, which employs the causative imperative ‘Cause that PN (= the deceased) is buried’ (my i҆r=w ḳs PN), or the imperative ‘Bury PN (= the deceased)’ (ḳs PN).105 They are very similar to a group of nine ostraca from Edfu, dating to the years between 144 and 107BC, also recording receipt of payment for a funerary tax paid on individual burials.106 These are also characterised by the use of a clause giving permission 104

105 106

Another entry in the same document lists ‘the reckoning ⟨of the silver (debens)⟩ due from Petenephotes ~ Lolous in Hermonthis: 5 silver kite’ (pꜣ i҆p ⟨n nꜣ ḥḏ.w⟩ nt r ꜥ.wy lwlw n i҆wnwmnṱ ḥḏ ḳt 5) (lines 5–6), which Pestman suggests may be part of the money of the ‘First of the necropolis’ that Petenephotes ~ Lolous has received at Hermonthis part of which is due to Amenothes (Pestman 1981, 51 note j). However, this is not clear from the text and, therefore, I have left it out. Muhs 2009, 394–395. Published by Devauchelle 1987; for an analysis of these ostraca see also Muhs 2003, 102– 105.

298

chapter 13

to bury the deceased, although, unlike the Theban receipts, they acknowledge receipt of payment. Typically they employ an opening address: PN1 son of PN (and PN2 son of PN) greets (var. before) PN son of PN (= the tax-payer), which is then followed by one of four variant formulae: 1. Perform (the) entombment of PN (son/daughter of PN), we are (var. I am) paid 1/10 for his/her burial, there is no claim that we (var. I) can call after you concerning it (i҆-i҆ry ḳs PN (sꜣ/ta PN) tw=n (var. tw=y) mḥ pꜣ r-10 n tꜣy=f (tꜣy=s) ḳs mn mt i҆w=n (var. i҆w=y) ꜥš m-sꜣ=k n-i҆m=s);107 2. Perform (the) entombment, I am paid (the) money (for) the burial (˹i҆-i҆ry ḳs˺ tw=y mḥ ḥḏ (n) pꜣ ḳs);108 3. Let them perform (the) entombment of PN (son/daughter of PN), I am paid 1/10 for his/her burial, there is no claim that we (var. I) can call after you concerning it (my i҆r=w ḳs PN (sꜣ/ta PN) tw=y mḥ pꜣ r-10 n tꜣy=f (tꜣy=s) ḳs mn mt i҆w=n (var. i҆w=y) ꜥš m-sꜣ=k n-i҆m=s);109 4. I am paid by you (for) the mnḳ of PN (son/daughter of PN), there is no claim that I can call concerning you (tw=y mḥ.ṱ=k pꜣ mnḳ PN (sꜣ/ta PN) mn mt i҆w=y ꜥš n-i҆m=k).110 The other group of published Edfu funerary ostraca consists of proofs of payment of the tni҆.t ḫꜣs.t, or necropolis tax, known from twenty-two receipts dating to the years 234 and 233BC, and written in a number of variant formulae.111 The payments are all made by two different payers monthly over a period of about a year and a half, and are all for different amounts.112 Seven different recipients are attested on them, in one case four on the same receipt, though generally between two and one are named on each. The individual payments are quite large and vary between 6½ kite (= 13 drachmae) and 5 deben 7¼ kite

107 108 109 110 111 112

This formula is attested in O. IFAO 882 (144 BC), O. IFAO 883 (144BC), O. IFAO 884 (c. 144BC) and O. IFAO 81 (Ptolemaic). This formula is attested in O. IFAO 781 (Ptolemaic). This formula is attested in O. IFAO 205 (120 BC) and O. IFAO 130 (117BC). This formula is attested in O. IFAO 255 (110 BC) and O. IFAO 623 (107BC). See Table A.35 for a list of these burial tax receipts, and Table A.36 for a list of the variant formulae used in these documents. The date on the receipts goes from year 13 to year 16, presumably of the same king. Twenty of them are in the name of Nespachy son of Pasas, and date between year 13 Mekheir to year 14 Phamenoth 30, that is, around 13 or 14 months. The other two are probably in the name of Patipasegena(?) son of Thotsytmis (Muhs 2003, 83).

funerary expenses

299

(= 114 drachmae and 3 obols), for a total of 1259 drachmae and 2½ obols.113 They represent a portion of what was owed, since several of them state the money has been received on account, thus suggesting that the amount paid is not the total owed for a specific tax-period. Neither the individual payments nor the total sum can be reconciled to a specific number of people, and, in fact, they are never made ‘in the name of’ a specific individual, who is said to have been brought to the necropolis. Instead, they sometimes include the expression ‘the money concerning which he wrote at his command,’ which in Demotic can be an idiom meaning ‘to contract for something,’ which could suggest that the payers had contracted to underwrite the funerary tax during a specific period.114 If so, the receipts indicate that at Edfu the necropolis taxes were farmed out, as it appears was the case at Thebes according to the evidence of P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC).115 Additional evidence for the existence of this practice at Edfu is provided by P. Elephantine Gr. 8 (225–224 BC) in which a certain Pat[… son of] Thotsythmis writes to the praktor Euphronios to inform him that the taricheutes Horos, son of Pasas, has contracted to underwrite the collection of the taricheia-tax for the temple.116 The latter has apparently collected 2800 copper drachmae, of which he has already deposited 2200. He still owed 600 copper drachmae for which he was able to offer guarantee, since his father had recently received 160 drachmae, possibly from a tax collection.117 It is possible that the writer of this letter is to be identified with ˹Patipasegena˺ son of Thotsytmis, one of the two tax payers in the Edfu ostraca.118 If this identification is correct, the document would closely parallel the agreements detailed in P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC) where a lector-priest declares he has written to the state authorities to inform them that he will pay a certain amount of money for the right to collect the necropolis taxes. The difference between the two rests on the fact that in the latter document the individual may have been acting in place of the overseer of the necropolis, whereas in P. Elephantine Gr. 8 (225– 224BC) the writer is informing the relevant authorities that another individual, a lector-priest, has contracted to farm out the necropolis tax. 113 114 115 116

117 118

Muhs 2003, 83. Muhs 2003, 86–87 and note 67. On this document see Chapter 1 § 1. Muhs 2003, 87–88. Unfortunately, the ostraca do not provide any information as to the exact nature of this funerary tax, or on the profession of the payers and of the recipients. However, P. Elephantine Gr. 8 (225–224 BC) indicates that the tax may have been farmedout among lector-priests, or taricheutai, as appears to have been the case in Thebes on the basis of the evidence of P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC). The letter is part of the archive of the praktor Milon, for which see Clarysse 2003. Translated in Muhs 2003, 87–88. Muhs 2003, 88.

300

chapter 13

Thus the various groups of ostraca from both Thebes and Edfu represent different aspects of the funerary tax payment and collection, as well as diverse tax-periods. Both groups of funerary-tax receipts from Thebes, as well as the small group of nine ostraca from Edfu giving permission to bury, relate to payments made by the choachytes, on behalf of the deceased’s family. At the time the dead were brought to the necropolis, the choachytes would receive a receipt acknowledging this payment of the burial-tax. According to the evidence of P. BM EA 10528 (291BC), this money could be collected by the other lector-priests in case of absence of the overseer. Any amount thus collected would then have been paid to the overseer by the individual lector-priests. The second group of tax receipts from Edfu could thus represent payments made to the temple by the overseer(s) of necropolis, or even lector-priests acting in such a capacity, for the funerary taxes collected from the choachytes. Among the early Theban funerary tax receipts, O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 1116 (Ptolemaic Period)119 stands out because of the unusually high number of deceased listed. The ostracon records payment of the burial tax, which it is specified was made to the temple, and comprises: 1⅓ kite for two people, 1⅓ kite for two more, 1 kite for one person, and ⅔ kite for another, for a total of 4⅓ kite. In a total of 97 published receipts only 10 or 11 (one is damaged and the number of deceased uncertain) list more than one person, and even then it is for no more than two deceased. For example, O. BM EA 5780 and O. BM EA 5785 issued by the same official for the same scribe, Panas son of Pchorchonsis, and on the same day (regnal year 22, fourth month of the winter season, day 20), for two (related?) individuals. The first receipt is in the name of Pamonthes the doctor, and the second in the name of the sister of Pamonthes the doctor. In this case two separate receipts were issued for two individuals, who were apparently brought to the necropolis at the same time, and may even have been related. It is certainly possible that O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 1116 (Ptolemaic Period) represents a particular case when six individuals died all at the same time, and that all six were under the care of the same choachyte. Indeed, its wording is consistent with that found on other funerary tax receipts. However, in this case, one would expect the payment to be the same for all of them. It is possible that this is evidence for a differentiation of cost on the basis, for example, of the elaborateness of the funeral, though the fact that all other receipts are remarkably uniform in terms of the

119

Devauchelle (1987, 142–143) suggested the ostracon dates to the late Ptolemaic Period, also noting that no further examples of this type of tax survive, but see Muhs (2003, 105) for its re-dating to the early Ptolemaic Period.

funerary expenses

301

amount paid strongly suggests that this was not the case in this receipt. Alternatively, it is possible that the list records part payments of a funerary tax made by rather than for the people listed. In this respect it would be similar to the Edfu ostraca also recording the periodical part payment of the same tax. As mentioned above, there is no clear evidence for funerary taxes from other parts of the country. The only exception is represented by the mention of a ‘tax of the necropolis’ in P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC) (line 8). The context of the letter is not entirely clear, but it does seem to indicate that the embalmers had stopped working because they had not been paid, and that the payment discussed in the letter was intended to cover both the tax amount and the cost of the mummification of the deceased. This being the case, it is possible that families paid for both expenses at the same time, and that it was the responsibility of the mortuary priests to pay the tax to the relevant authority from this sum. The transaction did not generate any ‘paperwork,’ at least in this instance, since, if it had, the writer of the letter could have used the receipt as proof of payment. Thus the lack of evidence from Lower Egypt, the Fayum, and possibly Middle Egypt, for funerary taxes may be due to a difference in which these imposts were collected from these parts of the country.120 With respect to the taxation point, no explicit information is found on the vast majority of the documents, which only state that the deceased has been brought to the necropolis. From those burial-tax receipts granting permission to bury the deceased, as in the case of O. Wångstedt 69 (Late Ptolemaic) which reads ‘Let them bury ˹Pꜣ-ḥtp-ẖrṱ˺’ (my i҆r=w ḳs ˹pꜣ-ḥtp-ẖrṱ˺) (lines 3–4), it is clear that the taxation point was the time of burial. The same is also true of the burial-tax receipts from Edfu121 granting permission to bury the deceased, which read ‘Perform (the) entombment, I am paid 1/10 for his/her burial.’ This was also the taxation point during the earlier Ptolemaic Period, as shown by the receipts recorded in O. GMi 114 (Kaplony-Heckel MSS) (247 BC) and O. GMi 120 (Kaplony-Heckel MSS) (247 BC),122 the first of which reads ‘Panas son of Pchorchonsis has brought ½ silver kite to the temple in the name of Senamounis daughter of Pesyris whom he brought to the necropolis when she was buried’ (i҆n pa-nꜣ sꜣ pꜣ-ḫl-ḫnsw ḥḏ-ḳt ½ r ḥw.t-nṯr rn tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn ta pꜣ-i҆šwr r-i҆n=f r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t

120 121

122

It is also true that ostraca do not survive well in Lower Egypt and the Fayum, but they could survive in Middle Egypt. O. IFAO 882 (144 BC), O. IFAO 883 (144 BC), O. IFAO 884 (c. 144BC), O. IFAO 205 (120 BC), O. IFAO 130 (117BC), O. IFAO 81 (Ptolemaic), and O. IFAO 781 (Ptolemaic), all of which employ the formula i҆-i҆ry ḳs (var. my i҆r=w ḳs) tw=y mḥ pꜣ r-10 n tꜣy=f (tꜣy=s) ḳs. Muhs 2011, 168–170 receipts 126 and 127.

302

chapter 13

i҆w=s ḳs.t) (lines 1–3).123 Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine whether this was also the taxation point in the early Ptolemaic Period. Another aspect worth considering is the possibility of studying the monthly death incidence using the data from burial taxes. The study of historical demography, mortality rates, and disease incidence have, during the last few decades, greatly advanced our understanding of Greek and Roman societies.124 This is especially the case in Egypt whence much relevant textual data survives, including census lists, epigraphic material and mummy labels. In particular, using dated epigraphic records and mummy labels, Scheidel undertakes an analysis of the disease environment of Roman Egypt with a view to determine its effects on demography, and variables such as seasonal mortality and life expectancy, amongst others.125 Theoretically this type of analysis could be performed using the data provided by burial taxes in order to determine seasonal mortality in Ptolemaic Egypt. However, despite this being an attractive suggestion, neither type of document can, in my opinion, be used for such an analysis. In fact, neither the dates on mummy labels, nor those on the burial tax receipts refer to the time of death. Scheidel argues that the dates on mummy labels refer to the end of the mummification process, which it is taken as being standardised at 70 days. The dates on mummy labels, therefore, should be moved back by this same length of time in order to arrive at the time of death.126 The same argument could be put forward for the burial tax receipts that probably indicate the day of burial, which, normally, would take place at the end of the embalmment. Of the Theban published receipts, spanning a century or slightly longer, 19 date from the inundation (ꜣḫ.t) season, 43 from the winter (pr.t) season, and 28 from the harvest (šmw) season.127 A tabulation of these receipts indicates that a higher number of burials took place during the winter season (pr.t), which, taken at face value, indicates a higher mortality rate between the end of the inundation season and the beginning of the winter season, with another, smaller, peak between the end of the latter and the beginning of the harvest season. That death rates should be higher during particular times of the year is not surprising, since for example seasonal weather conditions could result in an increase in the number of deaths. Assuming that the individuals attested in 123 124

125 126 127

The corresponding passage in O. GMi 120 (247 BC) reads ‘who was brought to the necropolis when he was buried’ (r-i҆n=w r tꜣ ḫꜣs.t i҆w=f ḳs.t) (line 3). See for example the study of Boyaval (1975, with bibliographical references to earlier studies; 1976 and 1981) on age at death and seasonal mortality using the data from mummy labels and funerary inscriptions from Roman Egypt. Scheidel 1998 and 2001. Scheidel 1998 and 2001. See Table 7 infra.

funerary expenses

303

these receipts underwent some kind of embalmment, the dates of the burial ceremony should be moved back by the number of days the deceased spent in the embalming place. And here lays the first problem in using these data to establish seasonal mortality—can we be certain that the mummification process lasted 70 days in every single instance? As discussed above,128 the length of the treatment varied according to the length and elaborateness of the various rituals performed as part of the mummification process, which, in turn, meant a difference in its total cost. If the deceased and his/her family could not afford the cost of the more complex body treatment, the number of rituals and, consequently, the number of days spent in the embalming place would be reduced. The period of 70 days is linked to religious factors and, therefore, this is the ideal length of the embalmment. In practice, however, there was a considerable variation in the duration of this treatment that could range from 9 to 83 days.129 This means that we cannot assume in every instance that the deceased died 70 days prior to the burial. Even a difference of 13 days (70 + 13 = 83) would have an effect on the results since this could mean that a date presumed to fall in one month in reality fell in the month before. Another incognita is represented by the fact that it is uncertain whether the burial tax would be paid only at the time of final burial, or if it was levied on bodies placed in temporary storage too. As discussed above, the temporary storage of corpses could extend over a period of several years, thus affecting the results of this type of analysis.130 Even if we were to assume that all of the dead in the sample spent 70 days in the mummification place, and that the burial tax was paid at the time of interment, irrespectively of whether it represented final or only temporary burial, there remains the problem of the sample size. For approximately 419 dead per century attested in the care of the Theban choachytes, which is already hardly representative of the population as a whole, there are only 97 burial receipts, which constitute only 22.9% of the total dead in the care of the choachytes. Consequently, in my opinion, the size of the sample is too small to be representative of Thebes’ inhabitants. and thus of any quantifiable variation in the monthly death incidence. 128 129

130

See Chapter 11. Although in the majority of cases for which the actual length of the mummification process can be determined, this is either 70 days or a figure very close to it (see Table 5 in Chapter 11 § 3), the simple fact that we have a monument on which such dates were recorded means that its owners in most instances probably had the means to afford the ideal mummification process. Even so, variations are attested among these too. For the delayed burial of some individuals see Chapter 12 §4. In addition, there is the added difficulty of clearly distinguishing between the orthography of pr.t and šmw during the early Ptolemaic Period especially on ostraca, which is the medium commonly used to record most of these receipts.

•

3

•

•

7

4 Mesore

3 Epiphi

2 Payni

1 Pachon

Harvest (šmw)

1

•

2

4

5

6

8

•

9

•

•

•

••

•

4 Pharmouthi

•

•

•

•

•

3 Phamenoth

2 Mechir

1 Tybi

Winter (pr.t)

••

4 Choiak

••

•

3 Athyr

2 Phaophi

1 Thoth

•

••

•••

•

•

•

••

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•••

••

•

•

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

••

••

•

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

••

•

•

•

•

Monthly death incidence according to the data from burial tax receipts

Inundation (ꜣḫ.t)

table 7

304 chapter 13

funerary expenses

4

305

Cost and Payment of the ‘Mummification and Burial’

In literature on the funerary practices of the Greco-Roman Period it is quite common to find statements on the low cost of mummification at this time, though no actual figures are ever given. In fact, from the Ptolemaic period there is only very limited evidence for what the actual cost of the embalmment and burial would have been. The problem is further compounded by the Ptolemaic copper inflation and the resulting increase in prices of common products and wages, and by the presence of diverging rates for houses, lands and even clothing.131 In addition, the available data are not spread evenly across the entire Ptolemaic Period. In P. Brussels E 6032 + P. BM EA fragments (301 BC) party A is selling a house to pay for the embalmment of his deceased wife and possibly that of her parents. The text does not specify the cost of this house or that of the mummification. However, an indication of the cost of the latter is given by house prices which have been estimated to range from 35 to 480 drachmae around the second half of the third century.132 Two additional figures from a close date range are found in P. Philadelphia II (314 BC), in which party A stipulates that party B is to pay five silver (deben) for her mummification and burial, and P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) in which party A stipulates that party B is to pay five silver (deben) for her mummification and burial for three years, which means either that the latter is to pay a total of 15 deben, thus five deben per year, or that this is the total of what he has to pay during the threeyear period. By comparing these figures with prices of commodities, such as artabas of grain and measures of wine, or with the monthly wage of a labourer, it is possible to get an idea of how expensive the ‘mummification and burial’ of a deceased person could be, and by consequence of how affordable a service it was. From the very end of the second century, the most detailed document on the cost of a burial is P. Florence 3667 (111BC), which lists the expenses undertaken by the family, and the colleagues, at the death of Horos son of Horos, one of the Theban choachytes, to provide for his embalming and burial. The beginning of the document and an undetermined section to the right of the roll is lost.133 As noted above, the list is divided into various sections under specific

131 132 133

Clarysse and Lanciers 1989, 117. Depauw 2000, 169–170. The text on the recto is a palimpsest, the original contents were washed away although some words may still be seen. The verso is inscribed with lists, accounts or notes apparently unrelated to the text on the recto of the papyrus; Pestman 1992, 207. See also Appendix 2 for a translation of this document.

306

chapter 13

headings, although it is not always possible to determine whether the itemised materials and expenses are to be understood as being a specification of the amounts given previously, or as additional costs. The first four lines mention some amounts of money in relation to houses, both in Thebes and in Djeme.134 It is possible that these are to be understood as contributions relating to the burial expenses, although in this case it is unclear why in the first line the house is mentioned as a southern neighbour. That colleagues contributed to the burial expenses of a deceased choachyte is, of course, not surprising since in agreements of religious association it is stipulated what contributions its members are to make when a member dies.135 The list ends with the amount paid by the family to the choachyte of the deceased: ‘Mutmehit:136 50 deben for the choachyte of Horos’ (mw.t-mḥyt · 50 pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw n ḥr) (col. III line 23). The total of the expenses is over 2200.9 deben, or 44023,4 drachmae. If this amount is compared against the cost of a house, which for the period between 175 and 90BC ranged from 4000 to 36000 drachmae,137 it is clear that the price of an embalmment and burial could be quite high. However, given the position of the deceased as a member of the choachytal community, it seems reasonable to assume that this was probably at the top end of the price range and that more modest embalming treatment could be chosen. A possible indication for the cost of a less elaborate mummification procedure is perhaps found in P. Cairo 30960 (104BC), in which Party A requests as contribution from the temple of Hathor a cloth, in order to give 541 deben for his father’s burial expenses. Although it is not possible to be certain that the payment was intended to cover the entire cost of the person’s mummification and burial, the wording seems to imply that this was the case. If so, this figure could give an indication of the cost of a lower ‘class’ of embalmment. Another list of accounts relating to burial expenses, albeit fragmentary, is that found in O. Leiden 96 (Ptolemaic Period). The total of ‘1093 (deben) and

134

135 136

137

‘[…]˹south˺ the house which is in Thebes: 30 silver (deben); […] Thebes: 1 talent and 9 (silver deben); [… the son of Pe]tous and (or: the) […]; […] 100 silver (deben) from (lit. under) the house in Djeme; […] house: 2 silver (deben)’ ([…] ˹rs˺pꜣ ꜥ.wy nt n nw.t · 30 […] nw.t krkr 1 i҆rm (ḥḏ) 9 [… pꜣ šr n pa]-tꜣ.wy i҆rm (or: pꜣ) […] ḥḏ 100 ẖr pꜣ ꜥ.wy ḏmꜣ […] ꜥ.wy ḥḏ 2) (col. 1 lines 1–4). The small dot before the numeral 30 stands for the sign ḥḏ (Pestman 1992, 209). See below. According to Pestman this is an unetymological writing for the name Montuemhat. He also suggests that the person may have been the choachyte of Horos, and apparently not a member of the choachyte’s association nor a relative of the deceased (Pestman 1992, 221 note 42 and 43). However, a like-named person is listed in P. Berlin P. 3115 (109 BC), although it cannot be proven that it is the same person. Samuel 1984, 189.

funerary expenses

307

5 kite’ in line 14 gives only an indication of the cost of the mummification and burial, because this would not have been the total cost since the list is fragmentary. In its surviving state, the price stands in between that recorded in P. Florence 3667 (111BC) and that found in P. Cairo 30960 (104BC) and could be representative of yet another ‘class’ of mummification and burial. In P. Prague (137BC) the members of the association agree to pay five deben each towards the cost of the dead member’s burial expenses. The document ends with a list of 13 members, while on the left hand side there is a list of 49 members, and possibly more given that it is incomplete. Thus the total contribution made would range between 65 and 245 deben, depending on which list one takes into account. The amount is much smaller than that found in the documents listed above, and perhaps indicates that the members only paid part of the total expense. In P. Berlin P. 3115 (Text A 109 BC), the choachytes stipulate that each of them138 is to give for a deceased member 1½ hin of syf-resin in ten days. The members listed in this part of the document are 26 in total, which means that a total of 39 hins of syf-resin would be given for the deceased within ten days. From P. Florence 3667 (111BC) we learn that each hin of syf-resin cost 30 deben, (col. II line 9), thus the members’ contribution amounted to 1170 deben worth of syf-resin. A comparison between the scant information available on the cost of the mummification and burial with the price of houses, wheat, wine and a labourer’s monthly wage clearly shows that a person’s embalmment was not cheap.139 Considering that an artaba of wheat was enough to sustain a family for a year, and that its price at the end of the fourth century was four drachmae, it means that the cost of the mummification and burial corresponded to a family food ration for 25 years. Similarly, a comparison with the house price we have for this period indicates that it cost almost as much as half a house. The same holds true for the other periods for which we have evidence, with prices falling at the lower and mid-range of house prices, as well as above. It is, of course, possible that all of these prices are indicative of the top range of the embalming treatment, and that lower rates were also available for the less well-off citizens, but, as it stands, this is the only hard evidence available. According to the ubiquitously quoted passage from Herodotus’ Histories (II.86–88), there were three different methods of embalming, hence prices, from which the family could choose. However, this is not supported by the documentary evidence analysed

138 139

The text specifies that the contribution is to be made by each of the individuals that had been listed in the preceding lines. See Table 8 infra.

308

chapter 13

here. Ultimately, the cost of the mummification depended on the quality and quantity of materials used, as well as on the number and length of the rituals recited for the deceased, hence the difference in the length period of time spent by the deceased in the embalming place. Therefore, a decrease in the length of time would correspond to a decrease in its cost, and so rebirth into the afterlife could be achieved in a mere 9 days.140 Commodities’ comparative price chart141

table 8 Commodities

End of 4th cent. BC

3rd century BC

210–183 BC

183–173BC

173–130BC

130–30BC

‘Mummification and burial’

100 dr.142

A house143 100 or 300 dr.144

–

–

1300–4900 dr.145

45.543,8 dr.146 10.820 dr.147

House price range

240 dr.148

60 dr.149 120/180/300 dr.150

700–9.600 dr.151 1600 dr.152

4.000– 36.000 dr.

4.000– 36.000 dr.

4.000–36.000 dr.153 12154– 15.000155 dr.

1 artaba of wheat 4 dr.156

1.5 dr.

120–180 dr.

–

500–900 dr.

1.000–1.800 dr.

1 keramion of wine

5–6 dr.157

220–300 dr.

420–600 dr.

–

2.000–4.000 dr. 5100+3300 dr.158

2.5–5 dr.

150–600 dr.

300–900 dr.

600–2.400 dr.

1.500–3.600 dr.

–

1 month labourer 10–20159 wage dr.

140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

See Chapter 11 § 3 above. Prices from Clarysse and Lanciers 1989, unless otherwise stated. P. Philadelphia II (314 BC) (el-Amir 1959), the cost is 5 silver (deben). P. Brussels 6032 + P. BM EA fragments (301 BC) (Shore 1968). P. Louvre 2424 (267 BC). P. Prague (137 BC) (De Cenival 1972), contribution by the association members towards the cost of mummification and burial of a co-member. P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) (Pestman 1992). P. Cairo 30960 (104BC) (Spiegelberg 1908), the petitioner requests 541 deben as contribution towards the cost of the mummification and burial.

funerary expenses

309

The surviving documents also provide information on who was responsible for the payment of a deceased’s mummification and burial, and on the variety of arrangements and dispositions that could be made in this regard. Several documents clearly indicate that the responsibility for payment of these expenses fell with the family. In general, it would have been the children and heirs of the deceased who would be providing for his/her burial too.160 This is shown, for example, by P. Strasbourg 1 (324BC) in which the testator stipulates that his three sons are to contribute ⅓ each toward the cost of his mummification and burial. In P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC), mentioned above, a will styled as a sale between a mother and her son, party A stipulates that her son is to pay five silver (deben) for her mummification and burial from the day of her death until the completion of three years. Similarly in P. BM EA 10026 (265–264 BC), another will styled as a sale, in which party A stipulates that party B, her eldest son, is to provide for her mummification and burial in accordance to the custom of people of the same status as her. Further evidence is found in P. Berlin P. 3099

148

149 150 151 152

153 154 155 156 157 158 159

160

P. Brussels 8255b (311 BC) (Depauw 2001). The range of house prices can only be indicative since it could vary enormously depending on their typology, from a small hut to a large house. P. OI. 25260 (Hughes et al. 1997), perhaps the cost for half a house. SB XVI 12342 (239 BC), SB XVI 12343 (237 BC) and SB XVI 12344 (236BC) (Uytterhoeven 2009, 327). Or 35–480 deben. Prices attested from the second half of the third century BC (Samuel 1984, 193). P. BM EA 10721 (182 BC) (Andrews 1990). On the basis of the date alone this should be inserted in the following column, but the house price seems to fit better into this period’s price range. This is the price range from around 175 to 90 BC (Samuel 1984, 189). P. Ashmolean Gr. 47 (75 BC) (Reymond 1973). P. Ashmolean Gr. 46 (72–71 BC) (Reymond 1973). Amount the contracting party is liable to pay as penalty in P. Dem. Loeb 3 (305BC) for breach of contract’s stipulations (Cadell and Le Rider 1997, 32). In the tablet Louvre E 8087 (243 BC) the listed price for a keramion of wine is 3 kite (Muhs 2011, 210–212 no. 157 line 3). P. Köln 13.522 lists a keramion of wine for 5100 dr. and another for 3.300 dr. (Gronewald et al. 2013, no. 522). P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301 BC) (el-Amir 1959), see also Chapter 16 §3. As noted by Clarysse (Personal communication 18/04/19) these figures appear to be too high, although they are based on those given in P. Philadelphia XXX: 1 day building work: 2 obols (l. 4); 1(?) day stonework: 3 obols (l. 9); 1 day carpenter’s work: 3 obols (l. 12); 1 worker’s day with food: 4 obols (l. 21) (see Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 156). See Pestman 1969a; Janssen and Pestman 1968.

310

chapter 13

(124BC), P. Berlin P. 3100 (124 BC) and P. Berlin P. 5508 (124 BC), recording the donation of a share of liturgies by a father to three of his five children, in which the testator stipulates that each son is to contribute 1/5 towards the embalmment and burial of their parents. Finally, in P. Turin Suppl. 6083 (105 BC) a man acknowledges his sister’s payment of her ⅓ share of the expenses for the burial of their father, which suggests that, as eldest son, he would be liable for the payment of the remaining ⅔. A slightly different case is that of P. Philadelphia II (314BC), also mentioned above, a will styled as a sale between a woman and her daughter-in-law, in which party A stipulates that party B, is to pay five silver (deben) for her embalmment and burial in exchange for a share of her house and everything she owns and that which she will acquire. Parents would be responsible for the embalmment and burial of their deceased offspring, presumably if these were unmarried and still living at home. This is the case in P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC) where a father provides for the necessary materials for the embalmment of his deceased son. In some cases it would be the surviving partner responsible for the payment of burial expenses, possibly because their children were still minors. This is the case in P. Brussels E 6032 + P. BM EA fragments (301 BC) where a man sells a house to cover the burial expenses of his wife and her parents. To the contract is appended an abstract in which the seller declares: ‘you have paid me, you have caused my heart to be satisfied with the money for the price of the house of the woman Senchonsis, daughter of Paibis, my wife, together with my heir, my son’ (mḥ=k ṱ=y tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=y n pꜣ ḥḏ swn pꜣ ꜥ.wy n sḥm.t tꜣ-šr.t-ḫnsw ta pꜣ-hb tꜣy=y ḥm.t ḥnꜥ pꜣy=y ꜥꜥ pꜣy=y šr) (lines X+1–X+3). Finally, four marriage documents, P. Louvre E 2439 (330BC), P. Louvre E 2429bis (292 BC), P. Rylands XI (284 BC) and P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC), include a specific clause in which the husband stipulates that his wife will be responsible for the payment of his burial expenses. The reasons for the inclusion of this clause in the contract may be the absence of children from the marriage at the time the document was drawn up.161 Indirect evidence from Hawara suggests that the same was also true in this area. P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) indicates that arrangements for the mummification and burial were made by members of the deceased’s family, in this case the surviving spouse. Thus, it seems logical to assume that the next of kin would also be responsible for the payment of all the expenses incurred. As noted above, individuals belonging to associations, religious or otherwise, were entitled to a contribution either for part or for the entire cost of their mummification and burial. This was clearly indicated in the regulations of

161

See also Pestman 1969a.

funerary expenses

311

the religious associations from the Fayum and that of the Theban choachytes, mentioned above. Similar agreements can be inferred from two petitions from Magdola, P. εντευξεισ 21 (218 BC) and P. εντευξεισ 20 (221 BC). In the first the woman Theroys and her brother-in-law Teos present a petition against the other women, members of the same association (thiase), inhabitants of Kerkethoeris, in the district of Polemon. They explain that at the death of her sister, Soeris, wife of Teos, member of the same thiase as the accused individuals, and priestess of the association for four years, these individuals did not pay the funerary indemnity (ταφιχόν) due. Thus the petitioner requests that the strategos Diophanes write to the epistates Ptolemaios to oblige them to pay the indemnity. In the second document, a certain Crateia presents a petition against Philippos, priest of a thiase and Dionysios, president of the same. The petitioner states that at the death of his brother, Apollodotos, a member of the same thiase as the accused individuals, they did not attend his funeral nor did they accompany the deceased to his burial, as prescribed in the association’s regulations. In addition, they did not pay the funerary indemnity (ταφιχόν) due to him. Thus the petitioner requests the intervention of the strategos Diophanes to force them to pay him the indemnity. P. Cairo 30960 (104 BC) from Pathyris, suggests the possibility of priests working in a temple having some entitlement to help with burial expenses. Although the outcome of the request remains unknown, its presence in itself seems to indicate that there was a precedent for such provision. Members of ‘soldiers’ clubs’ were also entitled to a burial benefit, which apparently could be sold and/or given back to the club itself.162 P. Rylands 580 (78BC) records such a case.163 Party A, Herakleides bequeaths his burial benefit (ταφιχόν) worth 100 drachmae to which he is entitled as member of the club. However, no beneficiary is named in the document, thus suggesting that the payment would have been made to anyone presenting it, or that Herakleides was giving his burial benefit back to the club.164 162 163

164

Roberts et al. 1952, 32. The document consists of an inner text of three lines and below this an outer text of six lines. The contract is signed at the bottom of the papyrus by the president and the secretary of the club who acted as witnesses to the document (Roberts et al. 1952, 31). The editors mention a similar case in a loan (74BC) recorded in P. Mich. Inv. 6051 (= SB 7532) in which a blank space has been left, in both outer and inner text, where the name of the creditor should be, thus suggesting that the contract was negotiable (Roberts et al. 1952, 32).

chapter 14

The Deceased The first two sections in the following analysis are based almost exclusively on textual evidence from the Theban area, both because the largest number of documents available originates from this area, and because the practice of using epithets to refer to the dead in the care of funerary workers does not appear to have been as widespread in the rest of the country. In a small number of the documents analysed a clear distinction is made between the living and the dead, although in several others this distinction is not very clear. Because of this, it is not always possible to be certain whether the labels used referred to the ‘quick,’ who owned tombs in the necropolis, or to the dead, given that the noun rmṯ, or people, is one of the appellatives also used to refer to the deceased. The dead themselves are variously identified as wꜥb, rmṯ, nṯr, ḥry and ḥsy, with the difference in meaning between each of these epithets being often unclear.

1

The Living and the Dead

A clear distinction between the living and the dead is made in P. Berlin P. 3099 (124BC) where among the deceased listed there is: ‘Pchorchonsis son of Osoroeris and his children who are among the pure ones (scil. dead), and his women, and his children who are among the ˹people˺ of the town (scil. living), and their women, together with their resting places’ (pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw sꜣ wsi҆r-wr i҆rm nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w nt ẖn nꜣ wꜥb.w i҆rm nꜣy=f sḥm.wt i҆rm nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w nt ẖn nꜣ ˹rmṯ˺.w n tmy i҆rm nꜣy=w sḥm.wt ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w ꜥ.wy.w n ḥtp). lines 4–5

The same document (line 15), as well as P. Berlin P. 5508 (lines 13–14) and 3100 (line 13) (124BC), list a number of shares in revenues which are identified as being received from the living (nꜣ šty.w nꜣ rmṯ.w tmy). However, this distinction is less clear in P. Naples 8414 (124BC). The seller lists a share of his: ‘šty-revenues and i҆h̭y-profits of the ḥ.t-tombs of the pure ones who are in the necropolis of Djeme, and (…) those who rest therein, those who are

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_016

the deceased

313

buried in them (and) their people’ (nꜣ šty.w nꜣ i҆h̭y.w n nꜣ ḥ.wt n nꜣ wꜥb.w nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ ḥnꜥ (…) nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=w i҆rm nꜣy=w rmṯ.w) (line 3); a share of the ‘šty-revenues and offering(s) of the ḥ.t-tombs of the people of the town which/who are in the necropolis of Djeme, and (…) those who rest therein, those who are buried in them, (and) their people’ (nꜣ šty.w nꜣ i҆h̭y.w n nꜣ ḥ.wt n nꜣ rmṯ.w n tmy nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ ḥnꜥ (…) nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=w i҆rm nꜣy=w rmṯ.w) (line 3); and a share of the ‘šty-revenues and i҆h̭y-profits of the s.t-tombs and of the mꜣꜥ-chapels of the blessed ones in hiding’1 (nꜣ šty.w nꜣ i҆h̭y.w n nꜣ s.wt i҆rm nꜣ mꜣꜥ.w n nꜣ ḥsy.w n ḥp). line 4

Thus three different groups of tombs are listed: the ḥ.t-tombs of the pure ones, the ḥ.t-tombs of the people of the town, and the s.t-tombs and the mꜣꜥ-chapels of the blessed ones. This suggests that the ‘people of (the) town’ (rmṯ.w n tmy) should be understood as a category of deceased persons different from the pure ones (wꜥb.w) and the blessed ones (ḥsy.w). In view of the apposition made in P. Berlin P. 3099 (124BC) between those among the ‘pure ones,’ and the ‘people of the town,’ it is possible that the term was used to refer to towners who already owned a tomb in the necropolis and were going to be buried there at their death, although this does not explain why they are listed separately from the other two groups. A similar distinction is made in the agreement between heirs recorded in P. Berlin P. 3118 (116BC), which specifies that the heirs had a share of ‘the šty-revenues of the people of the town, making 1/5 share for each one of the five people’ (mtw nꜣ šty.w rmṯ tmy i҆r wꜥ tny.t 1/5 r wꜥ n-i҆m=n n pꜣ s 5) (line 7), while they also agree ‘to share our revenues for the pure ones for which our `father´ drew up for us a ˹deed of division˺’ (mtw=n pš nꜣy=n šty wꜥb r-i҆r n=n pꜣy=n `i҆ṱ´ ˹sẖ tny.t ˺ r-r=w) (line 6).2 Another problematic entry is found in P. BM EA 10413 (124BC) that lists ‘the revenues of the pure ones (of/and) the people of the town’ (nꜣ šty.w nꜣ wꜥb.w nꜣ rmṯ.w n tmy) (line 9), with an omitted genitive or a conjunction. In the latter instance the text would be classifying the two groups 1 This document provides a unique example of the term ḥsy.w n ḥp which has been translated as ‘the hidden venerated ones’ (Pestman 1992, 201, 203 line 4). However, beside the fact that grammatically the epithet should be translated as ‘blessed ones of/in hiding,’ it would presuppose the presence of an otherwise unattested category of deceased people. Instead, it seems plausible to take it as a scribal error where the scribe confused the epithet ḥsy (on which see below Chapter 14 § 2) with the expression ꜥ.wy.w n ḥp. 2 The text also specifies that ‘Osoroeris son of Horos will not be able to take šty-revenues (from) the people of the town which are outside those ascribed to him above’ (bn i҆w rḫ wsi҆r-wr sꜣ ḥr ṯ šty.w pꜣ rmṯ tmy n nt pꜣ bnr r nꜣ nt sẖ ḥry r-r=f ) (line 5).

314

chapter 14

as separate categories of deceased.3 The document recorded in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) is headed by the statement ‘the list (of) the pure ones that devolved upon Osoroeris son of Horos’ (pꜣ wn nꜣ wꜥb.w i҆.i҆r pḥ r wsi҆r-wr sꜣ ḥr) (col. 1), while column III begins with the statement ‘other people of the town’ (ky.w nꜣ rmṯ.w tmy). Although it is not clear whether this should be taken as a heading, or as an additional entry concerning unnamed individuals, two entries in column III and one in column VI include the statement ‘together with his/their people,’ not found in the previous columns, which again would suggest that these are two different categories of deceased. Two separate listings are also found in P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) where the document begins with the heading ‘my (revenues from my) work as choachyte in the tombs which are in the necropolis of Djeme. Their specification: the blessed ones’ (tꜣy=y wp.t wꜣḥ-mw n nꜣ ḥ.wt nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ pꜣy=w wn nꜣ ḥsy.w) (line 5). Following a list of names, the contract continues under the heading ‘the tombs of the (ordinary?) people’ (nꜣ ḥ.wt n nꜣ rmṯ.w) (line 6), amongst which is listed ‘the large s.t-tomb of the people who are in Djeme’ (tꜣ s.t ꜥꜣ.t n nꜣ rmṯ.w nt ḏmꜣ) (line 7), which suggests these were towners who were going to be buried in that tomb at their death. On the other hand, different terms are used to distinguish between the living and the dead in P. Turin 2137 (123BC), a division of inheritance among four brothers. The text lists: ‘the ḥ.wt-tombs of the pure ones, the people [˹of the village˺], the blessed ones and the rest of the place(s) belonging to our father in [˹the necropolis˺], and the rest of the šty-revenue(s) belonging to him which devolved upon us, (both) `to those alive and to those dead´’ (nꜣ ḥ.wt n nꜣ wꜥb.w nꜣ rmṯ.w [˹n tmy˺] nꜣ ḥsy.w pꜣ sp mꜣꜥ nt i҆w mtw pꜣy=n i҆ṱ ḥr [˹tꜣ ḫꜣs.t˺] i҆rm pꜣ sp šty nt mtw=f r-pḥ r-ḥr=n`n nꜣ nt ꜥnḫ i҆rm nꜣ nt mwt´). lines 3–5

Thus the text uses the terms wꜥb and rmṯ tmy to identify the deceased belonging within the liturgies for whose mortuary service the priests received a payment, and the verbs ꜥnḫ (‘to live’) and mwt (‘to die’) to identify the deceased who are related to the contractual parties. This seems confirmed by P. Louvre E 2439 (330BC), P. Rylands XI (284BC) and P. Marseilles 299–298 (235 BC), where the testator states ‘You are the one who has a responsibility over me whether I am

3 However, one of the entries in P. Amherst 60b (153 BC) concerns ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the blessed one Psemminis together with the blessed ones of the people of Papa’ (Pestman 1993, 472), which suggests that perhaps a genitive should be restored between the two clauses.

the deceased

315

alive or dead’ using the verbs ꜥnḫ and mwt, thus suggesting these verbs were used to indicate a close relationship between the concerned individuals.4

2

Epithets of the Dead

2.1 wꜥb.(w), rmṯ.(w) and nṯr.(w) As mentioned above, a number of labels are used in the documents to refer to a dead person, including wꜥb (pure one), nṯr (god) and rmṯ (person/people). The first two are used only in a small number of documents, while the latter is the term most commonly used to refer to deceased individuals resting inside the tombs listed. Typically the clause reads ‘the tomb of PN together with his/her people’ (tꜣ s.t/ḥ.t n PN ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f/nꜣy=t rmṯ.w), which can denote both the deceased relatives of the tomb owner already entombed there, and those who will be buried there at their death. With regards to the epithet nṯr.(w), or god(s), the earliest document in which it occurs is P. Philadelphia V (302BC) in which party A states: ‘to you belong the offerings of our master Parates, your god’ (mtw=k nꜣ ḥtp.w pꜣy=n ḥry pa-rṱ pꜣy=k nṯr) (line 2). In P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) (line 3), P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC) (line 6) and P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC) (line 4) the liturgies alienated include ‘the large ḥ.t-tomb of the master Pachnoumis and the gods who are with him’ (tꜣ ḥ.t ꜥꜣ.t n pꜣ ḥry pa-ẖnm ḥnꜥ nꜣ nṯr.w nt i҆rm=f ).5 Similarly in P. Louvre E 3440 B (line 7b)–A (lines 8a–b) + P. Berlin P. 3112 (line 15) (175 BC) where the liturgies listed include the half of the ‘šty-revenues of the ḥ.t-tomb of the gods of Bastet’ (šty.w tꜣ ḥ.t nꜣ nṯr.w bꜣst.t). In particular, the evidence from P. Berlin P. 3089 + P. BM EA 10426 (230BC) (line 3) and P. BM EA 10377 (214 BC) (lines 5–6) suggests that there was a perceived difference between this category of deceased and those identified simply as rmṯ.w or person(s). The contracts list ‘the s.t-tomb of the master Panas,6 the blessed one and every person who belongs to him, and

4 However, this suggestion is not entirely supported by the evidence of P. Berlin P. 3115 (109– 106 BC) since the members agree ‘not to give cloth to(?) a man of Djeme who is dead (…) and not to place (scil. give) (embalming)-medicaments to the dead of our house’ (r tm ty.t [ḥbs] r-ḥr rmṯ ḏmꜣ i҆w=f mwt (…) r tm ḥwy pẖr.(t) r mwt n pꜣy=n ꜥ.wy), where in the first clause one would expect to find wꜥb used in place of mwt given the lack of relationship between the members and the deceased. 5 In P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC) this individual, identified with both the titles master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy), is listed ‘together with the rest of the people who are inside it’ rather than ‘the gods’ as in the other three contracts. 6 Vittmann (1982) read the name as Pa-nꜣ (Panas) while Andrews (1990, 53 note 14) suggested reading it as Pa-wꜣ (Paues).

316

chapter 14

the gods7 of Peteamounis [and] every [p]erson who belongs to him’ (tꜣ s.t pꜣ ḥry pa-nꜣ pꜣ ḥsy ḥnꜥ rmṯ nb nt mtw=f ḥnꜥ nꜣ nṯr.w n pꜣ-ty-i҆mn [ḥnꜥ r]mṯ nb nt mtw=f ), thus distinguishing between the gods and the people buried therein. On the basis of the Sign Papyrus from Tanis (Roman Period) it could be argued that the title nṯr refers to individuals that have actually been mummified and buried, since this syllabary translates the noun nṯr as i҆w=f ḳs ‘embalmed’ (col. XV, line 2).8 In P. Berlin P. 3139 (98 BC) (line 4) the gods (nṯr.w) are listed alongside the people (rmṯ.[˹w˺]) followed by a lacuna where perhaps the stative form of the verb ḳs should be restored, which may refer to individuals that are buried, thus arguing against the suggestion that this was also the meaning of god (nṯr).9 Another translation given for the entry in the Tanis Sign Papyrus (Roman Period) is ‘it is enwrapped,’ which is based on the deification of the deceased as a result of the wrapping of the corpse in bandages believed to possess the power to confer divinity.10 This would then suggest that the epithet god (nṯr) was used to identify individuals that had been wrapped in bandages prior to their burial. However, the fact that the number of individuals identified by such an epithet is extremely limited suggests that this is not the meaning given to this noun in the documentary sources, since the archaeological evidence suggests that a large number of deceased would have been wrapped whether they had been mummified or not.11 This is also the only epithet attested among the Memphite documents. It is found in P. Saqqara 71/2 DP 136 (350–275BC) where the writer states: ‘see to the gods of the people (of) the Quarter of the Greeks who are ˹brought˺ up’ (my nw r nꜣ nṯr.w n nꜣ rmṯ.w (n) tꜣ i҆wy.(t) n nꜣ wꜣny nt i҆w=w ˹i҆n˺ rḥry) (lines 2–5). In the majority of instances within the documents analysed, where this title is used the individuals thus titled are identified as belonging to another dead person, thus indicating a close relationship between the named deceased and the god (nṯr). If this understanding is correct, the only possibility I can suggest is that individuals thus titled were, perhaps, venerated ancestors.

7

8 9

10 11

Vittmann (1982) took nꜣ nṯr.w to be a defective writing for the name Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w (Psenenteris). However, a similar reference is also found in P. Louvre E 2424 and 2443 that mention the gods of a ḥsy (Andrews 1990, 53 note 15). Griffith and Petrie 1889, 16 and Pl. III–IV. However, it is also possible that we need to restore the term as rmṯ tmy rather than rmṯ ḳs.t, since the latter verb is in a lacuna. It would also be possible to translate the term as ‘mummified people,’ although this would be a unique example for its use in this context. Smith 1993, 40, line 18 note (b). See Chapter 17 § 1.

the deceased

317

2.2 The ḥry and ḥsy Two more terms are used as epithets for a number of the deceased listed in the choachytes’ deeds: master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy).12 With the exception of one document from Hawara, their use appears to be limited to Thebes.13 Their exact meaning and the process by which they were acquired remain uncertain and cannot be determined on the basis of the evidence provided by the documentary sources.14 However, a number of points become apparent from an analysis of these texts. With regards to the epithet master, which is by far the more common of the two, it appears that its bestowing upon an individual was not influenced by gender, status, or ethnicity. That gender was not an influencing factor is shown by the fact that both men and women bear this title, while people labelled as master include both high ranking individuals, such as the god’s father Petenephotes, and lower class individuals such as Thotsytmis, a lettercarrier, thus indicating that status was probably not a determining factor either. However, as can be seen from table 9, the number of individuals whose professional title is mentioned is rather limited and probably not truly representative. In addition, it is interesting to note that individuals bearing these epithets are in some cases found in temporary ‘storage’ in others persons’ tombs, which could be taken as an indication of them lacking the resources to build their own tomb, hence that their economic position was not high, but this is not always the case.15 Finally, it appears that the epithet master could be borne by Egyptians and Greeks alike, although the former are 12

13

14

15

These epithets, attested in a number of funerary texts, have already been the object of a number of analyses. See for example Griffith 1909a; Murray 1914; Spegelberg 1917; Kees 1932; Rowe 1940; el-Amir 1951; Morenz 1959; Quaegebeur 1977, 1977a and 1990; Quaegebeur and Evrard-Derriks 1979; Chauveau 1990; Traunecker 1992, 388–391; Delia 1992; Pestman 1993, 470–471; Wagner 1998; and von Lieven 2017 and 2010. De Cenival’s (1972a) reading of ḥsy.w in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) line 2C seems uncertain to me. The fact that they are not attested outside Thebes does not necessarily mean that they were not in use, since it may be due to different scribal practices with Lower and Middle Egyptian scribes tending not to include this type of epithets in documentary texts. Over a total of about 630 male individuals circa 126 bear one of these two titles, or both (95 ḥry, 9 ḥsy and 22 both), while, over a total of about 97 female individuals, circa 29 bear one of the two epithets, or both (23 ḥry.t, 1 ḥsy.t and 5 both), with a ratio of 1:5 in the first instance and 1:3.5 in the second. These figures are only approximate because it is not always possible to determine whether homonyms are to be understood as referring to the same individuals or not. According to these figures, 20% of males and 29.9% of females bear one of these titles, or a combination of the two. See for example Harmais, the prophet of Ptah, who received offerings for nearly four decades, but was placed in a ‘waiting tomb,’ which could also be suggested meant the family had not enough resources to build their own (see Chapter 12 §4).

318

chapter 14

table 9

Name

Professional titles of people titled ḥry

Epithet

Professional title

Structure

Document and date

Petenephotes (our) ḥry god’s father s.t-tomb P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) Piminis ḥry of the men of Ope s.t-tomb P. Berlin P. 3089 (230BC) Thotsytmis ḥry letter-carrier mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

certainly more numerous than the latter. In P. Marseilles 299 (235 BC) one of the tombs sold is described as being ‘at the entrance of the s.t-tomb of our master Chomaros’ (ḥr rꜣ tꜣ s.t n pꜣy=n ḥry gmrws) (line 6), who may have been Greek.16 Another example is possibly found in P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC), which lists the master Siepmous whose father Polianthes may be another individual of Greek descent.17 On the other hand, the epithet ḥsy, or blessed, does not appear to be a very common one, since it is borne only by ten individuals out of a total of 155 (not including the remaining 27 instances in which both epithets are used). As was the case with the epithet master (ḥry), it is clear that the bestowing of the title blessed one (ḥsy) was not influenced by gender, since it was used for both men and women, although slightly more frequently in the second instance (1.9 % men and 4.1% women). Age was not a contributing factor either as shown by the presence of young children being identified by it, as in the case of Asklepias aged 5, and that of Syria aged 10, both identified as ‘blessed’ on their respective stela.18 With regards to the status of these individuals it is perhaps more difficult to be certain since professional titles are indicated for only three of them, and they all belong to the priestly milieu as can be seen from table 10 below.19 However, whether ethnicity was an influencing factor or not is more difficult to ascertain. With the exception of the two children mentioned above, Asklepias and Syria, both of whom bear a Greek name, which may or may not be a true indication of their ethnic background, no other individuals of seemingly Greek descent are identified by this title, though this could be due simply to accidents of preservation. A small number of people bear both epithets as well as their occupational title, and, again, they may have all had a connection with the temple, since we 16 17 18 19

See Clarysse 1995, 13 note 30. See Clarysse 1995, 10. For these monuments see Wagner 1998, 1073–1074. See also Table A.37 and A.38.

319

the deceased table 10

Professional titles of people titled ḥsy

Name

Epithet Structure Professional title

Achoapis ḥsy Patysesu ḥsy Harmais ḥsy

s.t-tomb ḥ.t-tomb ḥ.t-tomb

Document and date

choachyte P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC) third prophet P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) herdsman of Montu P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC)

find a byssos-weaver, a blessed one of the priests, and a blessed one of the doorkeepers (see the following table).20 However, whilst these two epithets are in some cases borne by the same individual, they are never used together with any of the other three labels: pure one(s) (wꜥb.(w)), person(s) (rmṯ.(w)) and god(s) (nṯr.(w)). In addition, both ḥry.w (masters) and ḥsy.w (blessed ones) can be found in other people’s tombs.21 Similarly, other individuals could be placed in the tomb of a master or of a blessed one as suggested by the fact that other tomb occupants are identified either as the deceased’s own people, or as persons resting therein. Both masters and blessed ones are often listed alone without the mention of relatives buried with them as was common for ‘ordinary’ persons,22 although the incidence of these individuals alone in a tomb is not greater than that of ‘ordinary’ persons and is probably not significant. The evidence of P. Philadelphia V (302BC) suggests that the offerings presented to some of the masters (ḥry.w), presumably by private unrelated persons, belonged to the owner of the funerary structure, since party A states: ‘I have given to you this s.t-tomb (…), to you belong the offerings of our master (ḥry) Parates, your god’23 (tw=y n=k tꜣy s.t (…) mtw=k nꜣ ḥtp.w pꜣy=n ḥry Pa-rṱ pꜣy=k nṯr) (lines 1–2). In this document no time limit is imposed on the buyer’s receipt of the offerings, whereas in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC) the buyer is granted the offerings destined for a named master (ḥry) for just under a month, thus indicating that different arrangements were possible.

20

21 22 23

In the latter two instances, that of priest and of door-keeper are identified as the profession of the deceased on the assumption that the individuals held these posts in life and came to be venerated among these professional groups after their death. See Table A.37 and A.38. Pestman 1993, 471. For a possible interpretation of the meaning of the phrase ‘your god,’ and for a discussion on the ḥsy attested from Demotic documentary texts, see Von Lieven 2017.

320

chapter 14

table 11

Professional titles of people titled ḥry and ḥsy

Name Epithet Epithet Professional title Paches ḥry Teos ḥry Teos ḥry

ḥsy ḥsy ḥsy

Structure Document and date

byssos-weaver ~ of the priests ~ of the door-keepers ~

P. Berlin P. 3089 (230BC) P. BM EA 10227 (230BC) P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC)

Finally, as mentioned above, these two labels are not attested in documents from Memphis and Middle Egypt. The epithet blessed one (ḥsy) is possibly used in one document from Hawara, P. Ashmolean D. 13–12 (1968.8+ 1968.11, upside down) a list of accounts, seemingly with the same usage and meaning as at Thebes, although its reading is not certain: Line 6. Third month of the Inundation season, day 22: blessed one(?) […] the man of Ptolemais: burial 1 (i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t sw 22 ḥsy(?) […] pꜣ rmṯ pꜣ-sy-mꜣ ḳs 1).24 The two terms, it is suggested, were used arbitrarily, as for example in the case of the man Kedjadja who is identified by the epithet blessed (ḥsy) in P. Amherst 60b (153 BC) (col. 1 lines 12–13), and by those of master and blessed one (ḥry and ḥsy) in P. Berlin P. 3119 (146BC) (line 4); the case of Paiu who is listed without any epithet in P. Amherst 60b (153 BC) and with both those of master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) in P. Berlin P. 5507–3098 (136BC); and the case of Taishebti who is listed with no epithets in P. Amherst 58a (153 BC) (lines 15–17), and with both epithets in P. Amherst 60b (153 BC) (col. 1 line 4).25 However, although it is true that there are a number of cases in which the use of these two epithets is not consistent,26 an analysis of the data shows that the opposite is also true. Cases in which the titles are used consistently include: the master Psenchonsis mentioned in P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC), P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC), P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC); Panoubis the blessed one, listed in P. Amherst 58a (153 BC) and P. Berlin P. 5507–3098 (136BC);27 the master Panas, the blessed one, who appears

24 25 26 27

On this text see further Chapter 7 § 3. Pestman 1993, 470–471 and note xx. For additional examples see Tables A.37 and A.38. In P. Amherst 58a (153 BC) the individual is said to be temporarily placed in a s.t-tomb, while in P. Berlin P. 5507–3098 (136BC) he is said to be in a ḥ.t-tomb. The latter could be his definitive tomb thus explaining the apparent inconsistency in tomb typology.

the deceased

321

in both P. Berlin P. 3089 + P. BM EA 10426 (230BC) and P. BM EA 10377 (214 BC); the master Paches, the blessed one, the byssos-weaver who is listed in P. Berlin P. 3089 + P. BM EA 10426 (230BC) and P. BM EA 10377 (214 BC);28 the master Pachnoumis listed in P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC), P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC), P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC) and P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC);29 and the master Kedjadja, the blessed one, who is listed in P. Amherst 60b (153BC), P. Berlin P. 3119 (146 BC) and P. Bibl. Nat. 218 + P. BM EA 10396 (146 BC).30 In addition, had the two epithets been used arbitrarily, one would probably expect the term blessed one (ḥsy) to occur with greater frequency than it does, given that it is attested in only 37 cases (10 ḥsy, 27 ḥry+ḥsy) over a total of 155 instances. According to Pestman the ‘term ḥry “master” simply denoted a ḥsy and does not seem to have had a specific meaning.’31 In reality, the term ḥsy appears to have both a specific and a general meaning. In the first instance it is used to identify a certain category of deceased individuals who are distinguished from others by means of this title, although the exact reasons are not evident from the available documentation. In the second instance the term is used to refer to the deceased in general. In P. Louvre E 2424 (267 BC) are listed a total of 24 individuals, of which only three identified as master (ḥry), while in the clause of transfer and possession the properties are summarised as ‘the half of the ḥ.wt-tombs (and) of their blessed ones (ḥsy.w) who are in the necropolis of Djeme’ (tꜣ pš.t n n nꜣ ḥ.wt n nꜣy=w ḥsy.w nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜥs.t ḏmꜣ) (line 4). Similarly in P. Philadelphia XVII (241BC) where the liturgies transferred are identified as ‘the s.wt-tombs located in the necropolis of Djeme which belong to Teos son of Paoros, and the blessed ones (ḥsy.w) that are in the necropolis of Djeme’ (nꜣ s.wt nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ nt mtw ḏ-ḥr sꜣ pa-ḥr ḥnꜥ nꜣ ḥsy.w nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ) (line 3). In P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) the list of liturgies transferred, consisting of 21 individuals, of which only four identified as master (ḥry), is headed by the 28

29

30

31

In P. Berlin P. 3089 + P. BM EA 10426 (230 BC) an unknown man is said to be therein with Paches together with every person belonging to them, although the tomb’s name is not specified, while in P. BM EA 10377 (214 BC) he is said to be in a s.t-tomb together with every person belonging to him and every person therein with him, which probably means there are some unrelated individuals resting in the same tomb. The only text that provides contrasting information about this individual is P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC), which identifies him as also a blessed one and as resting in a large s.ttomb rather than a ḥ.t-tomb. However, these inconsistencies are probably scribal errors since the scribe of this contract has made a number of other errors. On this subject see also Chapter 16 § 1. As well as the discrepancies between P. Amherst 60b (153BC) and the other contracts, it is important to note the consistency between P. Berlin P. 3119 (146 BC) and P. Bibl. Nat. 218 + P. BM EA 10396 (146 BC). Pestman 1993, 470–471.

322

chapter 14

statement: ‘my s.t-tombs which are in the necropolis of Djeme together with their blessed ones (ḥsy.w)’ (nꜣy=y s.wt nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ ḥnꜥ nꜣy=y ḥsy.w) (line 2), while the remaining assets sold include: ‘the properties (…) (consisting of) their (burial)-places and their masters (ḥry.w)’ (nꜣ nkt.w (…) nꜣy=w ꜥ.wy.w ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w ḥry.w) (lines 11–12). In P. Philadelphia XXVI (217 BC) party A sells the ‘the mꜣꜥchapel of the master (ḥry) Petobastis together with the s.t-tomb in which he rests’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ pꜣ ḥry pꜣ-ty-bꜣst.t ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t nt i҆w=f ḥtp ẖn=s) (line 3), and ‘the mꜣꜥchapel of the master (ḥry) Herpa[…] (…) together with the s.t-tomb in which he rests’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ pꜣ ḥry Ḥr-pꜣ-[…] (…) ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t nt i҆w=f ḥtp ẖn=s) (lines 4–5), while in the clause of transfer and possession he states ‘to you belongs these two blessed ones (ḥsy.w) together with their religious services, together with their s.t-tomb, and their offerings’ (mtw=˹t˺ pꜣy ḥsy.w 2 ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w šms.w ḥnꜥ tꜣy=w s.t ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w i҆ḫy.w) (line 6). Another possible example for this usage is found in P. BM EA 10830 (198BC) where the seller declares ‘you have caused my heart to agree to the money for the price of the blessed ones (ḥsy.w) who belong to me in the necropolis of Djeme whose specifications are written below’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=y n pꜣ ḥḏ swn nꜣ ḥsy.w nt mtw=y ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ nt i҆w pꜣy=w wn sẖ ẖry) (lines 4–5), although of the 16 individuals listed, five are titled master (ḥry), but none bears the epithet blessed one (ḥsy). Similarly in P. Louvre E 3440 B (line 5c–d)-A (line 6a) + P. Berlin P. 3112 (line 11) (175 BC), which opens with the statement ‘the šty.w-revenues and the offerings of the ḥ.wt-tombs of the blessed ones (ḥsy.w), their specification’ (nꜣ šty.w nꜣ i҆ḫy.w nꜣ ḥ.wt nꜣ ḥsy.w pꜣy=w wn), but then lists 44 people identified as master (ḥry). In P. Berlin P. 5507 + 3098 (136BC) the list of liturgies includes ‘Pemaus the fisherman, together with his blessed ones (ḥsy.w)’ (pꜣ-i҆my pꜣ wḥ ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f ḥsy.w) (line 5). Finally, in P. Turin 2132 (98BC) the sellers declare ‘you have caused our heart to agree to the money for the (religious)-services, the purificatory offerings, and the šty-revenues for (the work as) choachyte of Petous son of Pachnoumis, his woman, his children, their servants, their nurse, their blessed ones (ḥsy.w) (and) their places (for/of) hiding’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=n n pꜣ ḥḏ n nꜣ šms.w nꜣ ꜥrš.w nꜣ šty.w n wꜣḥ-mw n pa-tꜣ.wy sꜣ pa-ẖmn tꜣy=f sḥm.t nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w nꜣy=w bꜣk.w tꜣy=w mnꜥ-i҆ry.t nꜣy=w ḥsy.w nꜣy=w ꜥ.wy.w ḥp) (lines 3–4). Rather than being examples of inconsistency, these are probably cases in which the term ḥsy, the blessed one, was used in the same way as the earlier epithet mꜣꜥt, the justified, that is, as a general designation for the deceased. This would explain the presence of a number of them within the same family as in the case of Pemaus the fisherman, who is said to be buried together with his blessed ones (P. Berlin P. 5507–3098).32

32

However, although this explains the presence among those thus titled of children, women

the deceased

323

On the basis of the available evidence, it is possible to suggest that the epithet master was perhaps borne by individuals who had distinguished themselves among their community, and, as such, it could have been bestowed upon them during their lifetime.33 This would explain the absence of clear examples of children bearing such an epithet, although it is true that the age at death of individuals is but rarely evinced from the documentary sources. On the other hand, the epithet blessed one (ḥsy) was probably acquired only at death. On the basis of classical sources it is suggested that this title referred to a category of people who had died by drowning and had thus acquired a particular blessed status among the local population.34 Such an explanation is rejected by Quaegebeur who argues that not everybody who is identified as blessed one had necessarily drowned, citing as example the Rhind Papyrus in which the hieratic ‘hall of the justified’ is rendered in Demotic as ‘hall of the blessed.’35 Indeed, Osiris, the ‘ḥsy par excellence,’ did not drown, but was dismembered by Seth. Rather, he prefers to see the epithet as indicative of a supernatural character of the deceased, acquired either through drowning, or ritual immersion, or for other unknown reasons, which were deemed worthy of veneration.36 However, Herodotus (II.90) actually refers to ‘any one, Egyptian or foreigner, who has lost his life by falling a pray to a crocodile, or by drowning in the river,’37 thus, as noted by Quaegebeur, it is not just death by drowning, but other forms of violent death too, by falling pray of crocodiles or snake bites, for example,38 that may have been at the origins of a particular veneration.39 If one takes this a step further, it is clear that a violent death is also a premature one, even that of Osiris himself in fact, who is lamented as a ‘Fair youth who departed when it was not the proper time’ (ḥwn nfr šm n nw) (line 14) (P. Bremner-Rhind I).40 The theme of premature death, and its tragedy, is found in a number of texts where their sort is lamented,41 as in P. Harkness

33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40 41

and men, unfortunately it does not explain the absence of Greek citizens. For these individuals see Table A.37 and A.38. Thus also el-Amir 1951. Griffith 1909, 132–134; Quaegebeur 1977, 138–139. In Coptic the epithet survives as ϩⲁⲥⲓⲉ, ⲉⲥⲓⲉ with the meaning of drowned (lit. blessed person) (Crum 1939, 710), in Greek as Ἁσιῆς and Ἐσιῆς and in Latin as Esietus (Quaegebeur 1977, 140). Quaegebeur 1977, 139. Traunecker (1992, 390) suggests that that of the ḥsy may be a state acquired as a result of the libations of the decades performed on the tomb of privileged individuals. Rawlison 1992, 161. Von Lieven 2010, 3; Von Lieven 2017, 243. Quaegebeur 1977, 140. Faulkner 1936, 133; Smith 1987, 105 note (c) to line 16. Smith 2009, 9.

324

chapter 14

and P. BM EA 10507 where the deceased is allegorically said to have ‘abandoned the feast.’42 The notion of the tragedy of premature death is also found in P. BM EA 10507 where it is said that the deceased ‘was ushered into the strange darkness within a few days’ (r-ꜥq=w n=f r pꜣ kky šmꜣꜥ n hrw sbk).43 The same concept is found in the stela of Isenkhebe who bemoans ‘I was driven from childhood too early! Turned away from my house as a youngster. Before I had my fill in it! The dark, a child’s terror, engulfed me, while the breast was in my mouth!’44 Premature death is also the theme of the address by Petosiris’ son Thothrekh who explains his fate to passersby saying that he was ‘a small child snatched by force, abridged in years as an innocent one, snatched quickly as a little one (…) without having had my share.’45 One of the Memphite legal documents provides some indirect evidence for the possibility that the premature dead were perceived as being different from the ‘normal’ dead, since a distinction is made between a deceased person and a young deceased person.46 Such a distinction is found in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) which mentions ‘that which is paid for a deceased person (ḳs) and a young deceased person (ḫm-ẖl) belonging to the revenue-villages aforesaid together with the (burial-)places of the people whose names are written above’ (pꜣ nt mḥ […] ḳs ḳs.t ḫm-ẖl i҆w=s nꜣ tmy.w n šty nt ḥry ḥnꜥ ꜥ.wy.w n nꜣ rmṯ.w nt i҆w pꜣy=w rn sẖ ḥry) (line 11 C–D).47 Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that individuals who suffered a premature death may have been deemed worthy of a special veneration, or were thought to receive a privileged position in the afterlife.48 Mention of premature death is a common formula in both Greek epitaphs and Egyptian funerary literature

42

43 44 45 46 47

48

‘You are the goodly son who has abandoned the feast’ (mtw=k sꜣ nfr i҆-i҆r ḫꜣ[ꜥ] hrwṱ) (P. BM EA 10507 col. VIII line 16, and P. Harkness col. II line 31 (Smith 1987, 46, 105 note (c) to line 16; Smith 2005, 155 note (a) to line 31)). Smith 1987, 105 col. VIII line 17. For the Egyptian view of the underworld as a place of darkness see Smith 1987, 65 note (c) to line 5 col. II, with additional references. Lichtheim 1980, 58–59, Stela V 55, Leiden Museum. Lichtheim 1980, 53, Inscription No. 56 on the door of Petosiris’ chapel. It is not clear, though, if the payments received for this particular category of dead were higher than those received for the ‘normal’ dead. Similarly further down in the same document where the seller states: ‘I will not be able to take (away) a deceased person (ḳs) and a young deceased person (ḫm-ẖl), nor will [a ˹man be able to take (away) in my name˺] a deceased person (ḳs) and a young deceased person (ḫm-ẖl) belonging to the revenue-villages aforesaid together with the (burial)-places of the people whose names are written above’ (bn i҆w=y rḫ ṯ ḳs ḳs.t ḫm-ẖl bn i҆w rḫ [˹rmṯ ṯ ḳs n rn˺]=y i҆w=s nꜣ tmy.w n šty nt ḥry ḥnꜥ nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w n nꜣ rmṯ.w nt i҆w pꜣy=w rn sẖ ḥry) (line 11 H–I). A very close expression is also used in P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC) (Revillout 1880b, 115–116, Pl. IV). Chauveau 1990, 6.

the deceased

325

and inscriptions. However, despite the wide attestation of this theme, there does not appear to be an Egyptian equivalent of the Greek aoros (aôros).49 In fact, it is to be wondered if the epithet blessed one (ḥsy) should not be understood in these terms, that is, as referring to premature, not natural death. Nothing is known about the process of deification, how it was organised and by whom it could be initiated. A decree of Ptolemy VIII50 prescribed that ‘the expenses for the interment of the Apis and Mnevis will be borne by the royal treasury, as in the case of deified individuals; (and) similarly for the expenses of interment of the other sacred animals’ (Col. IV lines 77–79).51 This clearly indicates that the deification of individuals was regulated in some way, presumably by having to prove that there was a case for deification, although no evidence appears to survive for this process.

3

Social Status and Ethnic Background of the Deceased

In order to determine how much of the Egyptian society is represented in the sources analysed it is first necessary to establish a framework within which the data can be placed and understood. Thus it is necessary to define how one understands this society to have been structured and the terms used in defining these social units. The exercise is not without difficulties since even in modern societies it is difficult to define what we mean by upper, middle, low and/or working class, and above all where the boundaries of each ‘class’ stand. To this

49

50 51

Dunand 1998, 968, 973. Dunand’s comparative analysis of two groups of funerary stelae, one form Terenuthis (Middle Egypt) and the other from Tell el-Yahudiya, showed that in the vast majority of cases the Greek term was used for individuals who had died before the age of thirty, although there were examples where it had been used with individuals who had reached a good age (for example 73 and 82 years of age). In these cases, she suggests, the use of this epithet should probably not be taken literally, but as a way of conveying the grief of the bereaved at the loss of a loved one, since for the bereaved death always comes too soon (Dunand 1998, 968, 973). In a Greek epitaph from Tell el-Yahudiya, for example, (Leibovitch, J. 1942, 43 and Pl. 3) the deceased is identified by the adjective μικρά, although he had lived to the relatively long age of 35 years (Smith 1987, 68, col. II note a to line 10). The same is also attested in Egyptian sources. In P. BM EA 10507 (col. II line 10) the deceased laments the brevity of his life: ‘I was deprived of youth and made to become an old man when I was small’ (ḫb=w ṱ=y m nḫn tw=w i҆r=y i҆ꜣw i҆w=y sbk) (col. II line 10), although in line 3 of the same text the deceased is said to have been: ‘Long-lived, I was not given a son’ (q n ꜥḥꜥ bn-pw=w ti҆ n=y š[r]) (col. II line 3) (Smith 1987, 36–37, 68). Lenger 1980, section 53 ‘Collection of amnesty decrees and of complementary prostagmata issued by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Cleopatra II and Cleopatra III (121/120–118BC).’ Lenger 1980, 136, 154; von Lieven 2010, 3.

326

chapter 14

figure 5

Range of professions attested in the Theban documents analysed

we must also add the ethnically different group of individuals that became part of the Egyptian society in the Ptolemaic Period, and to whom the ruling class belonged. I use the term ‘Upper level’ to indicate the highest levels of the Egyptian society during the Ptolemaic Period, which I further divide into two sub levels in order to accommodate the hierarchical divisions that were present within, for example, temple institutions. Here I also include individuals with connection to the ruling class and the administration of the country. The term ‘Middle level,’ also divided into two sub levels, is used to refer to lower status temple workers, and lay sectors such as crafts, trade and services. Under the tem ‘Lower level’ I include the lowest socioeconomic groups, which comprised riverine professions, agriculture and husbandry, and other non-literate occupations. It is clear that this is only a ‘relative,’ and somewhat arbitrary, class system intended to show the levels represented in the documents analysed. The Theban contracts analysed span a period of two centuries, from 302 to 98BC, with a total of 850 named individuals.52 The range of titles present is representative of quite a wide spectrum of society, although some professions are clearly better represented than others as can be seen from figure 5 above. The same range of titles is attested from the other areas analysed, although some areas are not particularly well represented. From Edfu there are only two funerary tax ostraca that provide some information about the occupation

52

There is a total of about 1251 entries and a total of 1184 names. This total can be reduced to about 814 names by the elimination of cession documents and copies of sale contracts. Through the analysis of the information provided for each person in the contracts, such as patronymics and occupational titles, it is possible to identify several that are repeated from one document to another. This further reduces the number of named individuals to circa 728, to which are to be added 106 individuals named on burial taxes receipts and 16 on transfer tax receipts.

the deceased

figure 6

327

Range of professions attested in the Memphite documents analysed

of the deceased. In O. IFAO 255 (19th May 110BC) among the listed deceased there is the wife of Harpebechis the builder, and Psenaes the priest, while in O. IFAO 623 (27th February 107BC) are listed the daughter of Horemsynis the craftsman, and Petous the fodderer. From the Memphite area the most informative document on the social status of the deceased is P. Louvre E 3266 (197 BC), since it lists individual tombs identified by the name of their owners or occupants. The levels represented are indicated in figure 6 above. On the other hand, the majority of the remaining documents from Memphis53 list the endowments, identified by the name of their original owners, followed by a formulaic expression listing a range of professions as a way of including ‘everybody’ living within a particular area. An illustrative example is found in P. Leiden I 380 a–b (64BC) which list includes: ‘the endowment of (the) god’s seal-bearer Patis son of Chenouphis (…) which is in the Memphite Necropolis, together with my 1/6 share of their priests, their scribes, their door-keepers, their brewers, their merchants, their farmers, their kalasiris, their weavers, their men-of-Nut, their dancers, their men-of-Anubis, their servant(s)-of-the-ibises, their serv[ant](s)-of-the-falcon, their water-carriers, [their] gum-makers, their temple offices (and) their town offices; together with my 1/6 share of their men, their women, their in-laws, their siblings, their children, their male servants, their female servants’ (pꜣ sꜥnḫ n ḫtmw-nṯr pa-ti҆.t sꜣ kꜣ-nfr (…) nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n mn-nfr ḥnꜥ tꜣy(=y) tni҆.t 1/6 nꜣy=w wꜥb.w nꜣy=w sẖ.w nꜣy=w wn.w nꜣy=w ꜥtḫ.w nꜣy=w šweṱ.w nꜣy=w wyꜥ.w nꜣy=w gl-šr.w nꜣy=w sḫt.w nꜣy=w s-ni҆n-nw.t nꜣy=w ṱnf.w nꜣy=w rmt.w-n-i҆np nꜣy=w sḏm-ꜥš-hb.w nꜣy=w sḏm-[ꜥš]-

53

As indeed is also the case with some sections in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC).

328

chapter 14

figure 7

Range of professions attested in the Hawara documents analysed

bk nꜣy=w i҆n-mw.w [nꜣy=w] s-n-ḳmꜣ nꜣy=w i҆ꜣw.wt n ḥ.t-ntr nꜣy=w i҆ꜣw.wt n pꜣ dmy ḥnꜥ tꜣy(=y) tni҆.t 1/6 nꜣy=w ḥwṱ.w nꜣy=w s.ḥmt.w nꜣy=w šm.w nꜣy=w sn.w nꜣy=w ẖrṱ.w nꜣy=w bꜣk.w nꜣy=w bꜣk.t.w).54 lines 2–3

A similar difficulty is encountered with the Hawara documents, since only a few contracts give a list of the owners or occupants of the specific tombs, and even less often their titles. The levels represented are summarised in figure 7. With respect to Middle Egypt, the only document that provides some information on this subject is P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC), since it records the various shares belonging to each of the parties listing the name, patronymic and, in some cases, the profession of the individuals, tomb owners and/or occupants, included in each of these endowments.55 As can be seen from figure 8, the levels represented are somewhat different from those from other parts of the country, in that crafts and riverine occupations are better represented than, for example, temple personnel. However, the data are too limited to be truly meaningful. The Theban data gathered from the various lists of liturgies provides also information on the ethnic background of the deceased in the care of the choachytes, particularly individuals bearing Greek names. Only in a few instances can these be clearly categorized as being of Greek descent rather than Hellenised Egyptians, although some can be identified with individuals known

54 55

For the reading i҆n-nw.t see Zauzich 1998, 745–750; Martin 2009, 121 note g. I have not been able to read all of the titles attested in this document, and even for some of those listed the readings are not entirely certain due to the low quality of the photograph available.

the deceased

figure 8

329

Range of professions attested in the Middle Egypt documents analysed

from other documents.56 The presence among tomb owners of officials belonging to the Greek milieu is very important since it is a clear indication of the scale of integration reached around the 2nd century BC by the descendants of the original Greek settlers and of the degree of interaction between the two ethnic groups. At Memphis, due to the limited amount of evidence available, particularly for the 3rd century BC, it is not possible to determine to what extent people of different ethnic backgrounds chose to be buried in an Egyptian fashion, although the mention in these documents of Carians and of people from the Quarter of the Greeks suggests a certain degree of interaction between the Egyptians and the descendants of the original Greek settlers. Because of the form of the contracts in other parts of the country, it is not possible to determine the extent of the foreign element choosing to be buried in Egyptian fashion. With respect to the Egyptian element, and the social level represented in the textual record, the data is fairly consistent countrywide, and shows a predominance of titles belonging to the temple milieu, which is probably not surprising. The data from Sharuna (Middle Egypt) differs in that riverine professions are more frequently attested than temple offices,57 although, given that the data is limited quantitatively, temporally and spatially, it is quite possible that such a picture would change with the introduction of additional evidence from other parts of Middle Egypt.58 By combining together the data from the different 56 57 58

For an analysis of a number of these individuals see Clarysse 1995. The title ‘sailor’ is by far the most frequent of all, followed by that of ‘fisherman’ and then ‘farmer,’ while the titles of ‘stone-mason’ and ‘weaver’ are also fairly common. The reference here is only to individuals attested in mortuary priests’ records, which is an indication of who used the services of these priests. For an overview of a range of professions attested in Middle Egypt see Clarysse and Thompson 2006a–b.

330

chapter 14

figure 9

Combined range of professions attested in the different parts of the country analysed

parts of the country it is possible to get an idea of the social levels represented in the surviving mortuary priests’ records and thus of who used their services. Although all levels are represented, it is clear that it was individuals from the middle class, particularly high middle class, that employed the services of those priests whose records have survived. This is consistent with the fact that individuals would normally use the services of priests from the same, or higher, social level.59 The presence of individuals belonging to a fairly wide spread of social levels may be an indication of a diversification of services, and therefore of costs, according to the families’ financial means.60 This raises the question of how many individuals actually used the services of these funerary priests. A calculation can perhaps be attempted on the basis of rough estimates for pre-modern societies which give a typical annual death rate for agricultural societies of about 30 per 1000 people, with a nuclear family of five to seven contemporaneous individuals contributing approximately 20 bodies per century.61 Thus if one takes the Theban data of roughly 425 dead in a century, it follows that these figures represent approximately 21–22 families per century.62 On the other hand, on a living population of 50.000, such as that of Thebes, the number of dead would be around 1500 per year, and 150.000 per century. Consequently, the Theban sample represents only 0.28% circa of the total dead in a century. Even allowing for accident of preservation of the textual data, I believe that the figures indicate that only a very small minority of families employed the services

59 60 61 62

The same conclusion was reached by Bataille 1952, 252–254; and Schreiber 2007, 344–345. Unfortunately, the sources do not provide any information on what these mortuary priests charged for their services. Manning 1998, 44. The total number of individuals is 850 over two centuries, thus 425 dead per century : 20 bodies per family = 21.25.

the deceased

331

of the choachytes for the performance of the mortuary cult of their dead. This, in itself, is not surprising since the role these mortuary priests explicated was that of the ‘eldest son,’ who was supposed to care for the dead parents by making offerings, libations and prayers. However, if only a few families used the services of the choachytes, whose task, among others, was that of arranging for the burial of the dead, who managed all the other burials?

part 3 Necropolises, Tombs and Burials

∵

chapter 15

Necropolises The study of funerary archaeological remains of the Ptolemaic Period presents considerable challenges, not least because of the dearth of material clearly datable to this time, which results from the combined activity of sebbakh diggers and illicit excavations. In addition, the fact that many sites were excavated at the beginning of the last century, mainly in search for papyri, or for the older and more glamorous past, has meant that the stratigraphically earlier remains have been removed without proper recording or, at best, noted in passim, while the vast majority of field-notes and journals made during these early excavations still remain unpublished. Such a limited interest for the later periods of Egyptian history has also characterised several of the published archaeological reports in modern times, where, with some notable exceptions, the publication of a particular monument often concentrates on the period of its original construction and primary use, rather than being a clear record of the entire use-life of the tomb. These problems are further compounded by the difficulties in dating material culture (such as pottery, coffins and cartonnage), particularly that of the transitional phases, the end of the fourth century BC and the beginning of the first century AD. The following sections discuss the location of the main burial grounds in the five areas under analysis during the Ptolemaic Period, followed by a survey of textual references to specific areas, or features, of the individual necropolises, and an analysis of the mode of acquisition of burial plots.

1

Location of Burial Grounds

In the Memphite area1 the Saqqara necropolis was one of the main burial grounds of the Ptolemaic Period, which incorporated a vast area, and included not only funerary structures, but also religious establishments (Pl. 1 and 2).2

1 The textual evidence from this area makes frequent reference to the Memphite districts and necropolis, although it is not clear from the documentation what other areas, beside Saqqara, such a definition covered. 2 These were the Main Temple Complex of the Sacred Animal necropolis, with sanctuaries and underground catacombs for the sacred cows, baboons, ibises and hawks; the Serapieion, the temple complex dedicated to the double cult of the gods Osiris and Apis, where the bulls of

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_017

336

chapter 15

Human burial sites of this period were located in different zones within the vast area defined by the monastery of Apa Jeremias in the south, the pyramid of Teti in the east, the Archaic cemetery in the north, and the hemicycle of philosophers near the Serapieion in the west (Pl. 2). Within this extensive cemetery, a prominent area was that flanking the Serapieion Way, which may reflect a desire to be close to the religious procession of the god Osiris-Apis that would have proceeded along this avenue on the god’s final journey to the Serapieion.3 Therefore, it is probable that the earlier graves were located closer to this processional way with the cemetery gradually expanding toward the north and the south. Its farthest northern reaches are perhaps represented by the interments in stone anthropoid coffins found scattered around the archaic necropolis, traditionally dated to the Ptolemaic Period.4 Additional evidence for burials by the Sarapieion Way is found to the west of Mariette’s house. Here, excavations uncovered seven Late Period tombs and a number of shaft-tombs dug in between them and dating to the Ptolemaic Period.5 Similarly, the use of the southern side of the Serapieion Way as a burial ground during this time is suggested by the discovery of a number of stone sarcophagi in the area around Teti pyramid.6 Another cemetery area has been excavated between the step pyramid enclosure to the east and the hill between the Gisr el-Mudir and the tomb of Ptahhotep to the west.7 The site was used as a burial ground probably already from the Late Period, although the Ptolemaic and perhaps even the Roman period seem to have been its most intensive period of use.8 Ptolemaic burials have also been found in the area north of Unas funerary complex, where are located a number of tombs dating from different epochs

3 4 5 6

7 8

the god Apis were buried; the Anubieion, dedicated to the god Anubis, linked with underground burials for the sacred dogs located to the north; the Bubastieion, dedicated to the goddess Bastet, with underground burials for the sacred cats; and the Asklepieion, dedicated to the deified Imhotep who was identified with the Greek god Asklepios, which has yet to be located on the ground. For these temple complexes see, for example, Ray 1976, 147–149; Davies and Smith 1997, 118 and note 32; Davies and Smith 2005; Davies et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2006; Zivie 2000 with further references; Thompson 1988, 24, 33. Smith 1997, 390. A parallel may be provided by the processional way of the Osiris temple at Abydos which was flanked by numerous votive stelae and memorial chapels. Smith 1997, 390. Basta 1966, 15, Pl. I. PM III Part 2.1, 507. This is given as the place of provenance of a group of coffins ascribed chronologically to the long time span between the Ramesside and the Roman periods, although no specific date is assigned to the individual artefacts, PM III Part 2.1, 573 (d). Myśliwiec 1997, 103. Ćwiek 2000, 115–116.

necropolises

337

that were used for burial from the Late to the Roman periods (Pl. 2).9 In particular, interments have been found in the hypogeum of Ninetjer, in use from the New Kingdom to the Roman Period,10 the Saite hypogeum of Bocchoris,11 and the Old Kingdom mastaba of Akhethotep, which late cemetery the excavators dated to the end of the Pharaonic and the beginning of the Ptolemaic period.12 Another group of tombs used as burial ground during the Late and Ptolemaic periods are those located west of Apa Jeremias monastery, dating to the New Kingdom (Pl. 2). In particular, evidence for Ptolemaic activity is found in the tomb of Horemheb, where have been discovered burials dated to the 4th and 3rd century BC,13 in the tomb of Paser and Raʿia in use during the Late and/or early Ptolemaic periods,14 and possibly in the Tomb of Maya and Merit which may have been used as a burial place until the early Ptolemaic Period.15 By contrast, no evidence for use during the Ptolemaic Period has been found in the nearby tombs of Iurudef,16 Meryneith,17 Ramose, Khay and Pabes,18 Pay and Raʿia,19 and in that of Tia and Tia.20 In fact, burial activity at this site appears to cease around the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period. Possible reasons for this may be both the increased importance of central Saqqara at this time as a cult place for the sacred animals, as well as the tendency of this area, and therefore its tombs, to become sanded over and thus perhaps requiring considerable clearance at the time of new interments.21 Ptolemaic burials are also found at Abusir around the Saite-Persian cemetery that overlays the ruins of the pyramids and mortuary temples—such as the funerary complex of queen Khentkawes II, the mastabas of Ptahshepses,

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Bresciani 1990, 112; Dunand 1995, 3229–3230. Dreyer 2006, 153–154. Bresciani 1976, 5–6. Janot et al. 2001, 254. Schneider 1996, 1–2. Martin et al. 1985, 8, 14–15, 20–21. Raven 2001, 14–15; Schneider et al. 1991, 14. For this tomb see Raven et al. 1991, and Raven et al. 1998 for the dating of the secondary burials found in this tomb. Raven 2002, 26. Martin et al. 2001. Schneider et al. 1995. Martin et al. 1997, 13–14, 63–65. The tomb of Maya and Merit, for example, shows signs of having been excavated following the deposition of wind-blown sand. On the basis of the artefacts and a strange graffito discovered in the tomb’s superstructure, the excavators suggest that some excavation may have taken place during the Ptolemaic Period (Raven 2001, 14–15).

338

chapter 15

Tepemankh, Userkafankh and that of the Princesses (Pl. 5).22 A number of the inhumations in this area have been identified by a number of excavators as belonging to a Greek ethnic group.23 This so-called ‘Greek cemetery’ was in use for a period of about 20–30 years and appears to have been abandoned around the time of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt, although the reasons behind this remain unknown. During the Ptolemaic Period only some areas of the Giza plateau were used as burial ground, particularly around the Old Kingdom pyramids and mastabas, as well as further out into the desert. The area on the plateau is divided into a number of discrete areas known as the western and Eastern mastaba fields, associated with the pyramids of Kafre and Khufu, and the central and the southern necropolises (Pl. 3). The Eastern mastaba fields were used during the Late and Ptolemaic periods,24 while, by contrast, there is very little evidence for the use of the western mastaba fields during these periods. This may be due to the fact that not only was this area completely sanded over, it was also the farthest away from the more important areas of the plateau, the temple of Isis and the temenos of the sphinx.25 To the north-west of the sphinx, hewn out in the rock escarpment surrounding its temenos, there are a number of tombs decorated and used from the Saite Period, although it is possible that they were actually dug in the Old Kingdom and were then used again from the Late Period onward (Pl. 4).26 A number of Old Kingdom rock-cut tombs located in the escarpment between Kafre’s and Menkaure’s pyramids were also used during the Ptolemaic Period,27 while a number of burials were found inside Menkaure’s pyramid temple itself.28 Another cemetery area, dating between the 26th dynasty and the beginning of the Roman Period is the south necropolis located south-west of the Giza pyramids, towards the desert (Pl. 3).29 Here, the area known as the Gebel Ghibli appears to have served as a burial ground especially from the Saite to the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.30 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30

At least two building phases can be distinguished within the mastaba of Ptahshepses. Strouhal and Bareš 1993, Introduction. See Schäfer 1908, Pl. I; Verner 1976a, 34; and Smoláriková 2000, 68. Zivie-Coche 1991, 273–274. Zivie-Coche 1991, 281. Zivie-Coche 1991, 288–289. One such tomb, belonged to an official called Petobastis, which Zivie-Coche suggests may date to the end of the 30th dynasty or the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period. It remains uncertain how intensively this area of the plateau was used during the Ptolemaic Period (Zivie-Coche 1991, 289–290). Zivie-Coche 1991, 291. Dunand 1995, 3229. Zivie-Coche 1991, 301.

necropolises

339

Additional burials have also been found on the east bank of the Nile at Tûra El-Asmant, with burials spanning the period between the Archaic and the Roman periods (Pl. 1 and 6).31 At Hawara (Pl. 7 and 23) four distinct areas were used as burial ground during the Ptolemaic Period, while a number of ‘scattered’ burials are found in other parts of the site. One cemetery area was that identified by Petrie as ‘pit tombs with box coffins’ (Area VIII Leuven survey) (Pl. 9 and 8), another was to the north-east of the site in the area of ‘Crocodile Tomb Chapels’ (Area IX Leuven Survey).32 The latter was a newly created Ptolemaic necropolis over the 12th dynasty tombs located in this area, and was used for the burials of crocodiles as well.33 Another burial zone lay at the south-east corner of the pyramid (Area X Leuven Survey) and south-west of the pyramid (Area XI and possibly XII Leuven Survey).34 The surface ceramic collected in these areas dated from the 3rd–2nd century BC (Area XI Leuven Survey) and form the 4th–3rd century BC (Area XII Leuven Survey).35 Pharaonic tombs were also used during the Ptolemaic Period, particularly the rock-cut shafts located east and north-east of the pyramid (sub-areas VII/5 and VII/6 Leuven Survey).36 Here Petrie excavated a large number of ‘Tomb shafts cut in rock,’ which he dated, on the basis of parallels with other sites, to the Third Intermediate and later periods. Many of these showed signs of having been used in later times, as indicated by the discovery of finds dating to the Late Period inside the shafts.37 A number of Ptolemaic mummies with gilt-faced masks may have been found in shallow pits to the north-east of the site in the area of the later Roman necropolis (Area IX Leuven Survey).38 At Siut, in Middle Egypt, tombs of the Late and Ptolemaic periods appear to be located in the northern part of the necropolis, especially in the upper reaches of the mountain, as well as at the southern edge of the modern cemetery and even under it.39 Some indication for the use of Pharaonic tombs during ‘the Saite, Ptolemaic and Greco-Roman periods’ was apparently found in a

31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Yacoub 1983, 103. Petrie 1889, 8 and Pl. XXV. The site was surveyed by the Leuven Katholieke Universiteit which confirmed the presence of the mudbrick ruins reported by these earlier excavators (Uytterhoeven and Blom-Böer 2002 and Uytterhoeven 2009). Uytterhoeven 2009, 465. Uytterhoeven 2009, 465–466. Uytterhoeven 2009, 466. Uytterhoeven 2009, 466. Petrie 1889, 8; Uytterhoeven 2001, 68. Uytterhoeven 2009, 466. Kahl 2007, 62.

340

chapter 15

number of the hypogea located at the top of the hill, although no information is given as to the nature of the evidence.40 Further north, at Sharunah/el-Kom el-Ahmar Sawaris (Hutnesu), a study of tomb typology, distribution, and decorative elements, as well as ceramic analysis, indicates that the necropolis was in almost continuous use from the Old Kingdom to Late Antiquity (Pl. 10 and 11).41 Evidence for Ptolemaic activity, for example, is found in a group of Old Kingdom rock-cut tombs used from the 26th dynasty to the Roman Period.42 The area identified as Theban necropolis consisted of a number of separate cemetery areas, although it is not entirely clear whether their use was contemporaneous or sequential. Ptolemaic burials have been found at Dra abu el-Naga, Deir el-Bahari, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, el-Khokha, Qurnet Murrai and in the funerary temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu (Pl. 12). At Deir el-Bahari, the tombs located on the Asasif were one of the main burial grounds of the Ptolemaic Period. In particular, interments of this time have been found in Theban Tomb43 27 (Sheshonk),44 TT36 (Ibi),45 TT37 (Harwa),46 TT188 (Parennefer),47 TT190 dating from the Ramesside Period, and used from the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period by an official called Nesbanebdjed,48 TT196 (Padihorresnet),49 TT389 (Basa),50 TT410 (Mutirdis),51 TT411 (Psamtek-tierneheh),52 and TT414 (Ankhhor).53 This was also the location of 40 41 42

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Palanque 1903, 121; PM IV, 265. Gestermann et al. 1988, 56–57. For example, the Old Kingdom rock-cut tomb of Ipy (G7), Gomaá 1983, 140 and note 20; Gestermann et al. 1989, 9. It is in one of these tombs that a jar containing the Mallawi Papyri was found, Zaghloul 1988, 137–138; Zaghloul 1991, 255. Henceforth TT. Manniche 1987, 90; Donadoni 1971, 19; Sheshonk was chief steward of the divine adoratrices Nitocris and Ankh-nse-nefer-ib-re, who lived during the reigns of Apries and Amasis. Anonymous 1975, 14; a steward of the palace of the divine adoratrice Nitocris, in the reign of Psamtek I. PM I part 1, 68–69; originally built for the chief steward of Nitocris (Nt-i҆ḳrt), who lived during the 25th dynasty and died in the reign of Taharka. Reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, and used already from the Late Period, Redford 1996, 227–229. Kampp 1996, 480. For a reconstruction of this man’s genealogy see Quaegebeur 1995, 148– 149. Anonymous 1975, 24; reign of Nekau II and Psamtek II. Burkard 1986, 11; Manniche 1987, 144; PM I part I, 440; Chamberlain of Min and Governor of the Southern City, Saite Period. Arnold and Settgast 1970, 4; Burkard 1986, 11; Manniche 1987, 145; chief follower of the divine adoratrice, reign of Nitokris and Psammetik I. Arnold and Settgast 1966. Manniche 1987, 145; Chief steward of the divine adoratrice, the Governor of Oxyrhynchus, of Bahariya oasis and Memphis.

necropolises

341

the new Ptolemaic cemetery excavated by Winlock, Lansing and by Carter and Carnarvorn, which consisted, mostly, of brick built tombs. However, the unpublished excavation notes of Winlock and Lansing clearly show that a number of these tombs had already been built during the Late Period, and probably continued to be used during the successive period, together with those newly built at this time (Pl. 13).54 Ptolemaic burial grounds were also located at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna—elKhokha, especially in TT32 (Djehutymose),55 which had been used as a burial place from at least the 21st dynasty onward,56 TT41 (Amenemope, called Ipy),57 which continued to be used as burial place in later periods,58 TT253 (Khnummose),59 which was used almost continuously from the 18th dynasty to Coptic times,60 and TT373 (Amenmessu).61 In the Valley of the Eagle, evidence for Ptolemaic burials concentrates in and around the Bab el-Muallaq tomb, which remained in use from the New Kingdom through to the Roman Period.62 Similarly, there is limited evidence for the use of the area of Qurnet Murrai as a burial ground during this time, and consists mainly of an inscribed architectural element found in Theban tomb 380,63 indicating that the tomb was owned by a man called Anchefenrahorakhty, a chief of Thebes.64 Another large Ptolemaic burial ground was located over the ruins of the funerary temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu, north of Medinet Habu (Pl. 12 54

55

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

A full publication of the excavation notes and photographs made by Winlock and Lansing is in preparation by the author (Cannata in preparation). The north-west area of the Asasif was excavated during the 60’s and 70’s by an Austrian mission led by M. Bietak, for which see now Budka 2010. He was one of the officials at the court of Ramses II, who counted amongst his several titles that of royal scribe and that of great steward of Amun (Kákosy and Gaál 1985, 13). This is probably the tomb where the Soter family group was discovered in 1820. I thank M. Smith for drawing my attention to this. Kákosy 1985, 295. Chief steward of Amun in the Southern City, who lived under Ramses I or Seti I. Manniche 1987, 133. Assmann 1991, 217 ff.; Kampp 1996, 236. Strudwick and Strudwick 1996, 23–24; an accounts scribe who lived during the time of Tuthmosis IV or Amenhotep III. Strudwick and Strudwick 1996, 188–189. The tomb dates from the Ramesside Period and belonged to the Scribe of the altar of the lord of the two lands (Manniche 1987, 144; PM I part 1, 433). The tomb was built during the 18th dynasty, though the identity of its original owner remains unknown (Strudwick 2003, 179; Gabolde et al. 1994, 173–259). PM 1 part 1, 435. Manniche 1987, 90 and 144; Kampp 1996, 601.

342

chapter 15

and 34),65 while a group of tombs of seemingly late date has been discovered in more recent times to the north of Medinet Habu, at the junction between the road to the Valley of the Queens and the road from Dra Abu el-Naga to Malkata.66 No dating is suggested by the excavator for these tombs, although Strudwick sees this cemetery area as a continuation of the Roman necropolis located in the mortuary temple of Ay and Horemheb and extending to the west of them.67 Use of the Ramesseum as a burial ground appears to have been discontinued after the Third Intermediate Period or at the beginning of the Late Period.68 Many factors may be responsible for the decision to find new burial grounds at certain periods, not least a lack of free space. Quibell excavated around 200 tombs within this temple area, which suggests that by the beginning of the Late Period there may have been very little space available for burials.69 In addition, there is some evidence indicating that this continued to be a cult place during the Ptolemaic Period, which may also help explain why it was not used as a cemetery at this time.70 The site of Deir el-Medina, including both the New Kingdom village and its cemetery, was excavated by Bruyère in the 1930’s. Many burials of later date were found in the cemetery and even in houses inside the village. Unfortunately, the excavator’s dating of the finds and of the later interments is, at best, problematic, while the publication of his excavations contains a large number of contradictory and/or unclear statements.71 Such lack of clarity is also found in the excursus on the archaeological material from this area presented by Bataille.72 Very little funerary material from this area can be firmly attributed to the Ptolemaic Period, and it is possible that it was not used as a burial ground at this time. Indeed, the site was an active religious centre as a result of the construction of the temple to Hathor in the reign of Ptolemy IV.73 In addition, textual sources attest to the religious activities of a group of door-keepers attached to various shrines of gods and deified individuals, while no evidence for choachytal activity is found for this site.74 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Robichon and Varille 1936, 43. El-Bialy 1992, 83. Strudwick 2003, 178. Lecuyot 2000. Quibell 1898. Vandorpe 1995, 227; Strudwick 2003, 183. Strudwick 2003, 176. See for example Bataille 1952, 186–187. Strudwick 2003, 176. For the archives of the Deir el-Medina door-keepers see Botti 1967.

necropolises

343

There is also no indication for the use of the tombs in the Valley of the Queens during the Ptolemaic Period, although at least one Demotic graffito dating to year 49, perhaps in the reign of Ptolemy VIII (122–121 BC), attests to the presence there of visitors during the period under analysis.75 Similarly, there is no evidence for the use of the Pharaonic tombs in the Valley of the Kings during the Ptolemaic Period.76 Indeed, use of the latter as a burial ground was already ceasing before then. The Valley of the Kings and the Ramesseum began to be used as a cemetery for private individuals during the 22nd dynasty, particularly those of high status in the case of the latter. However, during the 25th and 26th dynasties there is a decrease in the use of the Valley’s royal tombs, which coincides with the increased preference for the area around Hutshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahari as the location for private burials. A number of suggestions have been put forward to explain this status quo. One possibility is that the area was perceived as being too sacred to be used as a burial ground.77 However, given the evidence for the use of Pharaonic and Late Period tombs in other parts of the Theban necropolis during the Ptolemaic Period, such an explanation does not entirely account for the lack of use of the Valley of the Kings tombs. In addition, the tombs in this area had already been robbed of valuables and used again for burial during the Third Intermediate Period.78 Another possible explanation is that this area had become a place of visit by pilgrims and tourists, as attested by the graffiti left by these travellers.79 Nevertheless, this would hardly account for the lack of Ptolemaic burials here given that travellers and pilgrims’ graffiti were, for example, discovered at Dra abu elNaga in the vicinity of the burial place of the sacred Ibis and Hawk.80 A more plausible explanation for the lack of use of the tombs in both the Valley of the Kings and that of the Queens rests with the remoteness of these areas, which were perhaps too distant for the funerary priests to travel to carry out the mortuary cult of the deceased in their care, or even too distant from the main burial grounds to ensure the safety of the tombs.81 In addition, not all tombs may have been accessible or even visible at this time. Bataille notes that the discovery of graffiti in the royal tombs provides an indication of the state in which these 75

76 77 78 79 80 81

Strudwick 2003, 178. The inscription is rather strange in that the first line, where the name of the dedicator would normally be, consists instead of several fractions which are then followed by a dedicatory formula to ‘Pashai of the mountain’ (Spiegelberg 1928, 26–27, B). As already noted by Bataille 1952, 174. Strudwick 2003, 184. Taylor 1992. Bataille 1952, 168–169. Spiegelberg 1908, 19–25, Pls. XXVI–XXX. Bataille 1952, 174; Strudwick 2003, 184.

344

chapter 15

tombs lay at certain periods. He notes that Strabo counted 40 tombs, while graffiti were actually recorded in only ten of the 62 tombs, and of these only two dating to the Ptolemaic Period.82 This may indicate that these tombs were not easily accessible, or even visible on the surface, and that clearing them would have been too costly and/or labour intensive. During the Late Period the Edfu cemetery was transferred to Nag el-Hisaya, 12km south of the town, also identified as an elite cemetery and used from at least the 26th dynasty onwards.83 During the Ptolemaic Period both Hager Edfu and Nag el-Hisaya were used as burial grounds, the latter being an elite cemetery, while a small cemetery was later located at el-Adwa on the east bank (Pl. 52).84 A countrywide overview of the tombs’ original construction period and its later use is summarised in the following table. In general, the data do not indicate major relocation of burial grounds during the Ptolemaic Period. Rather, the chronology and pattern of tomb (re)use shows that Ptolemaic cemeteries were located in the same areas as (or at least in proximity of) those of the Late Period, in many cases even using the latter period’s tombs. This is suggested, for example, by the absence of interments dating to these periods in the Valley of the Kings and of the Queens, the Ramesseum and the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari, which had been used as burial grounds during the Third Intermediate Period. Even the Edfu cemetery, following its relocation to Nag el-Hisaya, continued to be used during the Ptolemaic Period, and its status as an ‘elite’ burial ground maintained. This did not mean, of course, that burial grounds were not extended or new ones sought, as shown by the presence of a small cemetery at el-Adwa on the east bank of Edfu. Similarly, the ‘new cemetery’ located on the Asasif is a development of the Late Period burial area already located at the bottom end of the Deir el-Bahari temples’ causeways. An exception may be the Memphite area where use of particular burial grounds was discontinued. At Abusir, for example, use of the so-called Greek cemetery ceases at the very beginning of the Ptolemaic Period, while the rest of the area shows only some sporadic use for this period. Similarly, at Saqqara itself, use of the New Kingdom tombs to the west of the Apa Jeremias monastery was discontinued around the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period. By contrast, the area near the step pyramid and the Sarapieion Way appears to have become the necropolis of choice of different 82 83 84

Bataille 1952, 169–170. Rzeuska 1997, 157; Maspero 1885, 78; Maspero 1885a, 3–4; Daressy 1901, 127 note 2. A. Effland personal communication. The only published references for el-Adwa appear to deal with the predynastic cemetery.

345

necropolises table 12

Period of tombs’ use life

Area Memphis West of Mariette house, by the Serapieion way Between Step Pyramid and Ptahhotep mastaba North of Unas complex – Ninetjer hypogeum – Bocchoris hypogeum – Akhethotep mastaba West of Apa Jeremias monastery – Horemheb tomb – Maya and Merit tomb

Construction period

Later use

Late Period

Ptolemaic Period

Old Kingdom and FIP

Possibly from Late Period, but most intense use dates from Ptolemaic Period Area in use from Late Period From New Kingdom to Roman Period Ptolemaic Period Late Period till early Ptolemaic Period Late Period to early Ptolemaic times Shafts from 4th and 3rd century BC Shaft viii maybe used until early Ptolemaic Period Late and/or early Ptolemaic periods (two underground burial chambers in tomb of Raʿia)

Early Dynastic Saite Old Kingdom New Kingdom New Kingdom

– Paser and Raʿia tomb

New Kingdom

Abusir Pyramids, mortuary temples, and mastabas

Old Kingdom

Saite-Persian cemetery used in Ptolemaic Period

Possibly Old Kingdom Old Kingdom

Saite Period?

Saite Period onward Ptolemaic Period (some continue into Roman Period) End of dynasty 30—beginning of Ptolemaic Period Saite to Ptolemaic and Roman periods

Archaic to Ptolemaic and Roman periods

Ptolemaic and Roman periods (unclear if new or if used existing ones)

Fayum Hawara Area IX Areas VII/5 and VII/6

12th dynasty TIP and later periods

Ptolemaic Period Late and Ptolemaic periods

Middle Egypt Siut Deir er-Rifeh Sharuna Tomb R22

Pharaonic Period (hypogea) Pharaonic Period Pharaonic Period Old Kingdom(?)

Saite, Ptolemaic and Roman periods Ptolemaic (and Roman?) Period Old Kingdom to Late Antiquity Ptolemaic Period—high priest of Horus Peteamounis

Giza necropolis – North-west of Sphinx Giza central necropolis – Menkaure pyramid temple – East Khafre pyramid South Giza necropolis – Gebel-Ghibli Tura el-Asmant

Old Kingdom

346 Table 12

chapter 15 Period of tombs’ use life (cont.)

Area

Construction period

Later use

Tomb 120

Old Kingdom(?)

Tomb V23 G7—Ipy rock-cut tomb Hypogeum N16-O15-O17-O17a

Old Kingdom(?) Old Kingdom Old Kingdom(?)

Ptolemaic Period—high priest of Horus is that of Iuefaa ( I҆w=f-ꜥꜣ) Ptolemaic Period—high priest of Horus Late and/or Ptolemaic periods Ptolemaic Period—female relatives of the Horus priesthood

Thebes Dra Abu el-Naga TT156

19th dynasty

TT157 Asasif TT27 TT36 TT37 TT188 TT190 TT196 TT389

TT410

TT411

TT414

21st–22nd dynasties onward (none clearly recorded for Ptolemaic Period) Nebwenenef—19th dynasty Ptolemaic Period Sheshonk—26th dynasty Iby—26th dynasty Harwa—25th dynasty Parennefer (Pꜣ-rn-nfr)— 18th dynasty Ramesside Period? Peteharresent (Pꜣ-ty-ḥrrsn.t)—26th dynasty Basa (Bꜣsꜣ)—Saite Period (built over Middle Kingdom tomb of Intef) Mutirdis—26th dynasty (built over Middle Kingdom tomb of Intef) Psammetichos-tierneheh (Psmṯk-ty-r-nḥḥ)—Saite Period (built over Middle Kingdom tomb of Intef) Ankh-hor (ꜥnḫ-ḥr)—26th dynasty Late and Ptolemaic periods

New tombs built over Ramses IV– VI temple, temple-tombs, 17th dynasty cemetery Sheikh Abd el-Qurna—el-Khokha TT32 Djehutymose (Ḏḥwtyms)—19th dynasty TT41 Amenemope ( I҆mn-m-i҆pꜣ.t) called Ipy—19th dynasty TT253 Khnummose (H̱ nmw-ms) 18th dynasty

Ptolemaic Period Ptolemaic Period Ptolemaic Period Late and/or Ptolemaic periods Ptolemaic Period—official Nesbanebdjed Ptolemaic Period and(?) Roman Period Ptolemaic Period

dynasty 30—Ptolemaic Period (and? Roman Period) Ptolemaic Period

dynasty 30—Ptolemaic Period Late and Ptolemaic periods

21st dynasty onward Ptolemaic Period almost continuously from the 18th dynasty to Coptic times

347

necropolises Table 12

Period of tombs’ use life (cont.)

Area

Construction period

Later use

TT373

Amenmessu ( I҆mn-msw)— Ramesside Period

Ptolemaic Period

Ramesseum Valley of the Eagle Bab el-Muallaq

Not used in Ptolemaic Period

18th dynasty rock-cut tomb

Deir el-Medina

New Kingdom to Roman Period Not used in Ptolemaic Period

Qurnet Murrai TT380 Royal scribe Amenhotep son of Hapu Funerary temple

Ptolemaic Period?

Ptolemaic Period (and Roman Period?)

North of Medinet Habu

Roman Period?

Not used in Ptolemaic Period

Valley of the Queens

Not used in Ptolemaic Period

Valley of the Kings

Not used in Ptolemaic Period

Edfu Naga el-Hisaya Hager Edfu

Late Period Pharaonic (until NK)

Late Period—Ptolemaic Period Ptolemaic Period

social groups. Reasons for this change may be the increased importance of the central Saqqara, as well as the tendency of some areas to become sanded over and thus requiring constant labour to maintain tomb accessibility. Thus, even in the case of the Memphite necropolises, the data show an increase in the use of some cemeteries followed by a decrease in others, rather than major relocations of burial grounds. This, in turn, indicates that a level of continuity in burial practices existed between these periods, a factor already apparent from the analysis of textual evidence.85 The extant archaeological remains also indicate a possible zoning of burial grounds, or areas, according to the socio-economic status of the deceased. At

85

It could also indicate that there was a desire to be closely associated with this period of Egyptian history.

348

chapter 15

Saqqara, for example, excavations in the area between the Step pyramid and the mastaba of the vizier Meref-nebef (Old Kingdom) provided some indication of a division of the necropolis according to social status. The majority of mummified and coffined human remains, and those with cartonnage, were found on the eastern side of the concession between the step pyramid and the mastaba of Meref-nebef, while skeletonised inhumations are predominant on the western side of the concession between the ledge of the natural terrace and the so-called ‘dry moat.’86 The Saite-Persian cemetery at Abusir was a denselycrowded burial ground, which may have been used for interments of the lower strata of the population given the poverty of the inhumations, and by the very limited presence of burial goods.87 At Medinet Ghoran, in the Fayum, the area to the east, near the Kom, appears to have been reserved for the poorer burials.88 At Thebes there is, as yet, no evidence for a separate burial ground for lower level inhumations, while at Edfu the Nag el-Hisaya burial ground appears to have been an elite cemetery.89 Another factor that becomes apparent from the analysis of burial grounds is the lack of planning of cemetery areas.90 In fact, individual tombs did not follow a specific layout or arrangement, rather they appear to have grown mostly organically, which is, perhaps, not surprising given that even settlements were, in the main, unplanned. This in turn raises the question of the tombs’ visibility above ground. In the case of chapel-tombs this would not be a problem, but for shaft-tombs backfilled after each interment, and for simple pits in the ground, there must have been a way of clearly locating them. The fact that several bodies, presumably family members, are placed side by side also indicates some knowledge of the location of such burials. Clearly some form of marker must have been used to identify these burials, and, indeed, tomb stelae have been recovered from many sites around the country.91 In the Fayum, with the exception of Hawara where a small number of tombstones have been found, tomb markers are conspicuous for their absence. Instead, a range of organic materials appears to have been used for the purpose of marking the location

86 87 88 89 90

91

Myśliwiec 2002, 354. Strouhal and Bareš 1993, Introduction. The site also provides evidence for the existence of a separate ethnic burial ground (for which see above). Jouguet 1901. The only published references for el-Adwa appear to deal with the predynastic cemetery. Strudwick (2003, 178) for example remarks on the haphazard arrangement of the burials in the funerary temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu by comparison with the Roman cemetery located nearer to Medinet Habu. See for example those published by Abdalla 1992, Bernand 1992, and Winnicki 1992.

necropolises

349

of the grave.92 At Tebtunis tombs were marked using limestone slabs, column disks, bricks arranged in geometrical patterns, necks of vessels, rose wreaths, and plated palm fronds placed vertically into the ground.93 The use of organic material as tomb markers in the Fayum was also noted by a number of early excavators. At Medinet Ghoran most of the tombs, even the poorer ones, were marked with two vertical, parallel branches, tied with a horizontal, smaller one by means of a fibre cord. These generally stood at the head, and sometimes at the feet, of the deceased. In some cases, the extremity of the larger branches was crudely carved with human figures. Rarely, the name of the person was roughly inscribed on the wood.94 The same use of branches was attested by Grenfell and Hunt at Kasr el-Banat, in later Ptolemaic burials (from 150 BC), and at Theadelphia and Umm el-Baragat in tombs of the Roman Period, when their use became very common. These reeds—tied reeds, individual branches, and reed bundles—were interpreted by the excavators as the remains of the bier used to bring the deceased to the necropolis, which was then buried with the deceased to demarcate the burial area and protect it from damage when digging for a new grave. The excavators also suggested that these would not be visible above ground, but stood just below the surface.95 However, if this was their purpose, they must have projected out of the ground, even if by a few centimetres,96 especially given that at Medinet Ghoran the tombs lay just below the surface.97 It is possible that the use of organic grave markers was more widespread than it would at first appear, though their use is attested only in the Fayum cemeteries where, because of their remoteness, were more likely to be preserved, while in the more central burial grounds they disappeared without any record.

92 93

94 95 96 97

Uytterhoeven 2009, 251. Gallazzi and Hadji-Minaglou 2000, 26–27; Grimal 1995, 589; Davoli 1998, 197. The palm branch was viewed as a symbol of time and was used for reckoning years, while in a funerary context it was a symbol of eternal life, hence the reference in funerary texts to its presentation to the deceased (Smith 2009, 256 note 55; Smith 1987, 83 notes to Col. IV line 8; Dils 1990, 82). The tombs showed no evidence for the use of a superstructure covering the inhumations (Jouguet 1901, 402). Jouguet 1901, 402; Grenfell et al. 1900, 56. Thus also Davoli 1998, 219 note 362. Jouguet 1901, 402.

350 2

chapter 15

Funerary Landscape: Topographical Textual Notes

While the texts offer tantalising glimpses on how the funerary landscape was perceived, at least by the funerary attendants, specific evidence on its topography is lacking. In general necropolises were identified by the name of the city or town to which they belonged. Thus the Theban necropolis is described, in relation to the main city, as being in ‘the areas in the ˹west of˺ Thebes in [the necropolis] of Djeme’ (nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w n tꜣ ˹i҆mnṱ n˺ nw.t n [tꜣ ḫꜣs.t] ḏmꜣ) (lines 1–2) in P. BM EA 10226 (185 BC), while the cemetery land is defined as ‘the plot[s of land of Thebes in the] necropolis of Djeme’ (nꜣ wrḥ.[w nw.t n tꜣ] ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ) (line 4) in P. E. Adler 31 (178–177? BC). Another example is found in P. Mallawi Museum 602/7 (101BC), from Middle Egypt, where party B is identified as a ‘god’s seal-bearer in the necropolis in the north of ˹Ḥ.t-nn-nsw,˺ Horos son of Heremdjertief and Senpsais’ (ḫtmw-nṯr n tꜣ ḫꜣsy.t n pr-mḥṱ n ḥ.t-nn-nsw ḥr sꜣ ḥr-m-ḏr.ṱ=f mw.t(=f ) tꜣ-šr.t-n-pꜣ-šy) (lines 2–3).98 Otherwise necropolises are identified simply as belonging to a specific settlement. For example, ‘the necropolis of Taachiar,’99 ‘the necropolis of Hutnesu,’100 and ‘the necropolis of Shaiueshetep.’101 The Demotic documents from the Fayum identify the Hawara burial grounds as ‘the necropolis of Hawara,’102 as ‘the necropolis of the Sobek settlement, Hawara,’103 or more fully as ‘the necropolis of the Sobek settlement, Hawara, within the outskirts on the northern side of the Moeris canal, in the district of Herakleides in the nome of Arsinoe’ (tꜣ ḫꜣs.t nt n tmy sbk ḥ.t-wly ẖn nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w bnr ḥr pꜣ ꜥt mḥṱ tꜣ ḥny mꜣ-wr tny hyrḳltꜣws pꜣ tš ꜣrsynꜣ) (lines 3–5).104 Similarly, smaller burial grounds in other settlements are identified by the name of the settlement to which they belong. For example, the necropolis of Pabunim, the necropolis of ˹Waherker,˺105 the necropolis of Mendes and the necropolis of Pawawa.106 In some instances documents give additional information on the location of these necropolises, as in the case of P. Hamburg 4–8 (92 BC) which specifies that the endowments are attached to the necropolises of Hawara and to those

98

99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

Such a specification does not necessarily imply that there was another necropolis in a different area of the town. A similar description is also found in P. BM EA 10226 (185BC) which describes the Theban necropolis as being in ‘the areas in the ˹west˺ of Thebes.’ P. Mallawi 602/7 (101 BC), Middle Egypt. P. Mallawi 602/7 (101 BC) and P. Mallawi 602/9 (100 BC), Middle Egypt. P. BM EA 10575 (181 BC) and P. BM EA 10591 (170 BC), Middle Egypt. For example P. Ashmolean D. 3 (1968.3) (115 BC) and P. Cairo 50126 (116–107BC). For example P. Ashmolean D. 4 (1968.4) + D. 5 (1968.5) + D. 6 (1968.6) (98 BC). P. BM EA 10604 (85 BC). P. O.I. 25262 (292 BC). P. Hamburg 2 (83 BC).

necropolises

351

in ‘Ptolemais Hormou, Syron Kome, Kerkesoucha Orous, Psenharyo and Sele, which are on the outskirts of the district of Herakleides in the nome of Arsinoe’ (rꜣ-tꜣ-ḥny pꜣ-sbt-nꜣ-i҆šwr.w pꜣ-grg-sbk, pꜣ-sy-ḥr-wḏꜣ šy-ꜥlꜣ nt ẖn nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w bnr tꜣ tny.t hyrḳlty pꜣ tš ꜣrsynꜣ) (lines 5–6). However, what is perhaps surprising is that the Hawara necropolis is never identified in Demotic by reference to the Labyrinth, only in Greek documents. Thus the petitioner in P. Rylands 577 (146 or 135 BC) is identified as ‘Protomachus son of Harmais, an embalmer of the Labyrinth.’ Party B in S.B. 1 5216 (1st century BC) are identified as ‘the stolistai of the Labyrinth (in Hawara),’ while the letter recorded in PSI 857 (196–195/172–171BC) is addressed to ‘the stolistai of the Labyrinth.’ Similarly, the Greek subscription on the recto of P. BM EA 10604 (85BC) and P. Hamburg 2 (83BC) identifies the burial income object of the transactions recorded in these documents as that of ‘the taricheutes of the Labyrinth,’ and as that of ‘the taricheutes of the dead which is in the Labyrinth.’ On the other hand, the Siut necropolis appears to have had a separate name. This is indicated by P. BM EA 10575 (181 BC) in which Petetumis, son of Totoes, and his son Tuefhapi are identified as a ‘lector-priest in the necropolis of Taanch in Siut’ (ẖr-ḥb n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n tꜣ-ꜥnḫ n sywṱ) (line 2), and in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) where both parties are also identified as a ‘lector-priest in the necropolis of Taanch in Siut’ (ẖr-ḥb n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n tꜣ-ꜥnḫ n sywṱ) (lines 10–11). In addition, the Theban necropolis itself was perceived as being on two levels, an upper one, possibly referring to the Dra Abu el-Naga mountain, and a lower one, perhaps referring to the Asasif, and the plane between Dra Abu elNaga and Wadi Qabbanet el-Qirud.107 This is clearly indicated in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC), a contract of sale for a plot of land which is described as being ‘located in the upper necropolis of Djeme’ (nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣst ḥry ḏmꜣ) (line 2). On the other hand P. BM EA 10240 (228–227BC), a contract for the hiring of a choachyte’s services, describes the tomb in which the priest is to work as being in ‘the lower necropolis of Djeme’ (tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ẖry ḏmꜣ) (recto II line 3). An indication of the possible division of the necropolis in discrete areas, for example according to the four cardinal points, is found in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) where three of the tombs listed are said to be ‘on the southern part of the necropolis of Memphis’ (ḥr pꜣ mꜣꜥ rs n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n mn-nfr) (line 3).108 Another 107 108

Strudwick 2003, Fig. 8. Presumably others could have been described as being in the northern, western or eastern area of the necropolis, but direct evidence for this is lacking. This may perhaps be suggested by the description of some of the revenues transferred in P. Leiden I 380 a–b (64 BC) which are identified as ‘pertaining to endowment revenue (and) lector-priest revenue (…) (in) the Memphite Necropolis, south (to) north’ (n.m-sꜣ šty sꜥnḫ šty ẖr-ḥb (…) tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr pꜣ rs pꜣ mḥt) (line 4), although it is also very possible that the clause is used to convey a sense of inclusiveness.

352

chapter 15

example is found in P. Mallawi 602/10 (111 BC), from Middle Egypt, in which the plaintiff, the lector priest Petenoubis, declares to have divided with his colleagues some places of revenue located on the ‘northern side of (the necropolis of) Hutnesu.’ In addition, the discovery in the Giza necropolis of three stone blocks, dating to the Late Period, inscribed in the Demotic script with the names of a number of choachytes, suggests that a division into discrete areas, each under the control of different mortuary priests, may have been implemented in the Memphite necropolis too.109 The excavator had originally assigned these artefacts to the Roman period. Spiegelberg dated them to the Ptolemaic period, while, in view of the cursive character of the script, Vleeming suggests they date to the pre-Ptolemaic period.110 Petrie posited that because of the lack of funerary formulae, and because of the mention of choachytes’ names, these blocks could have designated the necropolis’ districts for which the named funerary attendants were responsible.111 Unfortunately, he does not provide any detail as to the archaeological context in which these were discovered, beyond the fact that they were scattered in the cemetery, or whether remains of associated structures were present, and it is, therefore, difficult to determine with certainty what function they served.112 It is possible that these blocks were inserted within masonry courses, above the door, or even inside a niche cut in the rock, to identify (funerary) properties belonging to the named individuals. A number of stelae used to identify home owners have been found, for example, at Karnak, to the east of the sacred lake in an area reserved for priestly quarters, where they were placed above the doorframe.113 At Thebes, P. BM EA 25285 (241 BC) indicates that the area in which the new Ptolemaic brick tombs were located was perhaps identified as the ‘necropolis (of) vaulted tombs’ (tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ˹ꜥ.wy kpi҆.w˺) (line 3), although the reading of the passage is not certain.114 Features within the landscape were also used as landmarks to facilitate the identification of the various funerary structures. Thus P. BM EA 10240 (228– 227BC) gives as the northern and western neighbour of the tomb the mountain, probably again the Dra Abu el-Naga mountain. Similarly, in the agreement concerning the division of tombs recorded in P. BM EA 10612 (175 BC) one of the

109 110 111 112 113 114

Petrie 1907, 29 § 81.1–3, Pl. XXXVIIA. Spiegelberg 1932, 8; Vleeming 2001, 245–247. The texts are also published by Farid 1995, 241 § 18.1–3. Petrie 1907, 29 § 81.1–3. Petrie 1907, 29. Anus et al. 1971, 220, 228, Fig. 8 and 16; Lauffray et al. 1971, 72. The document is a burial tax receipt, for which see Muhs 2011, 171, doc. 129.

necropolises

353

structures listed is described as ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel which is destroyed and which borders the ˹dam˺ of the blessed one Esptais’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ nt ḫfṱ nt tm r ˹tn˺ pꜣ ḥry ns-ptḥ) (line 10).115 Similarly in P. Leiden I 373b–c (204–203 BC) and P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) from Memphis, which give the mountain as the western neighbour of the tombs mentioned, while P. Leiden I 373 b–c (204–203BC) also mentions a canal to the north of the tomb and along which stood two storehouses. P. BM EA 10240 (228–227BC), cited above, indicates that another way of identifying a particular funerary structure in the necropolis was by means of the name of its (original) owner.116 In P. BM EA 10827 (273–272 BC), from Thebes, for example, one of the tombs listed is identified as ‘the s.t-tomb of Petemestous son of Esminis which is called the ḥ.t-tomb of Harwa’ (tꜣ s.t n pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nswtꜣ.wy sꜣ ns-mn nt i҆w=w ḏ n=s tꜣ ḥ.t n ḥrwꜣ) (line 4).117 In P. BM EA 10226 (185 BC) the seller describes the tomb alienated as ‘my s.t-tomb [which is called] the s.ttomb of Psemminis son of Harmais (in) the areas in the ˹west of˺ Thebes in [the necropolis] of Djeme’ (tꜣy=y s.t nt [i҆w=w ḏ] ˹n˺=s tꜣ s.t n pꜣ-šr-mn sꜣ ḥr-mḥb nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w n tꜣ ˹i҆mnṱ n˺ nw.t n [tꜣ ḫꜣs.t] ḏmꜣ) (recto III lines 1–2). And similarly, in the same document, which lists: ‘the other s.t-tomb which is north of the s.t-tomb of P˹semminis˺ together with my other s.t-tomb which is called the [˹s.t-tomb of˺] Paoueris son of ˹ Repu˺ which is north of the blessed one Esminis’ (tꜣ ḳ.t s.t nt i҆r mḥṱ n tꜣ s.t pꜣ-˹šr-mn˺ ḥnꜥ tꜣy=y ḳ.t s.t nt i҆w=w ḏ n=s tꜣ [˹s.t n˺] pa-wrṱ.w sꜣ ˹rpw˺ nt i҆r mḥṱ pꜣ ḥry ns-mn) (col. IV lines 1–2). Additional examples are found in several other documents including P. BM EA 10227 (230 BC) which lists ‘the s.t-tomb of Thatres which is in the northern ˹area˺ of the mꜣꜥ-chapel of Chrates’ (tꜣ s.t n tꜣ-ḥtr.t nt n nꜣ ˹ꜥy˺ (or ꜥꜣ) mḥṱ pꜣ mꜣꜥ n grts) (line 3). In P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC) one of the tombs sold is described as ‘this s.t-tomb which is south of the šꜥšꜥ-chapel of Amenothes’ (tꜣy s.t nt i҆r rs n pꜣ šꜥšꜥ i҆mn-ḥtp) (line 5). Similarly in P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) one of the tombs transferred is identified as ‘the s.t-tomb which is near the s.t-tomb of Sopatros on the west’ (tꜣ s.t nt tm r tꜣ s.t n swptrws n pꜣ i҆mnṱ) (line 4), and ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of Pꜣ-[…] which is near to Phthomouthes’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ pꜣ-[…] nt tm r pꜣy-fdw-mnṱ) (line 8). P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC), from Memphis, lists the ḥ.t-tomb of Pabastet and the ḥ.t-tomb of Taes (line 4), while in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) are listed a large number of ꜥ.wy-rmṯ

115

116 117

Andrews notes that if this is not another variant writing of the word ‘dike’ it probably is some other kind of structure (1990, 74 note 8). Interestingly, an ancient dam is marked on a map of the central part of the Valley of the Queens (Strudwick 2003, Fig. 7), although it is not possible to determine whether this is the place where the mꜣꜥ-chapel was located. This may or may not be an indication of them being reused tombs. For correction from Tarua to Harwa see Den Brinker et al. 2005a, 69.

354

chapter 15

tombs, all of which are identified by the name of the owner or occupant. In Leiden I 379 (256BC) one of the tombs listed is described as ‘this ḥ.t-tomb which is called the ḥ.t-tomb of Tamehi’ (tꜣy ḥ.t nt i҆w=w ḏ n=s tꜣ ḥ.t n ta-mh̭ y) (line 4), while two further tombs are identified as ‘the ḥ.t-tomb called ḥ.t-tomb of Atum (and) the forecourt called the forecourt of Pamenis son of Psenhapi’ (tꜣ ḥ.t nt i҆w=w ḏ n=s tꜣ ḥ.t n i҆tm pꜣ ꜣrb nt i҆w=w ḏ n=s pꜣ ꜣrb n pa-mn sꜣ pꜣ-šr-ḥꜥpy) (line 4). Similarly in P. Leiden I 373 b–c (204–203BC), which lists ‘the stone ḳꜣ-tomb called the stone ḳꜣ-tomb of Ptahmaacheru’ (pꜣ ḳꜣ n i҆ny nt ⟨i҆w=w⟩ ḏ n=f pꜣ ḳꜣ n i҆ny n ptḥ-mꜣꜥ[ḫrw]) (line 3), and in P. Leiden I 380 a–b (64BC), which lists ‘the stone ḳꜣ-tomb (…) which is called the ḳꜣ-tomb of Phchoiphis’ (pꜣ ḳꜣ i҆ny (…) nt i҆w=w ḏ n=f pꜣ ḳꜣ pꜣ-kp) (line 5).118 The liturgies transferred in P. Louvre E 3266 (197 BC) include ‘the [ḥ.t-tomb which is] called the ḥ.t-tomb of Horos and your ⅓ share of the northern ḥ.t-tomb’ (tꜣ [ḥ.t nt i҆w=w] ḏ n=s tꜣ ḥ.t n ḥr ḥnꜥ tꜣy=t tni҆.t ⅓ n tꜣ ḥ.t mḥt) (line 9 K–L), where the location of the second tomb is probably determined through reference to the ḥ.t-tomb of Horos. Another instance is found in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) which lists ‘the 1/8 share of the upper burial-(place) and the lower burial-(place)’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 n tꜣ ḳs.t ḥry.t tꜣ ḳs.t ẖrꜣ.t) (line 9). In this case it seems logical to assume that their position is described in terms of their relation to one another and to the landscape, perhaps suggesting that they stand one at the top and the other at the base of a rocky outcrop. Structures and lands located in the necropolis could be known by the name of a previous owner also in Middle Egypt, as in the case of the ‘storehouses located in the necropolis of Siut ⟨which are⟩ called “the storehouses of Matraios son of Eba”’ (nꜣ pr.w-ḥḏ nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t sywt mtw=w ḏ ⟨n=w⟩ nꜣ pr.w-ḥḏ n mtry sꜣ ebꜣ) (col. Bvii line 17–18), and the ‘lands of the house, which is in ruins, them being on the necropolis of Siut which are called “the place of Petaus”’ (nꜣ wrḥ.w n ꜥ.wy nt h̭ rh̭ r i҆w=w ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n sywt nt i҆w=w ḏ n=w pꜣ ꜥ.wy n pꜣy-tw=w) (col. Bviii lines 8–9) both listed in P. BM EA 10591 (170BC). Prominent features of the landscape were also the religious structures, and indeed they were used as landmarks in the Memphite necropolis when describing tombs’ neighbours. The temple of Isis lady of Anchtawi, for example, is attested in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC), where it is given as the western neighbour of the properties listed (rs tꜣ rsy n pꜣ i҆rpꜣy n i҆s.t nb.t ꜥnḫ-tꜣ.wy (…) i҆mnt pꜣ i҆rpꜣy [n i҆s.t nb.t] ꜥnḫ-tꜣ.wy) (line 3), and in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) in which a tomb’s southern neighbour is the watch-post of the temple of Isis lady of Anchtawi.119 118

119

The previous descriptions parallel the expression used in Theban documents to identify the tomb of Harwa, which is one of the largest temple-tombs in the necropolis. On the use of this tomb in the Ptolemaic Period see Chapter 16 §4. Martin 2009, 50 and Text 9.

necropolises

355

Similarly, in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) the northern neighbour of the properties transferred is ‘the tomb of (the) royal scribe of accounts of (the) temple (of the) peak (of) Anchtawi Djehorsechmet’ (mḥt tꜣ ḥ.t n sẖ n pꜣ Pr-ꜥꜣ i҆w=f i҆p n ḥ.t-ntr thny {pꜣ} ꜥnḫ-tꜣ.wy ḏ-ḥr-sḫm.t) (line 11).120 As is to be expected, a network of pathways allowed access to various parts of the necropolis and its tombs. In the Theban documents, some are simply identified as the ‘path’ in-between structures, as in P. Wien ÄS 6052 (239 BC) and P. Philadelphia XXIV (227BC), others identify them as the path of a specific structure, as in the case of P. Philadelphia XIX (240 BC) which mentions the ‘path of the resting place of the Ibis’ (pꜣ myt n pꜣ ꜥ.wy-ḥtp n pꜣ hb) (line 2), and P. BM EA 10223 (171? BC) that calls it simply the ‘path of the resting place’ (pꜣ myt pꜣ ꜥ.wy-ḥtp) (lines 6–7). P. BM EA 10388 (223BC) mentions the ‘path of Amun to Djeme’ (tꜣ my.t i҆mn r ḏmꜣ) (line 3), which possibly refers to one of the religious processional ways, while P. Philadelphia XXVI (217 BC) refers to the ‘path of Amun’ (tꜣ my.t i҆mn) (line 5). Similarly in documents from Memphis, in which pathways are simply identified as the ‘path’ or ‘road’ in-between structures,121 while others are identified as the path of a specific structure, as in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC), which calls it ‘the road of the storehouse of the ḳꜣ-tomb’ (pꜣ myt n tꜣ šmy.(t) ḳꜣ) (line 3). In the same document is found a reference to what may have been a religious processional way since the western neighbour is ‘the road of Anubis’ (tꜣ my.t n i҆np) (line 3), while P. Leiden I 373 b–c (204–203 BC), identifies it ‘the road of Anubis-who-is-upon-his-mountain, the great god’ (tꜣ my.t i҆np tp-tw=f pꜣ ntr ꜥꜣ) (line 7). Finally, another road mentioned in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) is ‘the road of pharaoh Shabaka’ (tꜣ my.t n pr-ꜥꜣ šbkꜣ) which is given as the western landmark of the tomb transferred. A similar scenario is attested from Middle Egypt. From P. BM EA 10591 (170BC) we learn that one such path in the necropolis of Siut was called ‘the path of god’ (tꜣ my.t nṯr) (col. Bvii line 17) where it is listed as the east and west neighbour of a storehouse, while others are more generically identified as ‘road.’ Similarly, in P. Mallawi Museum 602– 7 (101BC) the endowment appears to comprise a number of tombs which are identified as being ‘towards the path’ (r pꜣ myt) (line 3). In some instances one gets the impression that similar types of constructions clustered together. Thus in P. Philadelphia XIX (240 BC), from Thebes, the s.t-tomb sold is bordered by other s.t-tombs, as shown in Fig. 10. Similarly, the two mꜣꜥ-chapels sold in P. Philadelphia XXVI (217 BC) are bordered by other mꜣꜥ-chapels (as well as some plots of land), while the mꜣꜥ-chapel sold in P. Wien ÄS 6052 (239BC) is surrounded by mꜣꜥ-chapels on each side as shown in the schematic reconstruction in Fig. 11. 120 121

Martin 2009, 49–50 and Text 5. For example in P. Leiden I 379 (256 BC) and P. BM EA 10384 (132BC).

356

chapter 15

figure 10 Schematic reconstruction of the s.t-tomb sold in P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC) (Thebes) and its neighbours

figure 11

Schematic reconstruction of the mꜣꜥ-chapel sold in P. Wien ÄS 6052 (239BC) (Thebes) and its neighbours

In P. BM EA 10388 (223BC) a choachyte buys a plot of land in the necropolis in order to build a s.t-tomb, the neighbouring properties are all s.t-tombs (Fig. 12). Other times the landscape appears slightly more diverse, as for example in P. BM EA 10226 (185BC) where the s.t-tomb sold neighbours the mountain, a mr-chapel and another s.t-tomb Fig. 13). Among the various constructions present in the Theban necropolis there are also some structures identified as rooms (ry.t). Thus in P. Philadelphia V (302BC) it is stated that party A, a choachyte, owned a room to the east of the tomb sold, while in P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC) party A sells: ‘this western room, which is built and roofed, within the courtyard of the s.t-tomb of Pasis’ (tꜣy ry.t i҆mnṱ nt ḳt ḥbs ẖn pꜣ i҆nḥ tꜣ s.t pa-sy) (lines 7–8). The texts do not state whether these would have been used as a storage place, in which case one would expect it to be identified as such, or as a tomb which again might have been described so. Perhaps these were rooms inside bigger structures, such as

necropolises

357

figure 12 Schematic reconstruction of the plot of land in the Theban necropolis bought by a choachyte with P. BM EA 10388 (223 BC) to build a s.t-tomb

figure 13 Schematic reconstruction of the s.t-tomb sold in P. BM EA 10226 (185BC) (Thebes) and its neighbours

storehouses. Different types of chapels or offering-places are also attested. In P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC) the properties sold include: ‘the western chapel which is within the courtyard of the s.t-tomb of the blessed one ˹Pamesha˺’ (tꜣ ꜣtrꜣ.t i҆mnṱ nt ẖn pꜣ i҆nḥ n tꜣ s.t n pꜣ ḥry ˹pꜣ-mšꜥ˺) (line 4), while in P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC) there is mention of an ‘ꜥb-chapel (or offering-place) of Isis belonging to Kesimua’ (tꜣ ꜥb n i҆s.t n ksymwꜣ) (col. 2 line 20). In addition, P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) suggests a certain division of the Memphite necropolis burial ground according to the deceased’s ethnic background since it lists amongst others ‘the 1/8 share (of) the burial-(places)122 of ⟨the⟩ Gree[k]s (in) the courtyard of the Great Ones (on) The-new-land-of-theGreeks’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 tꜣ ḳs.t ⟨nꜣ⟩ wyn[n].w pꜣ i҆nḥ nꜣ wr.w tꜣ mꜣy nꜣ wynn.w) (line 8), and ‘the 1/8 share of the Carians’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 n nꜣ krs.w) (line 9).123 The same

122 123

Taking the noun ḳs.t ‘burial’ as an abbreviation for (ꜥ.wy)-ḳs.t (places of) burial. The exact location and nature of ‘the courtyard of the Great Ones’ is uncertain. Martin

358

chapter 15

document also mentions ‘the 1/8 share of the vault of/for [the] quarter of the Greek[s]’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 tꜣ ḳp n [tꜣ] i҆weꜣ.t nꜣ wynn.[w]) (line 9–10),124 which suggests the existence of burial places reserved for individuals resident in this Quarter. P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) also lists ‘the share of the Meqwesh’ (tꜣ dni҆.t 1/8 nꜣ mḳwš.w) (line 10) which seems to be a designation for an ethnic group, perhaps of Libyan origin.125 Another example may be found in P. Wien ÄS 9479 (P. Innsbruck) (75BC) which lists the ‘⅓ share of the three ḳꜣ-tomb(s) that are ˹part˺ of the aforesaid endowment in the necropolis of Memphis (and) that are called the ḳꜣ-tomb of the ˹Medes˺’ (tni҆.t ⅓ pꜣ ḳꜣ 3 nt ˹ẖr˺ pꜣ sꜥnḫ nt ḥry ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr nt i҆w=w ḏ n=w pꜣ ḳꜣ pꜣ ˹mnte˺) (line 11).126

3

God’s Acre: Possession, Taxation and Acquisition of Plots and Tombs

Ownership of the land in the necropolis rested with the temple as indicated by the fact that payment of the transfer-tax on building plots and tombs was made to this institution.127 The receipt recorded on O. BM EA 66383 (241? BC), for example, specifies that ‘Harsiesis son of Amenothes has brought 2½ kite to the temple for the value of the plot of land’ (i҆n ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t sꜣ i҆mn-ḥtp ḥḏ ḳt 2½ n ḥ.t-nṯr n swn pꜣ wrḥ) (lines 1–2). Similarly in O. TT373 doc. 2369 (227 BC), which reads: ‘Herieus son of Imouthes has brought 2½ kite to the temple in the name of the plot of land which he has taken’ (i҆n hry.w sꜣ i҆y-m-ḥtp ḳt 2½ r ḥ.t-nṯr (n)rn pꜣ wrḥ i҆.ṯ=f ) (lines 1–2). P. E. Adler 31 (178–177? BC) records payment ‘for the value of the plots of land to the temple’ (mḥ=f swn.[ṱ=w] r ḥ.t-nṯr) (line 8); while

124

125 126

127

(2009, 128 note xxv) suggests the epithet refers to deities of the necropolis, although it seems also possible that it refers to a collective burial place of distinguished people. Martin translates the preposition n as ‘in’ and thus understands this structure as being located in Memphis itself in the Quarter of the Greeks, suggesting that this may be the place where the deceased were kept prior to their removal to the necropolis (Martin 2009, 129 note xxxiv). However, aside from the fact that there is no evidence the deceased were ever kept in the city following death, the preposition can also be understood as either the dative ‘for’ or as the genitive ‘of,’ thus meaning that this (burial)-vault was reserved for the burials of individuals resident in the Greek quarter, rather than indicating that the vault itself was located there. Martin 2009, 129 note xxxvi. The signs m and t seem clear enough, but the sign above what looks like a t could be either n or even s, the writing does not appear to me to be that of mty or ‘Medes’ proposed by Sethe and Partsch 1920, 739. For this funerary tax see below.

necropolises

359

in O. Louvre 314 (Ptolemaic) it is specified that ‘Espemetis son of Paardjeba(?) has brought 2½ kite to the temple’ (line 1), and in O. Louvre 93 (Ptolemaic) that ‘Maimehti son of Searthos has brought the value in silver for 3⅔ cubits (of land) to the temple (of) Thebes’ (i҆n mꜣy-mḥṱ sꜣ ṯ-ḥr-pꜣ-tꜣ ˹n ḥḏ˺ swn mḥ-i҆tn 3⅔ n ḥ.t-nṯr nw.t) (lines 1–2). On the other hand, in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC) the seller declares: ‘I have given it to you, it belongs to you, (and) it is your two land cubits, which I bought from (the temple of) Amun’ (tw=y s n=k mtw=k s pꜣy=k mḥ-i҆tn 2 nt ḥry nꜣ.w r-i҆n=y ḏbꜣ ḥḏ i҆.i҆r i҆mn) (lines 3–4).128 Indirect evidence is found in P. Philadelphia V (302 BC), O. BM EA 66383 (241? BC), O. Pont. Bibl. Inst. (227BC), P. Philadelphia XXVI (217 BC), P. BM EA 10223 (171? BC), O. Louvre 92 (Ptolemaic), O. Louvre 93 (Ptolemaic) and O. Louvre 314 (Ptolemaic) where the properties neighbouring the plot of land, or the tomb, object of the transaction are defined as the plots of land of Amun (wrḥ.w n I҆mn). Ownership of the necropolis land by the temple of Amun, is also indirectly indicated by the fact that the scribe responsible for the registration of O. Pont. Bibl. Inst. (227BC) and O. Louvre 92 (Ptolemaic) was the representative of the god’s-father and lesonis of Amun, while O. Louvre 93 (Ptolemaic) identifies the sum paid as ‘the money (of) the servant and the lesonis of Amun’ (nꜣ ḥḏ.w pꜣ bꜣk pꜣ mr-šn i҆mn) (line 3). The payments recorded in the previous receipts are those for another funerary tax, the transfer duty on building plots and tombs in the necropolis, attested from Thebes in the Ptolemaic Period. The amount paid was 2½ kite irrespectively of the size of the parcel. Although the use of the noun swn could suggest this was the actual cost of the land, the identification of this sum as tax of the necropolis (tni҆.t n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t), both in P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301 BC) and P. BM EA 10528 (291BC), indicates this was a duty, rather than the price paid for the parcel.129 The land transfer-tax is attested from the receipts listed in table 13. A number of these receipts also give the size of the building plot (see table 14 below). The size ranges from 43 to 366⅔ sq cubits, while the amount paid remained 2½ kite in every instance, thus further showing that the latter was a tax and not the cost of the plot.

128

129

As discussed in Chapter 13 § 4, the individuals named as payers in these receipts were choachytes who paid this and the burial tax on behalf of the family. For a list of the taxpayers that appear in both types of funerary receipts see Table A.5. Contrary to Andrews’ suggestion (1990, 46–47 note 2) that on the basis of O. BM EA 66383 and O. Louvre 92 it could be established that at Thebes one land cubit in the early Ptolemaic Period cost 1 silver kite; see also Vleeming 1994, 115.

360 table 13

chapter 15 Land transfer-tax receipts with amounts paid

Document and date

Description

Amount

O. BM EA 14026 (255BC) O. Strasbourg D 2037 (243BC) O. BM EA 66383 (241BC) O. Louvre 92 (241BC) O. GMi 121 (229BC) O. Pontif. Bibl. Inst. (O. varia 53) (227BC) O. TT 373 doc. 2369 (O. varia 56) (227BC) P. E. Adler 31 (178–177? BC)a O. Louvre 93 (Ptolemaic) O. Louvre 314 (Ptolemaic)

Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot

2½ kite 2½ kite 2½ kite 2[˹½˺] kite 2½ kite – 2½ kite – [?] 2½ kite

a The receipt, recorded on a fragmentary papyrus, probably dates to regnal year 4 of Ptolemy, but unfortunately much of the titulary is in lacuna. The date 178–177BC(?), corresponding to regnal year 4 of Ptolemy VI, is suggested on the basis of the taxpayer’s identity, the choachyte Panas son of Espemetis, who is probably the same individual as the contractor in P. BM EA 10830 (198 BC), P. BM EA 10839 (198–186 BC), P. BM EA 10614 (175BC) and P. BM EA 10615 (175 BC). table 14

Land transfer-tax receipts with size of building plots and amount paid

Document and date

Building plot size Amount

O. BM EA 14026 (255BC) O. Strasbourg D 2037 (243BC) O. BM EA 66383 (241BC) O. Louvre 92 (241 BC) O. Pontif. Bibl. Inst. (O. varia 53) (227BC) O. Louvre 93 (Ptolemaic) O. Louvre 314 (Ptolemaic)

43sq.? cubits 194sq. cubits 250sq. cubits 200sq. cubits 100sq. cubits 366⅔ sq. cubits 300sq. cubits

2½ kite 2½ kite 2½ kite 2[˹½˺] kite – [?] 2½ kite

The same tax amount is attested in a small number of receipts in which the sum is defined as the tax of the tomb (table 15). P. Brussels 8256a clearly identifies this tax as a duty charged on the transfer of tombs since it records the ‘payment from Teos son of Iuefau (of) 2½ kite including the writing fee of ½ kite (for) the tax (on) the s.t-tomb which he handed over to Harsiesis son of Onnophris’

361

necropolises table 15

Tomb transfer-tax receipts with amounts paid

Document and date

Description

Amount

P. Brussels 8256b (315? BC) T. BN 1892 (315–314BC) P. Brussels 8256a (310? BC) P. Philadelphia XXX (302BC) P. BM EA 10078 (271BC) OIM 19317 (260BC) O. BM EA 66402 (242BC)

Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb

2½ kite 2½ kite 2½ kite 2½ kite 2½ kite 2½ kite 2½ kite

(i҆w n-ḏr.ṱ ḏ-ḥr sꜣ i҆w=f-ꜥw ḳt 2½ wp-st pꜣ ḥḏ sḥ ḳt ½ (n) pꜣ tny (n) tꜣ s.t r-i҆r=f swṱ=s r ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t sꜣ wn-nfr) (line 1).130 Teos son of Iuefau is one of the known Theban choachytes, while Harsiesis son of Onnophris is probably a private individual. That this was a state tax, is shown by the fact that the same document specifies the tax has been paid ‘to Kolleuthis, son of Amenemes, the official of the body of the city of Thebes’ (i҆.i҆r-ḥr krḏ sꜣ i҆mn-m-ḥꜣ.t pꜣ sḥn n ẖ tmy nw.t) (lines 1– 2). Similarly in T. BN 1892, where the tax is exacted by a certain Patapis who, as Kolleuthis, bears the title of official of the body of the city of Thebes.131 However, it would appear that from around the middle of the 3rd century BC transfer taxes on necropolis’ land were levied by the temple rather than by the state.132 This is indicated by the fact that in O. TT373 (2369) (226 BC), O. BM EA 66383 (241? BC) and O. Louvre 314 (Ptolemaic) the same tax is said to have been paid to the temple. In addition, the tax collector in O. Pont. Bibl. Inst. (227 BC) and O. Louvre 92 (241? BC) was probably a temple official as shown by the notation on these ostraca that the scribe responsible for the registration was the representative of the god’s-father and lesonis of Amun (O. Pont. Bibl. Inst.), or of Amunranesutjereu (in O. Louvre 92),133 rather than an official of the body of the city of Thebes as in earlier examples. P. E. Adler 31 (178–177? BC) simply states that the payment has been made to the temple, while P. BM EA 10388 (223 BC) indicates that the land was purchased for silver from (the temple of) Amun.

130 131 132 133

Depauw 2000, 199, and 183 for this ‘writing fee.’ Depauw 2000, 66. On the subject of state and temple taxes see Depauw 2000, 58–63. This same notation is also found in O. BM EA 66383 which adds strength to the suggestion that the other two ostraca (O. Pont. Bibl. Inst. and O. Louvre 92) also record a payment of a temple levied tax.

362

chapter 15

However, on the basis of P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC) it appears that the necropolis land, belonging to the temple institution at least in the Theban area, was also under the control of state authority, and that a part of these taxes went to the state.134 At Thebes it was the responsibility of the choachytes to pay this transfer tax on behalf of the family to acquire for them a plot of land in the necropolis. P. E. Adler 31 (178–177? BC), for example, records the payment by Panas, son of Espemetis,135 of the transfer tax on a parcel within the plots of land of Thebes in the necropolis of Djeme. Similarly in P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301 BC), which records the payment of the ‘the tax of the necropolis through Harsiesis son of Petemenope, the overseer of the necropolis, 2{˹½˺} kite’ (pꜣ tny.t n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n-ḏr.t ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t sꜣ pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py pꜣ mr ḫꜣs.t ḳt 2 {˹½˺}) (line 25), and of the writing fee due to ‘Petearpres, son of Horos, the town scribe, ½ kite’ (pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ sꜣ ḥr pꜣ sẖ tmy ḳt ½) (line 26).136 Evidence for the role of the choachytes in the acquisition of a plot of land in the necropolis is found in O. Strasbourg D 2037 (243 BC) and O. BM EA 66383 (241BC), two tax receipts in the name of the choachyte Harsiesis son of Amenothes.137 Following the payment of the tax the building plot is transferred to the family. This is the object of the transaction recorded in P. BM EA 10388 (223 BC) in which party A, the door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes Espemetis declares to the buyer, the half-Greek Dionysios, called Petosiris, son of Ptolomaios and Taheni: ‘you have caused my heart to agree to the silver for the value of two cubits of land (…) which is located in the upper necropolis of Djeme (…), I have given it to you, it belongs to you, it is your two cubits of land aforesaid which I bought from Amun’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=y n pꜣ ḥḏ swn mḥ-i҆tn 2 (…) nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣst ḥry ḏmꜣ (…) tw=y s n=k mtw=k s pꜣy=k mḥ-i҆tn 2 nt ḥry nꜣ.w r-i҆n=y ḏbꜣ ḥḏ i҆.i҆r i҆mn) (lines 2–4).

134

135 136 137

See Chapter 1 § 1. No explicit reference is made in the documents to simple burials in the ground without any superstructure, thus it remains unclear whether these were taxed in the same way as tombs and building plots. It seems possible that a transfer tax would be paid on a burial plot irrespective of whether a structure was to be built over it or not, since it is clear that the same tax was paid for both the transfer of tombs and the transfer of plots of land (see Tables 13–15 above). This man is probably the son of party A in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC), and is clearly identified by the title ‘choachyte’ in the present document, P. E. Adler 31 (178–177? BC). On this document see Chapter 16 § 3. The same individual is also attested from two price-of-oil receipts, O. BM EA 25281 and O. BM EA 25287 (Wångstedt 1980, 14, 19), and a salt-tax receipt, O. Petrie Gr. 36 (236BC) (Tait 1930, 82), (Muhs 1996, 291, 298 note 15), and may be the same person as the owner of a s.t-tomb in P. BM EA 10240 (228–227 BC), where he is identified as a choachyte.

necropolises

363

Next, the choachyte was responsible for organising the construction of the tomb itself, or any other type of funerary structure requested by the family, as clearly indicated by a number of the surviving receipts. In O. BM EA 66383 (241BC), mentioned above, it is recorded that ‘Harsiesis son of Amenothes has paid 2½ kite to the temple for (the) value (of) the plot (on) which he will build (a structure) for the master Psenthotes’ (i҆n ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t sꜣ i҆mn-ḥtp ḥḏ ḳt 2½ n ḥ.tnṯr n swn pꜣ wrḥ (…) nt ḳt=f n pꜣ ḥry pꜣ-šr-ḏḥwṱ) (lines 1–4). Similarly, in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC) the door-keeper Espemetis son of Panas specifies: ‘I am to build them (scil. the plots of land) with a s.t-tomb (as a) resting-place (ꜥ.wyḥtp) for Petenephotes son of Pais, the master, (the) blessed one. You have paid me the price of its building expenses’ (mtw=y ḳt=w n s.t ꜥ.wy-ḥtp n pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp sꜣ pa-ḥy pꜣ ḥry ḥsy mḥ=k ṱ(=)y (n) swn pꜣy=f hy ḳt) (line 4),138 adding: ‘you (scil. the buyer) will be able to cite its accusation of a builder’s expense against me on account of the money which you have given to me for it’ (mtw=k ḏ pꜣy=f lwḥ ḳt rmṯ hy i҆rm=y n rn nꜣ ḥḏ.w r-ty=k n=y wbꜣ=f ) (line 4).139 In P. Philadelphia V (302BC) party A, the door-keeper Teos, son of Paoros and Tetenephotes, states: ‘you have given to me the value in silver of the expenses which I incurred for it (scil. the s.t-tomb)’ (tw=k n=y swn pꜣ hy r-i҆r=y r-ḥr=s n ḥḏ) (line 3). In O. TT373 (doc. 2369) (227BC) the payer, Herieus son of Imouthes, paid the transfer tax on a plot of land on which he is ‘building the s.t-tomb (with a) ˹vault˺’ (tw=k {ḳp} ḳt tꜣ s.t ˹ḳp˺) (lines 5–6).140 A similar situation is found in O. Louvre 93 (Ptolemaic) where the document specifies that the payer, Maimehti son of Searthos, has brought the money for the value of a building plot to the temple in Thebes, and that he is going ‘to build a ḥ.t-tomb (with a) pyramid’ (mtw=k ḳt ḥ.t mr) (lines 8–9). However, in the necropolis of Djeme there were also a number of ready-built tombs, the right to use which could be acquired by interested individuals. The acquisition of these tombs was also the responsibility of a choachyte as indicated by the surviving receipts recording the payment of the transfer tax on a tomb. T. BN 1892 (315–314 BC), for example, records the ‘payment from Herieus son of Petenephotes, the choachyte, (of) 2½ kite inclusive of the writing fee of ½ kite (for) the tax (on) the s.t-tomb of PN (…) to Kolleuthis son of Amenemes the official of the body of the city of Thebes’ (i҆w n-ḏr.t hry=w sꜣ pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw ḳt 2½ wp-st pꜣ ḥḏ sẖ ḳt ½ (n) pꜣ tny.t (n) tꜣ s.t PN (…) i҆.i҆r-ḥr krḏ sꜣ

138 139 140

My reading follows Vleeming’s suggestion to read: ‘mḥ=k ṱ(=)y (n) swn pꜣy=f hy ḳt’ (1994, 116 note 15) in place of sṯꜣ.ṱ=k swn (line 4) proposed by Andrews (1990, 23, line 4). For additional examples of similar clauses see Hughes 1952, 64–65; el-Amir 1969, 106–107. Unfortunately the occupation of the taxpayer is not stated in this receipt.

364

chapter 15

i҆mn-m-ḥꜣ.t pꜣ sḥn n ẖ tmy nw.t).141 Similar receipts are recorded in P. Brussels 8256b (315BC), P. Brussels 8256a (310BC), P. BM EA 10078 (271BC) and OIM 19317 (260BC).142 The first receipt records the ‘payment by Teos son of Iuefau (of) 2½ kite inclusive of the writing fee of ½ kite (for) the tax (on) the tomb of Onnophris son of Petosiris’ (i҆w n-ḏr.t ḏ-ḥr sꜣ i҆w=f-ꜥw ḳt 2½ wp-st pꜣ ḥḏ sẖ ḳt ½ (n) pꜣ tny.t (n) tꜣ štꜣ n wn-nfr sꜣ pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r) (line 1). The same person makes a payment, recorded in P. Brussels 8256a (310 BC), for ‘2½ kite inclusive of the writing fee of ½ kite (for) the tax (on) the tomb which he handed over to Harsiesis son of Onnophris’ (i҆w n-ḏr.t ḏ-ḥr sꜣ i҆w=f-ꜥw ḳt 2 ½ wp-st pꜣ ḥḏ sẖ ḳt ½ (n) pꜣ tny.t (n) tꜣ s.t r-i҆r=f swṱ=s r ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t sꜣ wn-nfr) (line 1).143 In P. BM EA 10078 (271 BC) the payer is a man called Amenothes son of Parates who ‘brought 2½ kite as tax (for) the tomb of Harsiesis son of Paoueris the weaver of royal byssos’ (i҆n i҆mn-ḥtp pa-rṱ ḳt 2½ n ḥḏ štꜣ n ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t sꜣ pa-wr pꜣ sḫṱ šs-nsw) (lines 1–2), while in OIM 19317 (260BC) the same is said to have brought a payment for ‘2½ kite in the name of ˹Tamounis˺’ (i҆n i҆mn-ḥtp pa-rṱ ḥḏ ḳt 2½ rn ˹tꜣ-i҆mn˺) (line 1). Although the latter document does not include any reference to the nature of the payment, the amount paid and the list of neighbouring tombs shows that this is another receipt for the transfer tax on a tomb.144 It is interesting to note that, with some exceptions, there does not seem to be any evidence for the real sale of tombs between private individuals in the Theban area. The only ‘sales’ of tombs appear to be those between choachytes, or by a choachyte to the individual on whose behalf s/he was acting. In P. BM EA 10615 (175BC), reference is made to the buyer’s ‘lands which are in ˹the˺ necropolis’ (wrḥ.w nt ḥr ˹tꜣ˺ ḫꜣs.t) (line 8), indicating that some of the choachytes had legal right over tracts of land in the necropolis, which could then be transferred to private individuals in order to have a tomb built on them. Thus the choachytes 141 142 143

144

Depauw 2000, 66–67. Although not identified as such in these documents, the tax-payers are known choachytes. This individual is also known from P. Libbey (337 BC), a marriage document between Teos son of Iuefau and the woman Setatiretbint daughter of Peteharpochrates, where he is identified as a door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes (Depauw 2000, 235, line 1). In addition, this is the same Teos mentioned in a letter, P. Brussels 8255d (306BC), where he is identified as the ‘the choachyte of the important persons’ (pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw n nꜣ rmṯ.w ꜥꜣy.w) (line 4). The same individual is also known from a large number of burial tax receipts, for example OIM 19312 (266 BC), where he is identified as a choachyte. For the burial receipts in which this individual appears as taxpayer, see Table A.5. In addition, he is probably to be identified with the door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes, Amenothes son of Parates and Tamin, the contracting party A in P. Philadelphia XIII (273BC), a marriage document in which he pledges his entire possessions as guarantee on the fulfilment of the deed’s obligations.

necropolises

365

were able to acquire this right from the temple at any time, rather than only when requested to do so by a family.145 Transferral of the legal right over a tomb is, for example, recorded in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC), discussed above, in which the seller specifies that he is to build a s.t-tomb on the building plot and confirms that the buyer has already paid him in full for the building expenses. On the other hand, P. Philadelphia V (302BC), P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301 BC) and P. Philadelphia VI (301BC) concern the donation of a tomb by the choachyte Teos, son of Paoros and Tetenephotes, to the kalasiris in the Temple of Amun, Parates, son of Panouphis and Sarpochratis.146 In addition, there is also evidence suggesting that private individuals could purchase (multiple) plots of land in the necropolis, presumably from choachytes, and choose to have a tomb built at a later date. For example, the owners of two of the neighbouring properties adjoining the s.t-tomb and chapel sold with P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC), ‘the rest of the plots of land of Psenthotes son of Belles’ (pꜣ sp nꜣ wrḥ.w pꜣ-šr-ḏḥwṱ sꜣ bl) (line 5) and ‘the plot of land of Paheber’ (pꜣ wrḥ pa-hbr) (line 6), appear to be private individuals.147 However, there are exceptions. One of them is P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC) in which the Servant of the Ibis(es) of the ‘Great barn’ in Thebes Sesoosis, son of Herieus and ˹Hehelibua,˺ leases to the door-keeper of Amenope Teos son of Osoroeris and Tabis the tomb he acquired from the divine father Oaphres, the prophet of Weser (wsr), the agent of the divine father Harsiesis, son of Horos, the scribe of the divine book, the lesonis of Amun, and concerning which he was made a lease.148 Another apparent exception is represented by P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC), a contract of sale of tombs drawn up between the assistant-scribe Psemminis, son of Belles and Tefnu(t), and the woman Tamou145

146

147

148

However, it is not clear whether the choachytes were required to pay the transfer tax at the time of the plots’ acquisition, and later charge it to their clients, or if payment was made only when these were transferred to a family. The two contracting parties were probably related since the choachyte appears to have been related to the wife of the buyer. All remaining examples, P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC), P. Wien ÄS 6052 (239 BC), P. BM EA 10226 (185 BC) and P. BM EA 10223 (171? BC), concern the sale of funerary structures and/or liturgies between choachytes. In the last contract Party A is a person called Onnophris son of Psenenteris, and may have been a choachyte since, according to Andrews, the name Psenenteris is quite rare during this period at Thebes, thus he may be same individual as the father of the choachyte party A in P. Louvre E 3440 B–A and P. Berlin P. 3112 (175 BC). Neither of them is attested as choachytes, and, although there is the possibility that records of their archives have not survived, it is also likely that they were private individuals. I am not sure whether this different scenario is influenced by the fact that the buyer held a temple position.

366

chapter 15

nis, daughter of Panas and Tathotes. Genealogical data indicate that the two contracting parties are husband and wife, although from this document it is not clear whether the transaction is a real one, or simply a guarantee on the fulfilment of a marriage document not preserved in the choachytes’ archives. The seller declares: ‘you have paid me, you (sic.) have caused my heart to be satisfied with the money for the price of the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Petobastis together with the s.t-tomb in which he rests, and everything which appertains to it, together with his šty-revenues and ˹his˺ i҆ḫy-offerings’ (mḥ=t ṱ(=y) tw=y (sic.) mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=y n pꜣ ḥḏ swn pꜣ mꜣꜥ n pꜣ ḥry pꜣ-ty-bꜣst.t ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t nt i҆w=f ḥtp ẖn=s ḥnꜥ nt nb nt ṯ r-r=f ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f šty.w ˹nꜣy=f ˺ i҆ḫy.w) (line 3). The contract continues: ‘another: the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Herpa[…] son of Turmen which is east of the path of Amun together with his šty-revenues and his i҆ḫy-offerings, together with the s.t-tomb in which he rests’ (ky pꜣ mꜣꜥ n pꜣ ḥry ḥr-pꜣ-[…] sꜣ twrmn nt i҆r i҆ꜣbṱ tꜣ my.t i҆mn ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f šty.w nꜣy=f i҆ḫy.w ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t nt i҆w=f ḥtp ẖn=˹s˺) (line 4– 5). Finally the seller states: ‘to ˹you˺ belong these two blessed ones together with their (religious)-services, and their s.t-tomb, together with their offerings’ (mtw=˹t˺ pꜣy ḥsy.w 2 ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w šms.w ḥnꜥ tꜣy=w s.t ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w i҆ḫy.w) (line 6). It is possible that the woman was a choachyte, although it is strange that party A, an assistant-scribe, should own funerary properties, unless in the contract he is being identified by only one of his titles and that he was also a choachyte.149 A similar situation is attested at Hawara where the available documentation indicates that private individuals could purchase tombs from other private persons. This appears to be the case in P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217 BC), recording the sale and cession of a tomb and its annex in the necropolis of Hawara. The contract is stipulated between the wall-builder of the temple-areas of the temple of Sobek, who works as a sail-maker, Marres, son of Haryotes and Esoeris, and his uncle, the wall-builder of the temple-areas of the temple of Sobek, Hapimeneh,

149

Another exception may be represented by P. Philadelphia XX (237BC), a cession document stipulated between the god’s-father Petenephotes, son of Harmais and Isis, and the woman Tefnu(t), daughter of Paibis and Senamounis. From the wording of the text it would appear that a deed of sale had been drawn up by contracting party B and her husband Paoueris/Pichos son of Horos, in favour of party A in the present document. The contract is styled as a deed of sale in which some properties, houses and funerary structures, were pledged as guarantee on the fulfilment of its obligations. Party A states that he is far from party B with respect to the obligation of the document adding ‘I will sell the mꜣꜥ.w (places) of Paoueris son of Horos to Thotortaios son of Horos his brother from the district of Koptos’ (i҆w=y ty nꜣ mꜣꜥ.w n Pꜣ-wr-ty.w sꜣ ḥr n ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s sꜣ ḥr pꜣy=f sn n tꜣ kḥ kbt) (line 3). It is possible that the husband of party B was a choachyte and that the contract may have been meant for use as a security on a loan, but this cannot be determined from the sources analysed.

necropolises

367

son of Pepakher and Taues. In particular, the fact that the buyer is granted permission to make restorations or repairs in his share of the tomb suggests that this is a real sale. Another possibility to consider is that some of the contracts styled as a sale may in reality be contracts for the hiring of a choachyte’s services. This is the case in P. BM EA 10240 (228–227BC) stipulated between the god’s-father and servant of Amun ˹Patiwes,˺ son of ˹Petobastis˺ and Talous, and the doorkeeper Panouphis, son of Snachomneus and Tanouphis. Party A specifies: ‘the entire s.t-tomb aforesaid, for which you drew up for me a sale [document] ˹concerning it˺ in regnal year 20 first month of the inundation season under the ever living pharaoh. You are to be my choachyte in the aforementioned s.t-tomb from regnal year 20 first month of the inundation season until the completion of 99 years’ (tꜣ s.t nt ḥry tr=s r-i҆r=k n=y [sẖ]-ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ ˹r-ḥr=s˺ n ḥꜣ.tsp 20.t tp ꜣḫ.t n pr-ꜥꜣ nt ꜥnḫ-ḏt mtw=k pꜣy=y wꜣḥ-mw n tꜣ s.t rn=s ṯ ḥꜣ.t-sp 20.t tp ꜣḫ.t r ḥry šꜥ pꜣ mnḳ rnp.t 99) (recto III lines 3–4, recto IV line 1). The fact that party A bought the building plot and leased the tomb may be the reason why the hiring of the choachyte’s services was styled as a lease of the tomb for a period of 99 years.150 A similar case may be that of P. Philadelphia XXIV (227BC) since it stipulates that party B will work as a choachyte in the tomb mentioned from the day of the contract onwards, while party A will not be able to appoint another choachyte for the said tomb. Another case is found in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC), in which it is stipulated: ‘you will be able to have a claim on me to act in conformity with every word aforementioned without you being able to attach another choachyte to the tomb in question to perform the (religious)-service for the blessed one Petenephotes except me. My children will perform (the religious)-service for your children, the children of my children will perform (the religious)-service for the children of your children from this day onwards forever’ (i҆w=k m-sꜣ=y (r) ty.t i҆r=y r ẖ mt nb nty ḥry r bn i҆w=k rḫ ṯ gꜣ wꜣḥ-mw r tꜣ ḥ.t rn=s r šms pꜣ ḥry pꜣ-ty-nfrḥtp bnr=y r nꜣy=y ẖrṱ.w šms nꜣy=k ẖrṱ.w nꜣ ẖrṱ.w n nꜣy=y ẖrṱ.w šms nꜣ ẖrṱ.w nꜣy=k ẖrṱ.w ṯ pꜣ hrw r ḥry šꜥ-ḏ.t) (lines 7–8). This is also the case in P. Carlsberg 39a–b (183BC), from Hawara, stipulated between the woman Taesis, daughter of the wall-builder of the temple in the temple of Sobek Hapimeneh and Teos, and the overseer god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Marres, son of Achomneuis and Taneus. The contract concerns the half of the tomb and annex sold in P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217BC) to Hapimeneh, father of Taesis, party A in the present contract. The document itself is styled as a sale and cession of a share

150

Vleeming 1995, 249 note 30.

368

chapter 15

of the tomb and annex. However, the fact that party B is a god’s seal-bearer and embalmer, and the fact that he is granted access to the tomb, but not the right to make repairs in it, as was the case in P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217BC), may indicate that this is not a real sale, but rather a contract for the hire of party B’s services.151 A slightly different scenario is found at Memphis. Here there appears to be no firm evidence for the way in which an individual acquired a tomb from either mortuary priests or private individuals. The only surviving document concerning the sale of a tomb is P. Leiden I 373 b–c (204–203 BC), although, given that the contract is stipulated between two god’s seal-bearers, it is possible that it represents a sale of the liturgies attached to this tomb.152 Another possibility is that this contract concerned the sale of the legal right over this tomb. In P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78BC) party A, a group of god’s sealbearers, renounce their rights over a specific liturgy, and agree to hand over any deceased mistakenly ‘brought [to us] to a ḳꜣ-tomb, a ḥ.t-tomb (or any) place [belonging to us] in the necropolis of Memphis’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=w nt i҆w=f r mwt mtw=w i҆n.ṱ=f [n=n] r ḳꜣ ḥ.t mꜣꜥ [mtw=n] ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr) (lines 9–10). The statement suggests that the mortuary priests retained the legal right over the burial structures in the necropolis, and, presumably, received a payment from families for burying their deceased relatives in these tombs.153 The only document from Middle Egypt that concerns the sale of a tomb, P. Mallawi 602/6 (92 BC), is unpublished. It is described as a cession deed ‘concerning a tomb and unbuilt ground.’154 All that is said of the contractual parties is that one of them was a god’s seal-bearer.155 This could mean that the contract concerned either the sale of the legal right over the tomb by a mortuary priest to a private individual, or the hiring of a mortuary priest’s services. 151

152 153

154 155

This type of sale is to be distinguished from those stipulated between god’s seal-bearers and embalmers that concern the sale of liturgies, as is the case in P. Ashmolean D. 10 (1968.10) (99–98 BC), which was stipulated between two brothers, the god’s seal-bearers and embalmers Petesouchos and Sochonopis, sons of Siepmous and Tasouchis. Following the specification of the tomb, the contract explicitly states that the buyer is ‘to perform for them (scil. the deceased) the liturgical services of a lector-priest’ (r i҆r n=w štwy.w ẖrḥb) (line 5), thus showing that what is being transferred is the right to work as a mortuary priest for the deceased, rather than the actual burial place. Nonetheless, if the latter were the case one would expect to find a clause at the end of the document stating that party A was entitled to the revenues from the tomb. It is also possible that the possessive pronoun is here intended to refer to the legal rights that these mortuary priests had over specific tombs rather than meaning that they actually owned these places. Zaghloul 1988, 139. Zaghloul 1991, 257.

necropolises

369

The surviving documentation, therefore, indicates that the family did not own the land on which the tomb stood, which remained the property of the temple. In this regard it is interesting to note that in P. Warsaw 148.288 (119 BC) the man Espemetis son of Osoroeris is transferring his parcel of land of Amun in the south of Djeme to Chonompares son of Harsiesis for a period of only 99 years. The contract specifically states that the buyer will be able to build a house on this plot of land. The expression ‘plots of land of Amun’ (wrḥ.w n i҆mn) probably indicates that these lands belonged to the temple of a specific god, in this case Amun, and were thus inalienable, and that the revenues from them were due to the temple.156 If the suggestion is correct, it would explain why there is no information on the cost of the land even in P. Philadelphia XXX (302– 301BC) where details of expenses have been noted down, including the amount of the tax of the necropolis. Consequently, what was being transacted was the legal right over the necropolis building plots and/or structures, while the actual ownership remained with the temple in which domain the burial grounds were located. In this respect the organisation of this real estate appears to have functioned along the same lines as leaseholds, which duration is often, though not always, set at 99 years. In the Ptolemaic Period it appears to have been possible for private individuals holding legal rights over these properties to transfer them to other individuals.157 Documents from earlier periods indicate that a similar organisation was already in place from at least the Late Period, more specifically, from the end of the 26th dynasty. Stela Louvre C 101 (656BC),158 dating to regnal year 8 of Psamtek I, records the sale of a tomb in the mountain of Anubis, an appellation of the Memphite necropolis.159 The seller is an overseer of the necropolis and the buyer is a fuller, which indicates that, at this time, it was possible for private individuals to acquire the right to use a specific tomb directly from the person in charge of the necropolis organisation.160 Two of the neighbouring

156 157

158 159

160

Pestman et al. 1977a, 103, 106–107 note o; Pestman 1969, 147–148. Various reasons could be adduced for the ‘sale’ of these tombs or of the building plots. Individuals, for example, may have inherited them, but decided to dispose of them because already in possession of another one; the structure may have been in need of much repairs and the ‘owner’ decided to ‘sell’ it rather than pay for its repair, and get another one. Malinine 1975. The tomb is probably a rock-cut tomb, since it is said that the tomb was ‘cut’ by the necropolis worker Pemaus, though it is not clear whether this was a new tomb, or an existing one that had been modified, for example, by hewing out a new room in an area of the tomb. However, given that the overseer of the necropolis was, at this time, probably chosen from among the choachytes, it was ultimately this class of funerary attendants that was responsible for the ‘sale’ of tombs and possibly lands in the necropolis. See also Chapter 1 §1.

370

chapter 15

tombs belong to choachytes, although it is not clear whether they were their actual burial places, or if they had legal right over these tombs and could transfer it to other private individuals.161 That the choachytes of this period, like those of the Ptolemaic Period, could acquire legal right over tracts of land and tombs in order to transfer them to third parties is also indicated by P. Louvre E 2432 (636BC), which concerns a burial place that a choachyte had sold to a lector priest of the Place of Truth out of the area owned by his father in the Theban necropolis.162 Another document concerned with the sale of burial areas, located in the Memphite necropolis, is Stela Florence 1659 (585 BC), dating to regnal year 4 of Apries.163 Like the previous one, this contract was stipulated between a choachyte and a lector-priest. Party A is selling one large hall (wsḫ) and three annexed rooms (syḥ). These rooms, it is suggested served either as places where offerings would be made,164 or as additional discrete burial areas.165 One of the neighbouring tombs belongs to a choachyte, though, as in the case of Stela Louvre C 101 (656BC), it is unclear whether this was his personal property or a professional asset that could be transferred to other individuals. In particular, the contract concerns the sale of areas located inside an existing tomb, which indicates this was an earlier burial structure later partitioned and adapted for the burial of (probably) unrelated individuals. Thus the neighbouring properties listed could be either those of the entire structure, or those inside the tomb and directly adjoining the areas sold. Direct evidence for this type of modifications is found in two documents from Thebes, P. Turin 2123 (512BC)166 and P. Louvre E 7128 (510 BC),167 dating to regnal years 10 and 12 of Darius I respectively. Both contracts concern building plots located inside the tomb of Osorkon I (n tꜣ ḥ.t n pr-ꜥꜣ wsi҆r-tn). The first of the two records a donation of a building plot between a couple, the choachyte of the valley Psennesis, and the woman Tasentenher, daughter of the choachyte of the valley Esminis and the female choachyte Ithoros (called Lolous), and on which the couple is

161 162

163 164 165

166 167

Another two belong to traders, and one to a carpenter. In this and in the following case (Stela Florence 1639/1659) the profession of the ‘buyer’ is probably not directly relevant to the transaction, given that the lector-priest is hiring the choachyte to perform the mortuary cult of the deceased in this tomb. See also below. Malinine 1975; Pernigotti 1979. Malinine 1975, 167 note o. Pernigotti 1979, 29 note l, 30 note q. The noun syḥ is, in later periods, used as synonym of the wꜥb.t, an embalming place, thus, perhaps, this possibility should also be taken into account in this case, especially since the buyer is a lector priest. On the embalming place see Chapter 11 § 1. Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 67–70. Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 71–73.

necropolises

371

figure 14 Schematic reconstruction of the structures and building plots located inside the tomb of Osorkon I as attested from P. Turin 2123 (512BC) and P. Louvre E 7128 (510 BC) (Thebes)

going to build a tomb jointly.168 The same choachyte, Psennesis, is party B in the second of the two documents, P. Louvre E 7128 (510 BC), while party A is the overseer of the necropolis (mr ḫꜣst) Tjaiutaiudeni(t). In this contract the building plots are identified as the ‘plots of land which are in the tomb of Osorkon I, which is in the west of Thebes within parts of a building in ruins’ (i҆wrḥ nt n tꜣ ḥ.t n pr-ꜥꜣꜥ.w.s. wsi҆r-tn nt ḥr tꜣ i҆mn.(t) wꜣs nt n ẖ.t n pꜣ ꜥ-ḫf ).169 The fact that the building plot is being sold by an overseer of the necropolis probably indicates that the sale of necropolis land was already organized along similar lines to that of the Ptolemaic period. A fee, the 10% of the cost of the building plot, is paid to the representatives of the city of Thebes, who would pay it to the domain of Amun in which the building plot is located.170 Two of the adjoining plots are owned by other choachytes, which again could be taken as evidence for them purchasing the legal right over large tracts of land that would then be partitioned into smaller areas to be sold to private individuals. As can be seen from the reconstruction below, one of the neighbouring properties is a pr-nfr, seem-

168

169 170

Although the document does not clearly specify what the couple are going to build on this plot of land, the fact that it is located inside the tomb of Osorkon, together with the presence of a pr-nfr in the adjoining plot of land, indicates that it was a tomb they were going to build here. Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 70 note V, 72, 113 note d. Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 73 note V.

372

chapter 15

ingly belonging to a private individual, who may have worked as embalmer,171 although no title is given in the document. Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear who owned these structures, and it is equally possible that the individual in question was a choachyte.172 On the other hand, P. Louvre E 2432 (636 BC)173 concerns the hiring of choachytal services. Here the lector-priest hires the services of the choachyte who will receive payment, termed ‘rations of Osiris,’ for every deceased person for whom s/he was performing the mortuary cult. In turn, this indicates that the ‘role of the eldest son’ had already become ‘professionalised’ by his time, and that, for those who could afford it, there was the possibility of hiring a professional for the performance of the mortuary cult of their deceased relatives. 171 172 173

Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 70 note VIII. On this structure see Chapter 11 § 1. Malinine 1953, 102–107.

chapter 16

Tombs A variety of burial solutions are present in the archaeological record for the Ptolemaic Period, with the range probably depending on diverse factors, such as the financial means of an individual, the desire to be buried in a specific place, the typology of the terrain, and the availability of materials locally. Despite the broad burial range present in the archaeological record, the actual tomb typology can be reduced to three main categories: grave pits, rock-cut tombs (including shaft tombs), and chapel tombs.1 The most basic type of tomb was the simple pit in the ground, with variable depth, but normally not exceeding a metre or two. Here the dead would be placed directly on the ground, simply wrapped in a mat, without any coffin, cartonnage or artificial preservation. However, in a number of cases even mummies provided with cartonnage elements or complete cases were found in this type of burial. Examples are attested from Memphis in the area between the Step Pyramid and the mastaba of Ptahhotep, and in particular to the east of the ‘dry moat.’ Pit tombs were, reportedly, the most common type of burial at Hawara during the Ptolemaic Period, and a large number of them have also been excavated at Medinet Ghoran, Magdola and Theadelphia. At Medinet Ghoran, for example, the dead were found to have been ‘summarily’ mummified, wrapped either in a type of tray made from interlaced palm laths, or in a mat. In several instances the mummies had been provided with cartonnage elements with papyrus backing, while a number of burials contained also roughly anthropoid, wooden coffins with crudely carved faces. The same practice was attested at Hawara too where Vassalli excavated a number of tombs in which the dead had been provided with a coffin and/or cartonnage, and were placed directly on the ground. In Middle Egypt this type of tomb is attested from Deir er-Rifeh and possibly Siut too. In the Theban area pit tombs were unearthed among the ruins of the funerary temple of the royal scribe Amenhotep son of Hapu. Here the unmummified dead were placed directly in the ground without any associated structures. However, it should be noted that while many pit tombs were probably newly dug during the Ptolemaic Period, others were older, existing hollows that were used again at this time. Examples of this are found at Tura el-Asmant in the Memphite area, and possibly at Sharuna in Middle Egypt. 1 Bibliographical references for the tombs mentioned in this excursus are given in the following sections.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_018

374

chapter 16

A slightly more elaborate version of the simple hollow in the ground made use of architectural and/or artefactual materials (slabs, doorjambs, offering tables and so on) to create a protective structure around the body. This type of ‘architectural’ coffin is attested in the Memphite area among the late burials found in the tomb of Horemheb, on the Giza plateau among the late burials in the Eastern mastaba fields, and in the area between the Step Pyramid and the mastaba of Ptahhotep. The dead had been simply wrapped in a mat without artificial preservation, or carefully bandaged but without coffin or cartonnage, while others still had been provided with wooden or terracotta coffins, and/or cartonnage. The same practice was attested at Thebes during the excavation of the Ptolemaic cemetery on the Asasif. Here protective structures were built around the dead using bricks, stone slabs, inscribed lintels, column fragments and offering tables. In at least one instance the individual had been carefully wrapped in bandages, and provided with a rectangular and an anthropoid wooden coffin. A more elaborate version of the ‘architectural’ coffin was that dug directly into the bedrock, often in an oblong shape. In terms of body treatment the same variation as in the previous category is attested for this type of interment. Examples of this type of tomb are attested at Memphis in the area near the Old Kingdom mastaba of Meref-nebef, where some of the dead were laid inside an anthropomorphic cavity dug into the ground, or even into the courtyard floor of earlier Old Kingdom tombs. The dead were furnished with a cartonnage case and a coffin. Similar tomb types were also excavated at Medinet Ghoran where the pits had an oblong shape, while the dead had been provided with both a cartonnage case and a coffin, generally in wood, but in a few instances in terracotta. The hollow was normally just deep enough for the coffin. More elaborate still is the brick- or stone-lined pit with a vaulted or, less often, flat roof. In general the pit was not very deep, with the roof standing just below the ground surface. A number of these structures were found lying contiguously together, suggesting these were possibly family burials. This type of burial is attested in the Memphite area at Tura el-Asmant, in the Fayum at Medinet Ghoran, Theadelphia and Kasr el-Banat, and in the Theban area inside the funerary temple of the royal scribe Amenhotep son of Hapu. In particular, in the latter instance, the excavators were able to distinguish between a finer and a lesser type within this burial typology. The former consisted of a brick-lined pit sunk into the ground with a gabled roof springing from the top of the side walls, which were about five courses in height. The pitched roof stood lower than the short sides, which maximum height was that of the roof’s ridge. The second type consisted of a single course of bricks, laying on their edge, and forming the sides over which the gabled roof rested. The roof was

tombs

375

also pitched, but the end walls, which consisted of two bricks laid on edge as stretchers, did not rise over the roof level. Depending on the nature of the terrain, and, naturally, on the economic means of an individual, one could opt for a rock-cut tomb, which typology ranged from a simple shaft tomb with a single burial chamber, to a large hypogeum with multiple rooms and even levels, some of which were newly created in the Ptolemaic Period. The most basic type consisted of a shaft leading to a small, underground recess, just big enough for an interment. Examples of this type of tomb have been excavated at Tura el-Asmant, Hawara, Magdola, Deir er-Rifeh, and Edfu. In particular, those excavated by Petrie at Hawara, consisted of a shaft, about 2.5–3 metres deep, leading to a room that, in a number of cases, was not long enough to accommodate the entire coffin which end, thus, projected into the shaft. In some cases the shaft led to a single, large room, as, for example, at Gurob. Here Petrie excavated a number of tombs, which shaft widened into a large cavity towards the bottom, and contained, in at least one instance, as many as 12 coffins. The larger shaft tombs consisted of multiple burial chambers dug into the bedrock. Examples of this type of tomb are found in the Memphite area, along the Serapieion Way (West of Mariette’s house), at Tura el-Asmant, Hawara, Magdola, Deir er-Rifeh, Sharuna, and at Edfu. Underground tombs accessed via shafts or stairs leading down to one or more rooms with vaulted or flat roofs have also been excavated in the Fayum. Examples of this type of tomb are, for instance, found at Medinet Ghoran, Tebtunis and Theadelphia, where the larger ones were divided into two separate chambers by a partition wall. The rooms were linked by a communicating door, which would be bricked up after burial. Shaft tombs could be dug into the remains of earlier structures too. At Memphis, for example, in the area between the Step Pyramid and the mastaba of Ptahhotep new tomb shafts were cut into the underlying Old Kingdom structures, while at Hawara Petrie noted that shaft tombs cut into the ruins of the Labyrinth. Shafts could be cut inside existing burial structures too, particularly in the large hypogea. In fact, the vast majority, if not all, of the large rock-cut tombs in use at this time were those originally built during the Pharaonic and Late periods. It is in these tombs that a large range of alterations, adaptations and restorations were carried out during the Ptolemaic Period to create additional burial spaces. Linked to the underground, brick-built tombs accessed via shafts or stairs, are those located on the Asasif over the remains of the Ramesside temple and of the other Pharaonic temples causeways. These consisted of a shaft leading down to a vaulted burial chamber. A brick shrine or a chapel stood

376

chapter 16

above ground, before the entrance. To this category probably belonged some of the ‘chamber tombs’ explored by Lepsius, Vassalli and Petrie, and which were located over the remains of the Hawara Labyrinth. Another type of brick-built tomb was the chapel-tomb, which developed (almost) entirely above ground. On the Giza plateau, for example, in an area of the south necropolis (Gebel Ghibli) are located the remains of a type of chapeltomb built in the shape of mastabas with vaulted burial chambers. Some of the chapel-tombs attested at Hawara belong to this category. The vast majority were built in mudbrick, while some employed stone too. A number of them were more than one storey high, and were provided with niches in the walls. Burials were found within these chambers. Brick-built chapel-tombs, with a square or rectangular floor plan, were also excavated at Medinet Ghoran. These consisted of large rooms, in some cases with a vaulted roof, where the deceased, provided with a wooden coffin and cartonnage, were laid to rest. The same type of tomb was found on the Asasif and consisted of single or multiple burial chambers, fronted by a courtyard. In at least one instance, narrow recesses running the entire length of the chambers were located on one side of the actual burial place. These were provided with windows, but, apparently, no entryway, and, thus, it seems possible that their function was similar to that of the serdabs of the Old Kingdom tombs.

1

The Lexicography of Tombs’ Typology

A variety of terms were in use at the same time and in different parts of the country to designate funerary structures. Before attempting a reconciliation between the textual and the archaeological typologies attested, it is necessary to determine how they were used. In particular, the question remains whether they were used consistently to refer to specific structures, and parts thereof, or if the scribes used the terms somewhat interchangeably without reference to the exact typology of the actual tombs on the ground. It is clear that some of the tombs’ nomenclature had both a specific and a generic meaning, depending on the context in which it was used. Thus the apparent discrepancy in the use of terminology found in P. Philadelphia XVIII (241BC) and P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC), in which the structures listed are identified as s.wt-tombs and then referred back to as mꜣꜥ.w-places, is due to the fact that the latter term was used with a general, rather than a specific, sense, as (burial)-places. In addition, some of the terms were used to refer to specific areas, or structures, inside the tombs. Thus in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC) the scribe provides additional evidence about the tomb saying: ‘I (scil. party B) will

377

tombs

build on them (= the cubits of land bought) a s.t-tomb (as a) place of rest for Petenephotes son of Pais the master, (the) blessed one’ (mtw=y ḳt=w n s.t ꜥ.wyḥtp n pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp sꜣ pa-ḥy pꜣ ḥry ḥsy) (line 4).2 Similarly, P. Berlin P. 5507/3098 (136BC) list only ḥ.t-tombs and a number of individuals, but in the clauses of transfer and possession the seller states: ‘total of the ḥ.wt-tombs and their shafts and those who rest in them, together with the blessed ones and their s.wt-tombs (and) their people’ (tmt nꜣy=w ḥ.wt i҆rm nꜣy=w šḳ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w ḥnꜥ nꜣ ḥsy.w nꜣy=w s.wt nꜣy=w rmṯ.w) (line 7). In this case it is possible that the discrepancy is due to the additional information provided in these clauses, which specify that the ḥ.wt-tombs were divided into smaller burial units, possibly families’ burial places, some of which consisted of burial shafts, while others were bricked up sections that corresponded to s.wt-tombs.3 There are also a small number of documents in which the terms are used consistently throughout. P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC), P. Philadelphia XVI (251 BC), P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC) and P. BM EA 10073 (217 BC), list either ḥ.wt- or s.wttombs and refer back to them as a group, at the end of the contract, correctly as ḥ.wt- or s.wt-tombs. Similarly, in a small number of documents the opening lines of the contract mention different types of structures, most typically ḥ.wt- and s.wt-tombs, as in the case of P. Philadelphia X (282 BC), but often also plots of land (wrḥ.w) and (burial)-places (mꜣꜥ.w), as in the case of P. BM EA 10614 (175BC) and P. BM EA 10615 (175BC). In the body of these contracts the same range of tomb types is then individually listed, thus suggesting that there was a perceived difference between the various terms used to identify different types of burial structures.4 The clearest example of this is found in P. Naples 8414 (126 BC) in which different groups of tomb are apportioned a separate amount from the total of the liturgies owned by the seller. The latter alienates: ‘the half of my ˹1⁄9˺ ½ which makes the 1⁄18 of the ˹št˺y-revenues (and) the offerings of the ḥ.wt-tombs of the pure ones who are in the necropolis of Djeme’ (tꜣ pš n pꜣy=y ˹1⁄9˺ nt i҆r pꜣ 1⁄18 n nꜣ ˹št˺y.w nꜣ i҆h̭y.w n nꜣ ḥ.wt n nꜣ wꜥb.w nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ); line 3

2 In addition, it should be noted that the passage in line 7 is damaged and the reading as ḥ.t is not entirely certain since the initial sign does not appear to have the oblique stroke generally present with this sign in the writing of this word. 3 On these tombs see below Chapter 16 § 2. 4 However, P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) also lists a mkṱr, or tower-tomb, and although this type of

378

chapter 16

‘the half of my 1⁄10, which makes the 1/20, of the šty-revenues (and) the offerings of the ḥ.wt-tombs of the people of the town who are in the necropolis of Djeme’ (tꜣ pš pꜣy=y 1/10 nt i҆r pꜣ 1/20 n nꜣ šty.w nꜣ i҆h̭y.w n nꜣ ḥ.wt n nꜣ rmṯ.w n tmy nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḏmꜣ); line 3

(and) ‘the ˹half of˺ my 1/10 of the šty-revenues (and) the offerings of the s.wt-tombs and of the mꜣꜥ-chapels of the blessed ones in hiding’5 (tꜣ ˹pš n˺ pꜣy=y 1/10 n nꜣ šty.w nꜣ i҆h̭y.w n nꜣ s.wt i҆rm nꜣ mꜣꜥ.w n nꜣ ḥsy.w n ḥp). lines 3–4

This same distinction is also maintained in the rest of the contract where, referring to the remainder of the liturgies, the seller states that to party B belongs ‘the other 5/6 1/18 of the šty-revenues (and) the offerings of the ḥ.wt-tombs of the pure ones, together with 5/6 1/15 of the šty-revenues (and) the offerings of the ḥ.wt-tombs of the people of the town, together with the 5/6 1/15 of the s.wttombs and the mꜣꜥ-chapels of the blessed ones with their šty-revenues, their offerings and everything which pertains to them’ (lines 5–6). However, there are also a number of documents in which the terms are not used consistently. The clearest example of this is found in P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC), where the opening paragraph of the contract begins with the statement ‘the list of the ḥ.wt-tombs,’ but then lists, beside the ḥ.wt-tombs, a number of s.t-tombs, an offering-place (ꜥb) as well as a number of mr- and mꜣꜥ-chapels. In the remaining examples the discrepancy is confined to the archival note appended to the contract, or to the final summary of the properties alienated. In P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) the contract opens with an agreement between two sisters to divide some mꜣꜥ.w-places between themselves, it then goes on to listing a number of s.wt-tombs and mꜣꜥ-chapels, while the contents of the contract are described in the archival note on the verso as ‘the division of the s.t-tombs.’ Similarly in P. Marseilles 299/298 (235 BC) where the contract opens with the statement ‘the s.wt-tombs which are in the necropolis,’ but then lists various types of structures, such as shaft-tombs, s.t-tombs, a mr-chapel and the rest of the (burial)-place(s) belonging to the seller. The same type of inconsistency is also found in P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC) that lists

tomb could fall under the heading of mꜣꜥ.w-places where the term would be used with the general meaning of (burial)-place, it would mean that there was no heading for the mꜣꜥ-chapels. 5 The scribe has quite clearly written ḥsy.w n ḥp which Pestman translates as ‘the hidden venerated ones’ (Pestman 1992, 201, 203 line 4). For a discussion see Chapter 14 §2.

tombs

379

s.t-tombs but summarises them as s.t-tombs and one ḥ.t-tomb, and in P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC) where the h.t-tombs listed are then summarised as h.t-tombs and two s.t-tombs. Likewise in P. Louvre E 2425 (227 BC) which lists one s.t-tomb and a mꜣꜥ-chapel but summarises them as s.t-tombs, and in P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC) where are mentioned a number of s.t-tombs and a room (ry.t), but summarises them once more as s.t-tombs only. Similarly in P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) that describes the tombs collectively as ḥ.t-tombs in the two summary headings but lists 16 s.t-tombs, two mꜣꜥ-chapels and only one ḥ.t-tomb. It may be just possible that in these instances the term was used as a generic word indicating the nature of the properties alienated, which specification was already present in the main body of the contract, and thus not necessary in the summary and the archival notes, although there is an undeniable inconsistency in the way in which the terms are used, especially by comparison with those contracts in which the terminology is consistent throughout. In some instances it is possible to identify individuals in contracts with likenamed persons in other deeds. In this case the type of funerary structure mentioned could give an indication of whether the terms were used interchangeably or not. Unfortunately, of the several hundred individuals listed, only some can be identified with relative certainty with like-named persons listed in the various surviving deeds, while a change in the form of the contracts dating to the second half of the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st century BC with regard to the way in which liturgies were listed, precludes a comprehensive analysis of the data. An analysis of P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC), written by the same scribe, for example, shows that in 108 entries (82 of which name a burial structure) the scribe misspelled the name of the deceased 23 times, in seven instances used the determinative article instead of a possessive, and in five cases left out information. The texts mention ḥ.t-tombs, s.t-tombs, mꜣꜥ-chapels, mr-chapels, shafts (šḳ) and tower-tombs (mkṱl) structures. Interestingly, the various structures mentioned are consistently identified by the same term in all but one instance where the reading is uncertain. It could, of course, be argued that the scribe would have been more familiar with the spelling of these terms than with that of names, hence the misspellings of the latter. However, the fact that he made errors even with such common names as Ka and Kolloutes contrasts with the consistency in the use of the structures’ terminology, and may suggest that each different term was associated with a particular type of architecture rather than being used interchangeably. Similarly, a comparative analysis of P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC), P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC), P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC) and P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC), in this case written by different scribes, indicates a certain consistency in the use of funerary archi-

380

chapter 16

tectural terms.6 Of the four contracts only P. Louvre E 2424 and 2443 include a large number of the same liturgies, and a comparison between the two shows that in the twenty entries the scribe of P. Louvre E 2443 misspelled the name of the deceased’s father twice, while the use of funerary structures’ terminology is consistent throughout. In P. Louvre E 2431 there are fifteen entries which correspond to those in the first contract. In these there is only one error in the spelling of the deceased’s father while the use of the architectural terms is again consistent. Conversely, in P. Louvre E 2438, of which only six entries can be identified with those in P. Louvre E 2424, the use of the terminology is inconsistent but for one instance. In three cases a ḥ.t-tomb is identified as a s.t-tomb, in one instance as a mꜣꜥ-chapel and in one case the information is missing. The following is a list of the documents in which the terminology is used consistently and those in which it is inconsistent.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Consistent use

Inconsistent use

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Philadelphia XVI (251BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. BM EA 10073 (217BC) P. Philadelphia X (282BC) P. BM EA 10614 (175BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Naples 8414 (126BC)

P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC) P. BM EA 10612 (175 BC) P. Marseilles 299/298 (235 BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC) P. Louvre E 2425 (227 BC) P. Berlin P. 3096 (222 BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B (175 BC)

The data available are certainly limited, both quantitatively and temporally, which precludes a meaningful analysis. However, restricted as the foregoing analysis may be, it does indicate a certain consistency in the use of the terminology used to identify different types of funerary structures, and, above all, that there was a perceived difference between them. In some instances the variation appears to be due to the fact that the document refers to different parts inside a tomb, in others they may actually be used with a generic sense when summarising the structures alienated, while in others still it may be due to scribal errors. Whatever the exact reason for the inconsistency, to dismiss the

6 The documents relate to liturgies pledged on a loan between husband and wife, later sold by the husband to his wife who then sells them to her husband’s nephew.

381

tombs

use of terminology as being inconsistent, or to take it as an incorrect designation of specific structures, would be wrong because, as shown, there are several instances in which the terms are used consistently throughout the same contract, as well as across documents.

2

Tombs’ Typology: Textual and Archaeological Evidence7

The first step in trying to match the tombs’ terminology attested in the textual record with the actual tombs present on the ground is to determine how these terms were understood and used by the Egyptians themselves. By gathering all of the information provided in the individual documents on each of the different types of structures attested it has been possible to determine a number of features that each of these structures could include (such as courtyards, storerooms, chapels and so on). A contextual analysis of where and how the various terms are used also throws some light on the function each of these structures may have been. On the basis of this, the attested structures can be divided into three groups: tombs and their annexes (such as storerooms), chapels and other funerary structures. In general, the textual evidence indicates the presence in tombs of different functional areas, including storage area(s), burial chamber(s), and chapel(s) where the mortuary cult would presumably be performed. There is also evidence for a number of structures which function is not entirely clear. Their name suggests a place where the deceased may have been laid prior to being mummified, possibly for allowing family and friends to pay their last respects. Tables 16, 17 and 18 show the range of, and geographical variation in, the terminology used. This analysis also suggests that the same terms were used to identify different types of structures in different necropolises, and that these terms had both a specific and a generic meaning. However, the biggest challenge is to determine how the various categories of funerary structures were understood, or even perceived, by the Egyptians. In other words, when did, for example, a pit or shaft tomb ceased to be such and became a rock-cut tomb? Or how can a pit in the ground also be a rock-cut tomb? Does an underground brick built tomb qualify as a chapel-tomb or as a rock-cut tomb? Why does the same terminol7 The various tomb types attested in textual sources have been grouped by nomenclature in this chapter. The following is a list of the tombs grouped by place of attestation. Thebes: s.t, ḥ.t, šḳ, mꜣꜥ, mr, mkṱl, ꜥ.wy-ḥtp and ꜥ.wy-(n)-ḥp; Edfu: none attested; Memphis: ḥ.t, ḳꜣ, ꜥ.wy, ꜥ.wy-ḳs, ḳs.(t), ꜥ.wy n rmṯ, ꜥ.wy-ḥtp, ꜥ.wy.w nꜣ wrḥ.w, ḳnḥy, ḥ.t-bꜣw, s.t-rmy, mꜣꜥ.w-nhpy, and nḫwy; Hawara: ḥ.t-tomb, i҆p and ꜥ.wy-rmṯ; Middle Egypt: ꜥ.wy, ḥ.t.

382

chapter 16

table 16

Tombs and annexes

s.t šḳ ḥ.t mkṱl ḳꜣ ꜥ.wy ꜥ.wy n rmṯ ꜥ.wy-ḳs ḳs.(t) ꜥ.wy-ḥtp ꜥ.wy-ḥp Thebes Memphis Hawara Middle Egypt

table 17

Chapels

i ҆p

ḳnḥy

ḥ.t-bꜣw

mꜣꜥ

mr

Thebes Memphis Hawara Middle Egypt

table 18

Other funerary structures

s.t-rmy Thebes Memphis Hawara Middle Egypt

mꜣꜥ.w-nhpy

(ꜥ.wy.w nꜣ) wlḥ.w

tombs

383

ogy appear to denote different types of tombs in different parts of the country? Is it a question of the materials used, or of the type of ground in which it is built (e.g. soil vs. rock)? Or is it simply a question of tradition in the variety of terms used in some necropolises? These are some of the points and questions that the following survey addresses and attempts to answer.8 2.1 s.t-tomb This type of tomb, attested from 324 BC (P. Strasbourg 1) to 99 BC (P. Berlin P. 3107), is only found in the Theban textual record, where it appears to have been one of the most common types of tombs in use. From P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301BC), we learn that the s.t-tomb, written with a house determinative, was a brick built structure. O. TT373 doc. 2369 (227 BC) indicates that this type of tomb could have an internal vault, since it specifies that the choachyte is ‘building the s.t-tomb (with a) ˹vault˺’ (tw=k {ḳp} ḳt tꜣ s.t ˹ḳp˺) (lines 5–6). Some of these tombs had an annexed storage area, as in the case of P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC), which lists ‘the s.t-tomb of the master Ḏ-ḥr (…) and its storehouse which is to its east’ (pꜣ ḥry ḏ-ḥr (…) ḥnꜥ pꜣy=w pr-ḥḏ nt i҆r n=s i҆ꜣbṱ) (line 3). Similarly in P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC), where, among the properties alienated, there is a room located within the courtyard of the tomb. The seller states that she is selling ‘this western room, which is built and roofed, within the courtyard of the s.t-tomb of Pasis. You may go in and out of the courtyard, you may work with the work-tools at the said s.t-tomb’ (tꜣy ry.t i҆mnṱ nt ḳt ḥbs ẖn pꜣ i҆nḥ tꜣ s.t pa-sy mtw=t šm r-ẖn r-bnr ẖn pꜣ i҆nḥ mtw=t i҆r wp.t nꜣ stbḥ.w n i҆r wp.t r tꜣ s.t rn=s) (line 7–8). Courtyards attached to s.t-tombs are found in a number of contracts where they are identified as the location of other graves and/or chapels. In P. BM EA 10227 (230BC) party A bequeaths ‘the s.t-tomb of Kolloutes and the s.t-tomb of Thotorches son of Pamethis the man of Ipy which is within one courtyard of the two s.t-tombs’ (tꜣ s.t n ḳrḏꜣ ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t n ḏḥwṱ-i҆r-rḫ-s sꜣ pa-mtr pꜣ rmṯ i҆py nt ẖn wꜥ i҆nḥ n tꜣ s.t 2.t) (line 3). Similarly, in P. Louvre E 2415 (225 BC) party A sells a total of ‘six s.t-tombs of the ˹door-keepers˺ and the ˹ꜣtrꜣ-chapels˺ which are within the courtyard of the s.t-tomb of the kalasiris’ (˹s.t˺ 6 nꜣ ˹mnṱ.w˺ ḥnꜥ nꜣ ˹ꜣtr.w˺ nt ẖn pꜣ i҆nḥ tꜣ s.t nꜣ gl-šr.w) (line 4). Unless in this instance the courtyard in question was a very large one, which is, of course, possible, this text suggests that a s.t-tomb may be a very small structure given that as many as six of them, plus their chapels, are located within the tomb’s courtyard. A chapel is also mentioned in P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC) which identifies it as ‘the western ꜣtrꜣ-chapel which is within the courtyard of the s.t-tomb of the blessed one 8 The survey follows the same organisation as the rest of the work and thus begins at Thebes moving then to Memphis, Hawara and finally Middle Egypt.

384

chapter 16

figure 15 Schematic reconstruction of the properties neighbouring the s.t-tomb sold in P. Philadelphia XIX (240 BC) (Thebes)

˹Pamesha˺’ (tꜣ ꜣtrꜣ.t i҆mnṱ nt ẖn pꜣ i҆nḥ n tꜣ s.t n pꜣ ḥry ˹pꜣ-mšꜥ˺) (line 4). Figure 15 shows a schematic reconstruction of this group of tombs.9 A s.t-tomb could also be located by, or at, the entrance of another s.t-tomb, as is the case in P. Marseilles 298–299 (235BC) with which is being sold ‘the s.t-tomb of Nechtenibis which is by the entrance of the s.t-tomb of our master Chomaros’ (tꜣ s.t n nḫt.ṱ-nb=f nt ḥr rꜣ tꜣ s.t n pꜣy=n ḥry gmrws) (line 6).10 This may be the case in P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC) too where, in a broken passage, party A sells ‘the s.t-tomb of the ˹door-keepers˺ and the goldsmiths who are at the ˹entrance˺’ […] (tꜣ s.t nꜣ ˹mnṱ.w˺ ḥnꜥ nꜣ nb.w nt ḥr ˹rꜣ˺ […]) (line 4). A s.ttomb could have more than one level as indicated by P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) (line 8) and P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC) (line 5) that identify two of them as ‘the upper s.t-tomb and the lower s.t-tomb’ (tꜣ s.t ḥry.(t) tꜣ s.t ẖry.(t)). Although it is not entirely clear whether these should be understood as referring to a twostorey structure, or as a single structure perhaps with loculi or niches one above the other. P. Philadelphia V (302BC) shows that this type of tomb in some cases consisted of an underground burial vault, and an overground structure that served as an offering chapel. In the latter contract Party A states: ‘to you belong the offerings of our master Parates, our god inside its upper places within the said s.t-tomb to its western side’ (mtw=k nꜣ ḥtp.w pꜣy=n ḥry Pa-rṱ pꜣy=k nṯr ẖn nꜣy=s ꜥ.wy.w ḥry ẖn tꜣ s.t rn=s r pꜣy=s mꜣꜥ i҆mnṱ) (lines 1–2). Thus it is likely that this 9 10

The size and orientation of these tombs are hypothetical. The translation is based on the understanding of the preposition ḥr as being separate from the noun rꜣ. However, if the preposition and the noun are taken as a compound, ḥr-rꜣ, the first tomb would be located ‘before’ (spatially) the second tomb, rather than specifically in front of its entrance (CDD letter R, 4).

tombs

385

is also what is meant in P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) (line 8) and P. Marseilles 299– 298 (235BC) (line 5) by upper and lower s.t-tomb, which thus referred to the underground structure and the offering chapel located at the entrance above ground. P. Philadelphia V (302BC) and P. Philadelphia VI (301 BC), both of which refer to the same structure, show that a burial shaft was also part of a s.t-tomb. In the first document party A declares: ‘I have given to you this s.t-tomb, which is in the necropolis of Djeme, together with its shaft’ (tw=y n=k tꜣy s.t nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ ḥnꜥ pꜣy=s šḳ) (line 1). Similarly, P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC) lists ‘the s.t-tomb of Pagonis together with the rest of the men whom you will desire to lay to rest in the shaft’ (ḥnꜥ pꜣ sp rmṯ nt i҆w i҆r=k r wḫꜣ n ty ḥtp=f ẖn11 pꜣ šḳ) (col. 2 line 24). The s.t-tombs, or at least parts of them, were secured with doors. This is indicated in P. Philadelphia V (302BC) where party A states: ‘I will not be able to open a door which you, and your agent, will ˹close˺ therein’ (i҆w bn i҆w(=y) rḫ wn pꜣ rꜣ nt i҆w=k r ˹ḏbꜥ˺=f n-i҆m=w ḥnꜥ pꜣy=k rt) (line 5), further undertaking: ‘I am to leave the two tombs in your presence together with your people, them being built, secure, complete with any work that will be desired for them, them being complete with their doors’ (mtw=y ḫꜣꜥ tꜣ s.t 2 nt ḥry i҆ir҆ -ḥr=k ḥnꜥ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w i҆w=w ḳt i҆w=w ꜥš i҆w=w mnḳ n wp.t nb nt i҆w=w r wḫꜣ=w r-r=w i҆w=w mḥ n nꜣy=w sbꜣ.w) (line 10–11).12 Clear evidence for the presence of doors secured by locks in these s.t-tombs is found in P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301 BC) that lists six locks, nine doors, one Greek bolt with its key, and one Syrian bolt with its key.13 Similarly, in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC) party A states: ‘I will give to you (scil. the buyer) two doors for the entrance of the said s.t-tomb’ (mtw=y ty n=k sbꜣ 2 r rꜣ tꜣ s.t rn=s) (line 8). Examples of this type of tomb were found at Deir el-Bahari, on the Asasif, overlaying the remains of the causeway of the mortuary temple of Mentuhotep I, partly that of Thuthmosis III, and the ruins of the Ramesside temple (Pl. 14).14 A comparable range was unearthed near Medinet Habu over the

11

12

13 14

Spiegelberg read the word as i҆n (1909, 20 line 24), but the word could be ẖn since there is enough space in the gap for the determinative. Thus also Pestman 1993, 468 note bb. I have preferred to translate the term ꜥš as ‘secure’ rather than as ‘smoothed,’ suggested by Vleeming (1995, 250 note 42) because of the ambiguity of the latter word. The juridical meaning of the term would be ‘to be secure from another person’s claim’ (Glossar, 71). However, the fact that the clauses preceding and following this term both refer to the physical structure, rather than to the juridical status of the tomb, may suggest that the term ought to be understood as referring to the construction itself, possibly indicating that it is secure or safe from danger in general. See further Chapter 16 § 3. These were excavated by the MET, under the direction of Winlock (1914, 1, 10–23) first

386

chapter 16

remains of the temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu.15 As noted above,16 two types of brick-built tombs were excavated on the Asasif, an above-ground chapel-tomb, and one that comprised both an above ground chapel and an underground burial chamber.17 The first type consisted of a rectangular structure divided into two areas, with the floors all on the same level (Pl. 15). To the front of the tomb there was a forecourt enclosed by a wall, while the area beyond this was divided into a variable number of rectangular chambers, in some cases with whitewashed walls, each intended for a single burial. In some instances the actual inhumations were still preserved in these rooms, while, in other cases, the remains of coffins and/or cartonnage attest to their use as burial chambers.18 An interesting feature of some of these tombs was the presence of a narrow compartment apparently cut off from the rest of the structure, unless, as the excavator suggested, there was a grill window further high up on the wall, similar to a serdab found in Old Kingdom tombs.19 A large amount of sheep bones as well as evidence for firing was discovered in this part of tomb B19, although the excavators do not comment further on the antiquity or possible significance of these animal remains. The material culture recovered from some of these tombs included also offering tables, found either in the courtyard or inside the tomb itself.20 The second type of brick-built tomb consisted of two main parts, an enclosure, or possibly just a vestibule area, and a burial chamber. A step lead from this anterior area to a pit that gave access to the burial chamber proper that stood at a lower level than the rest of the structure (Pl. 16 and 17).21 A characteristic feature of some of the tombs built in this style was the presence, on either side of the pit’s entrance,

15 16 17

18 19 20

21

and Lansing (1935, 4–16) after. Only short accounts of the clearance of these tombs were published. Part of this Ptolemaic necropolis lay in the adjoining concession and was excavated by the Carnarvon and Carter (1912) expedition. A full publication of these excavation reports is being prepared by the author (Cannata in preparation). Robichon and Varille 1936. See Chapter 16. Only the latter type is reported among those found over the remains of the temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu, although no mention is made of the possible presence of an above-ground chapel (Robichon and Varille 1936). Remains of a roughly cut limestone sarcophagus with remains of coloured cartonnage were, for example, found in tomb B18. An actual sandstone window was recovered from an unspecified brick tomb. The one found inside tomb B19 was made from very fine white clay with a dark blue glaze applied thinly and unevenly with a brush. The decoration consists of sunk relief carvings of offerings filled in with a very dark blue paste. The same type of brick structures as those exposed to the south-west by the expedition of the Metropolitan Museum of Art were found by Carter and Carnarvon (1912).

tombs

387

of two sunken bins containing a large vessel each. The neck of these vessels stood just below the level of the entrance doorway (Pl. 17). A common feature was the presence of a small brick vestibule or shrine before the entrance. In particular, Carter noted that the presence on the outer walls of the superstructures of clear traces of a plaster coating, over which a painted decoration was applied, shows that these stood above ground.22 Buried under the floor of these rooms, or beneath the floor of the burial chamber proper, were found one or more amphorae covered by inverted bowls and sealed with mud (Pl. 18).23 The same practice was also noticed among the chapel-tombs where vessels were found under the floor level inside chambers that may have served as offering rooms, according to Winlock, or even buried under the floor level in the forecourt beside the tomb itself (Pl. 19), while, according to Carter, vessels were found buried under the floor of the chapels, or beneath the floor of the burial chamber proper. The mouths of these amphorae were also covered with inverted bowls and sealed with mud (Pl. 18).24 It is doubtful, however, that these examples of under floor storage represent what in the textual sources are identified as storerooms. Winlock identified some of the rooms in the chapel-tomb type as ‘offering place,’ without explaining his reasons for doing so. Presumably these represent the storerooms mentioned in the contracts analysed. Textual sources clearly indicate that a number of these tombs clustered together, often sharing boundary walls, as in the case of those sketched above (see also Pl. 20). This is confirmed by the structures on the ground as can be seen, for example, in Pl. 21 in which as many as eight tombs huddle close together. Finally, the fact that some of the documents mention a st-tomb with its shaft suggests that these were perceived as being two separate elements, and that the latter was not always part of this type of tomb, as indeed shown by the archaeological remains. This in turn indicates that the defining characteristic of a st-tomb was a brick-built structure serving either as a simple chapel where the mortuary cult would be performed, with the dead being buried underground, or a combination of chapel and burial chamber located all on the same level. Discrete, brick-built structures located inside bigger tombs would also come under this heading.

22 23 24

Carter 1912, 42. Carter 1912, 43. Carter 1912, 43.

388

chapter 16

2.2 Shaft-Tomb On the basis of the textual sources it appears that the term shaft was used to denote the entrance passage and underground burial chamber inside a s.t-tomb or a ḥ.t-tomb. In Greek the noun is rendered as κάταγαιον25 thus indicating that the structure in question was ‘underground, subterranean, under the earth.’26 That shafts (šḳ) were part of both s.t- and h.t-tombs is shown by P. Philadelphia V (302BC) in which the donor states ‘I have given to you this s.t-tomb, which is in the necropolis of Djeme, together with its shaft’27 (tw=y n=k tꜣy s.t nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n Ḏmꜣ ḥnꜥ pꜣy=s šḳ) (line 1). Similarly, P. Berlin P. 5507 and 3098 (136 BC)28 list the ‘ḥ.wt-tombs and their shafts (šḳ.w), and those who rest in them’ (nꜣy ḥ.wt i҆rm nꜣy=w šḳ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp.w ẖn=w) (line 7).29 In addition, two of the documents analysed indicate that some shafts remained accessible and thus were not backfilled following a burial. This is the case in Marseilles 299–298 (235 BC) in which the seller declares ‘you may go to the shaft-tomb of the royal joiners and their people’ (mtw=k (sic.)30 šm r pꜣ šḳꜣ31 n nꜣ mtḥ-nsw ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w rmṯ.w) (line 7). Similarly in P. BM EA 10614 (175BC) where the list of liturgies alienated includes ‘the shaft-tomb of Chonsthotes son of G[…]ybr’ (pꜣ šḳḥ ḫnsw-ḏḥwṱ sꜣ g[…] ybr) (line 5).32 These two documents also suggest that individual shafttombs would be used as family burial places, rather than serving as communal graves for unrelated people. That the term referred to the entire shaft and the connected burial chamber is indicated by P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC), since one of the entries mentions ‘the s.t-tomb of Pagonis together with the rest of the men whom you will desire to lay to rest in the (tomb’s) shaft’ (tꜣ s.t n pawn ḥnꜥ pꜣ sp rmṯ nt i҆w i҆r=k r wḫꜣ n ty ḥtp=f ẖn33 pꜣ šḳ) (col. 2 lines 23–24). A

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33

P. Leiden Gr. 413, which is a translation of P. Berlin P. 5507 (Pestman 1993, 468 viii). Liddell and Scott 1897, 751, κάταγειος, κάταγαιος. This detail of the tomb architecture does not appear to have been explicitly mentioned in the expense account recorded in P. Philadelphia XXX, for which see Chapter 16 §3 below. A sale (sẖ ḏbꜣ ḥḏ) and cession (sẖ n wy) document respectively. It is also possible that the relative clause is to be understood as referring back to the tombs alone. mtw=t in the cession document (Vittmann 1980, 129 line 7). šḳ in the cession document (Vittmann 1980, 129 line 7). In this respect they may be similar to the Persian Period shaft-tombs located on the Giza Plateau. However, even these, it is suggested, may have had some type of superstructure, although they may have remained accessible for a time before the burial. Shaft tombs with no apparent associated superstructure are, for example, found in the Bahariya Oasis in the so-called Valley of the Golden Mummies. Spiegelberg read the word as i҆n (1909, 20 col. 2 line 24), but the word could be ẖn since there is enough space in the gap for the determinative. Thus also Pestman 1993, 468 note bb.

tombs

389

final example is found in P. Amherst 58b (153 BC) in which is listed ‘the mꜣꜥchapel of Tasentsent together with her shaft-tomb’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ tꜣ-sn.t-2.t ḥnꜥ pꜣy=s šḳ) (col. 1, lines 11).34 Examples of these tombs in the archaeological record are represented by the underground vaulted chambers, linked to a brick-built superstructure, and reached via a descending passage (Pl. 22), as well as the corridors and passages located inside rock-cut tombs. However, use of this term does not appear to have been widespread given that it is attested in only six documents, two of which actually belonged to members of the same family,35 and it is possible that other terms could be used with the same meaning. 2.3 ḥ.t-tomb One of the most common terms for a tomb is ḥ.t, attested from all parts of the country, with both a generic and a specific meaning. The use of the stone determinative in the writing of this noun suggests that its defining characteristic was the use of stone in its construction, suggesting that it was either a rock-cut tomb,36 or a stone-built structure. In the Theban area it is attested from 273–272 BC (P. BM EA 10827) to 114 BC (P. Berlin P. 3116), where it is used to identify, for example, the rock-cut tomb of Neb-wenen (TT157) at Dra Abu el-Naga, and the temple-tomb of Harwa on the Asasif (TT37), both of which were used by the Theban choachytes for collective and family burials.37 A ḥ.t-tomb could develop over different internal levels, as indicated by P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) which lists the ‘the lower ḥ.t-tomb of Hareus’ (tꜣ ḥ.t ẖl ḥr-i҆w) (line 5).38 Instances of this internal organisation are, for example, represented by the tomb of Iby (TT36), that of Basa (TT389), Mutirdis (TT410), Thotmosis (TT32), and that of Chonomumes (TT253), in which underground rooms develop over more than one level. As mentioned above, shafts could be found inside ḥ.t-tombs, which would give access to, perhaps, family burial areas, while P. Berlin P. 3118 (116BC) indicates that a place-for-hiding

34 35

36 37 38

Pestman 1993, 466. The documents concern the liturgies which devolved upon the children of the choachyte Horos. His son Horos received his share of liturgies with P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC), his daughter Taesis received hers with P. Amherst 58a (153 BC), his son Haroeis with P. Amherst 58b (153 BC), while Onnophris received his part with P. Amherst 60b (153 BC) (Pestman 1993, 116–117). Pestman 1992, 12 note 6. On collective burials see Chapter 16 § 5 below. The text reads ḥ.t ẖl ḥr i҆w, which can be understood either as ḥ.t ẖl Ḥr-i҆w, ‘the lower ḥ.t-tomb of Hareus,’ or as a defective writing of the name Pꜣ-ẖl-ḥr-i҆w (Pachelhareus) (unattested) ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of (Pꜣ)-ẖl-ḥr-i҆w’ (Andrews 1990, 34 note 45).

390

chapter 16

figure 16 Schematic reconstruction of the s.t-tomb leased in P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC) (Thebes) and its neighbours

(ꜥ.wy-ḥp), quite likely the burial chamber, could also be located inside it.39 In the case of P. Philadelphia XXIV (227BC) we also learn that the tomb measured five ground cubits,40 that is, 137.5m2 (Fig. 16 shows its schematic reconstruction).41 The documents, however, do not distinguish between tombs located on different levels, thus all neighbours are simply given according to the four cardinal points. In reality the ḥ.t-tomb of Heriesenef son of Apathes located to the south of the tomb leased was probably located on an upper ledge of the same hill or rocky outcrop, with a path leading up to and in front of it. Examples of this type of arrangement are clearly visible on the Dra Abu el-Naga hills, where rockcut tombs are located on different levels with myriad paths giving access to them. However, a ḥ.t-tomb need not necessarily be a large hypogeum, and even a burial chamber cut into the bedrock, or built in stone, could presumably come under this category, if its defining characteristic is its construction in a rocky matrix or using stone. O. Louvre 93 (Ptolemaic Period) specifies that a certain Maimehti has brought to the temple the money for the value of a building plot stating that he is going ‘to build a ḥ.t-tomb (with) a pyramid’ (mtw=k ḳt ḥ.t mr) (line 8).42 It is possible that the creation of shafts inside rock-cut tombs of earlier periods would be described using the verb ‘to build,’ though, given that this 39 40 41 42

On this term see below § 2.6.2. One ground cubit (mḥ-i҆tn) equals to 27.5 m2 (Depauw 1997, 166). The size and orientation of these tombs are hypothetical. See also below § 2.6.2..

tombs

391

figure 17 Schematic reconstruction of the ḥ.t-tomb complex leased in P. BM EA 10384 (132 BC) (Memphis) and its neighbours

ḥ.t-tomb is said to be built with a pyramid, I would exclude the possibility of it being located inside another structure. The fact that the tomb leased with P. Philadelphia XXIV (227BC) was said to have been built, may suggest that some rock-cut tombs continued to be built during the Ptolemaic Period, and that this was also the case with the ḥ.t-tomb in O. Louvre 93 (Ptolemaic Period), although no evidence for this is apparently found in the archaeological record. In the Memphite archives this type of tomb is attested from 305–304BC (P. Louvre E 2412 + P. Bibl. Nat. 226) to 64BC (P. Leiden I 380 a–b). From the analysis of these documents a number of points can be drawn as to the characteristics of a ḥ.t-tomb in this area of the country. They are often said to have storerooms inside, sometimes quite a number of them as is the case in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) in which one of them contains nine storehouses, thus also indicating that it could be a structure of some size. Similarly, in the case of the ḥ.t-tomb leased in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC), the impression is that of a large and elaborate tomb complex, as its schematic reconstruction in Fig. 17 shows.43 P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) and P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) also indicate that a ḳnḥystructure, a chapel or a burial vault, could be located inside this type of tomb.44 In addition, P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) shows that they could have a forecourt before their entrance where, in some cases, further storehouses were located.

43 44

The size and orientation of these tombs and structures are hypothetical. See below § 2.7.

392

chapter 16

The latter document lists the ‘½ share of the other three ḥ.wt-tombs which are built, together with your ½ share of the forecourt that is on their entrance, to the east, together with your ½ share of the ˹storehouses˺ which are built within the aforesaid forecourt, (and) which are in the necropolis of Memphis’ (tni҆.t pš n tꜣ k.t ḥ.wt 3.t nt ḳt ḥnꜥ tꜣy=t tni҆.t pš n pꜣ ꜣrb nt ḥr rꜣ=w nt i҆r n=w i҆ꜣbṱ ḥnꜥ tꜣy=t tni҆.t pš n nꜣ ˹pr.(w)-ḥḏ˺ nt ḳt ẖn pꜣ ꜣrb rn=f nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr) (line 4 M–N). P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) and P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) also provide evidence for another type of construction that could be located inside a ḥ.t-tomb, the nḫwy, a structure found in association with both tombs and houses but whose function remains uncertain. It is suggested it may be connected with the verb nḫ ‘to protect’45 and thus represent a type of shed or shelter,46 a type of storeroom or even a windbreak wall.47 Textual sources also show that in several cases ḥ.t-tombs clustered together. This is the case in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) where the first of three different ḥ.ttombs listed is bordered on the south, east and north by other ḥ.t-tombs, while to the west there is the ‘road of Anubis.’ Similarly, in P. Louvre E 3266 (197 BC) two of the ḥ.t-tombs listed are bordered on all four sides by others of this same type, as is also the case with another two listed in P. BM EA 10384 (132 BC) which border ḥ.t-tombs on three sides and a road on the other. In other cases ḥ.ttombs are bordered by kꜣ-structures [P. Leiden I 379 (256 BC)], by forecourts [P. Leiden I 379 (256BC)] and by ꜥ.wy.w-tombs [P. BM EA 10384 (132 BC)]. Given that in this area rock-cut tombs appear to have been identified by the term ḳꜣ, it follows that this must have been a different type of funerary structure. In Theban documents this type of tomb is identified as a rock-cut tomb because the noun is determined with the stone determinative, and it is the term used to identify Pharaonic and later rock-cut tombs in the area. However, the noun ḥ.t can be variously translated as ‘house, temple, tomb, or enclosure’ depending on the context.48 Thus it is possible that at Memphis the noun ḥ.t retained the original connotations it had in the Old Kingdom, that of a cult-place of a fundamentally funerary nature, which defining characteristic was its function rather than its plan.49 This being the case, the noun ḥ.t perhaps denoted 45 46 47

48 49

Wb II, 304; CDD letter N, 118. Reich 1933, 114. See also Pestman et al. 1977a, 28 note 14; 1977b, 33 note m. Martin 2009, 57. The fact that some of them are attested inside a tomb would perhaps argue against it being a windbreaker wall. Another possibility would be to understand it as a type of strengthening wall, a kind of buttress, built inside, or to one side of, a tomb to add strength to its walls and/or roof. CDD letter Ḥ, 10–11. Spencer 1981, 170. During the Ptolemaic Period the noun still retained the same range of meanings as it had during the Pharaonic Period, while in the Coptic Period the noun

tombs

393

at Memphis a free-standing structure, not unlike the Theban s.t-tomb, though perhaps built in stone rather than bricks. On the basis of their layout, the best example of this type of tomb is perhaps the group of New Kingdom tombs located west of the Apa Jeremias monastery, which show evidence for use during the Late and Ptolemaic periods (Pl. 2).50 Evidence for use at these times concentrates around the tomb of Horemheb and that of Paser and Raʿia. Two of the shafts in the tomb of Horemheb (№ ii and iii), located on either side of offering room D and flanked by chapels C and E, were enlarged and adapted for multiple burials during the early Ptolemaic Period (4th and 3rd century BC).51 Another area used for burials during the early Ptolemaic Period is Magazine A, perhaps originally intended as chapel and later used as a storage place. The east and west side of this room had been crudely blocked with bricks, forming a type of basic superstructure over the interments placed there.52 Similarly, multiple burials dating to this period were found in the tomb of Paser inside one of the two underground chambers (room A), though the remains had been heavily disturbed at some later time and scattered around the room.53 The two underground burial chambers in the tomb of Raʿia had also been used during the Late and/or early Ptolemaic periods for interments. The human remains were in this case also heavily disturbed and scattered as a result of later activity.54 In addition, as has been remarked before, one would expect the Memphite stelae, such as those of the High Priests of Memphis, discovered in the 1830s and later, to have originally stood inside imposing chapels, located either near the Serapeum or at Abusir, and now lost.55 Some of the tombs located in the southern necropolis on the Giza plateau, in the area known as the Gebel Ghibli,56 perhaps belong to this category of tomb too. Architecturally they differ from those found in the rest of the country in that they are built in the shape of mastabas rather than chapels.

50 51

52 53 54 55 56

survived only as a term for tomb (Spencer 1981, 171). The noun was already translated as ‘chapelle’ by De Cenival (1972, 25 and 43 lines 8H, 8N–Q). See also Van Walsem et al. 1999, Fig. 1. Schneider 1996, 1–2. In the shafts were found only remains of artefacts dating to these later periods, including statuettes and shabtis (Schneider 1996, 5–6). See Martin 1989, Fig. 22 for a plan and section of these chapels and shafts ii and iii. Martin 1989, 139–140; Schneider 1996, 6. Martin 1985, 8, 20–21. Martin et al. 1985, 14–15. Ray 2005, 845–846. Zivie-Coche 1991, 301; Dunand 1995, 3229; Leclant 1973, 398–399. This cemetery may be part of the extensive necropolis excavated by Petrie (1907, 29), but for which he gave no exact location or map.

394

chapter 16

Inside the tombs consist of vaulted chambers enclosed within a retaining wall filled with rubble. However, due to the removal of the walls’ external face, today the tombs resemble chapels rather than mastabas. Their typology, it is suggested, was dictated by the poor quality of the terrain, which did not allow for the creation of rock-cut, underground structures.57 Another possible example for this type of tomb is the pyramid temple of Menkaure, which Zivie-Coche suggests was used for burials during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.58 One of the chambers inside this complex (Reisner’s room 27) was used for communal burials as shown by the large number of mummies discovered there, dated by Reisner to the Roman Period.59 The ḥ.t-tomb is attested in the Hawara60 textual record from 232 BC (P. Rendell) to 83BC (P. Hamburg 2), although the only documents that provide any information on its typology are P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217BC) and P. Carlsberg 39a–b (183BC), both of which concern the sale and cession of a ḥ.t-tomb and an annexed structure. From their analysis it emerges that a ḥ.t-tomb could be a built structure with an internal vault since in P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217BC) party A states: ‘You have caused my heart to agree to the money for my share of this ḥ.t-tomb which is built, it being covered at the ceiling (lit. sky), in which there is a door in its main (lit. great) entrance, (and) which measures 17 god’s-cubits from the south to the north, (by) 16 god’s-cubits from the west to the east’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=y n pꜣ ḥḏ n tꜣy=y tny pš n tꜣy ḥ.t nt ḳt i҆w=s kp r p.t nt i҆w wn wꜥ sbꜣ n pꜣy=s rꜣ ꜥꜣ nt i҆r mḥ-nṯr 17 n rs mḥṱ i҆w=s i҆r mḥ-nṯr 16 n i҆mnṱ i҆ꜣbṱ) (lines 2–3).61 Party A further specifies ‘you may go below and above […] on the stairs of this ḥ.t-tomb aforesaid, (and) you may enter and exit the vestibule (through) [the] main (lit. great) door (of) the entrances of this ḥ.t-tomb’ (mtw=k šm r ẖry ḥry […] ḥr pꜣ trt n tꜣy ḥ.t nt ḥry mtw=k pr r ẖn r bnr n tꜣ ẖy.t [pꜣ] rꜣ ꜥꜣ nꜣ rꜣ.w n pr n 57 58 59

60

61

Zivie-Coche 1991, 301. Zivie-Coche 1991, 291. Reisner 1931, 259–261. However, beside the two Roman coins found there, and the position of the hands over the pelvis shown by one of the mummies, there is no firm evidence for associating these burials exclusively to the Roman Period. However, P. Hamburg 2 (83BC) shows that ḥ.t-tombs were found outside the Hawara necropolis too, since the seller states: ‘you have caused my heart to agree to the money (for) my 1/3 1/15 share, which makes two parts within the fifth share, (of) the endowment of the overseer of seal-bearers and embalmer (in) the necropolis of Hawara aforesaid, together with the necropolis (of) Mendes and the necropolis (of) Pawawa, together with the 1/3 1/15 share (of) their ḥ.wt-tombs’ (tw=k mtr.w ḥꜣṱ=y pꜣ ḥḏ tꜣy=y tni҆.t 1/3 1/15 nt i҆r tni҆.t 2.t ẖn 5.t pꜣ sꜥnḫ mr ḫtmw wyt tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ḥ.t-wr nt ḥry ḥnꜥ tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ybyt ḥnꜥ tꜣ ḫꜣs.t pꜣ-wwꜣ ḥnꜥ tꜣ tni҆.t 1/3 1/15 nꜣy=w ḥ.t) (lines 3–4). One God’s cubit (mḥ-nṯr) corresponds to 0.525 m (Depauw 1997, 166), thus the share of the tomb measures 8.9 by 8.4 m.

tombs

395

tꜣy ḥ.t) (line 8). Thus the documents indicate that this type of structure could have a vestibule, more than one entrance, and that it could have extended over more than one storey, while paths run along the four sides of this particular ḥ.ttomb.62 The same documents provide evidence for another, annexed structure, the i҆p (var. ꜣp),63 unattested elsewhere, and belonging to the tomb, as indicated in P. Carlsberg 39a–b (183BC) which writes ‘this ḥ.t-tomb (and) the half share of its ꜣp-structure’ (tꜣy ḥ.t tꜣ tny pš pꜣy=s ꜣp) (line 5). In this deed the structure is described as ‘this i҆p-structure which is to its west, (and) which measures 17 god’s-cubits from the south to the north, (by) 25 god’s-cubits from the west to the east, on the southern area, below and above’ (pꜣy i҆p nt i҆r n=s i҆mnṱ nt i҆r mḥ-nṯr 17 pr rs r pr mḥṱ i҆w=f i҆r mḥ-nṯr 25 pr i҆mnṱ r pr i҆ꜣbṱ ḥr pꜣ mꜣꜥ rs ẖry ḥry) (lines 3).64 Therefore, this building is bigger than the tomb itself and perhaps also extends over more than one floor. In P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217BC), the buyer is granted the right to carry out maintenance work in ‘this i҆p-structure aforesaid, (and) you may make restorations/repairs in them together with your people and your properties in accordance with your half share thereof from today onwards’ (pꜣy i҆p nt ḥry mtw=k i҆r hy nb ẖn=w i҆rm nꜣy=k rmṯ.w nꜣy=k nkt.w r ẖ tꜣy=k tny pš n-i҆m=w n ṯ pꜣ hrw r ḥry) (lines 8–9).65 The noun, written with the ‘house’ determinative, may be a variant of the noun i҆py ‘Ope,’ often identified with Luxor.66 In Pharaonic textual sources the i҆pt is an enclosed chamber, while in the Edfu Temple texts it is a secure or protected place.67 Therefore, it is possible that 62

63 64

65

66

67

Similarly in P. Carlsberg 39a–b (183BC) where party A specifies: ‘you may enter and exit through the entrances of the ḥ.t-tomb above and below from today onwards’ (mtw=k pr r ẖn r bnr nꜣ rꜣ.w pr tꜣ ḥ.t r ḥry ẖry ṯ nꜣ pꜣ hrw r ḥry) (line 6). This document concerns the half of the ḥ.t-tomb sold in P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217 BC) to Hapimeneh son of Pepakher, father of party A in the present contract. The noun is written with a feminine t ending in P. Carlsberg 38a (i҆p.t) (line 3), although the preceding determiner is masculine, and as ꜣp in P. Carlsberg 39b (line 4). The share of the i҆p-structure measured 8.9 × 13.1 m. P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217BC) describes it as ‘this i҆p-structure which is to its west, (and) which measures 17 god’s-cubits from the south to the north, (by) 25 god’s-cubits from the west to the east’ (pꜣy i҆p nt i҆r n=s i҆mnṱ nt i҆r mḥ-nṯr 17 n rs mḥṱ i҆w=f i҆r mḥ-nṯr 25 n i҆mnṱ r i҆ꜣbṱ) (line 4). As noted by Lüddeckens, the translation of hy as ‘restorations, repairs’ is indicated by the fact that it is written with the ‘house’ determinative, as well as being required by the context (1998, 58 and note 32). CDD I҆, 89, 97–101. The identification of Ope with Luxor is questioned by some scholars. See also Brovarski (2011) for the suggestion that the term may refer to an ‘indirect approach’ into a building. However, one difficulty with the suggested identification of the i҆p attested at Hawara with the noun i҆py / i҆py.t is the fact that the latter, often rendered as ‘harem,’ are feminine nouns, while the examples of the noun i҆p / ꜣp in the Hawara archive are masculine. Wilson 1997, 63.

396

chapter 16

figure 18 Schematic reconstruction of the ḥ.t-tombs (and) i҆p-structures sold in P. Carlsberg 38a–b (217 BC) and P. Carlsberg 39a–b (183 BC) (Hawara) and the neighbouring properties

the i҆p-structure attested at Hawara was a chapel that stood above ground and was linked by means of stairs to the tomb located underground. This type of tomb is probably to be identified with some of those overlaying the ruins of the Labyrinth and explored by a number of the early Egyptologists. Lepsius reported that the site was covered with remains of hundreds of small and large chambers, some two storeys high, and furnished with doors, stairs, corridors and niches in the walls (Pl. 23).68 These were also explored, a few years later, by Vassalli who noted that the structures were adjacent, often partitioned inside, but not communicating. Inside he found a number of burials, but, on excavating below them, found only virgin soil.69 However, the site was also excavated by Petrie, who noted the presence of at least one pit tomb dug into the remains of the Labyrinth after the latter had fallen into ruins.70 If the defining characteristic of the ḥ.t-tomb is the use of stone, either because it is built with it, or dug into it, then the actual tomb may have been an underground, rock-cut (-built) tomb, with a brick-built superstructure which may have served mainly as chapel, but possibly also as storage space, and, if necessary, as burial area. Figure 18 shows a schematic reconstruction of this type of tomb.71 68 69 70 71

Lepsius 1853, 89–92. Vassalli 1867, 64–65. Petrie 1889, 5. The size and orientation of these tombs and structures are hypothetical.

tombs

397

The ḥ.t-tomb is also attested at Sharuna, in Middle Egypt. Mention of this type of structure is found only in P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC) where, at the beginning of line 2, in listing the duties of the lector-priest, it mentions that the latter will ‘take him (scil. the deceased) to the ḥ.t-tomb’ (ṯ.ṱ=f r tꜣ ḥ.t) (line 2). A large number of the graves excavated in this necropolis consist of underground rockcut tombs, which suggests that the noun ḥ.t had here the same meaning as at Thebes.72 In the cemetery there is a group of Old Kingdom rock-cut tombs, used from the 26th dynasty to the Roman Period. These are located on the south-west edge of the hill, on which the main necropolis lies, as well as on a raised knoll to the north-east near the border between the central and the northern necropolis, as well as in the latter with a north-south alignment (Pl. 11).73 Their entrance is located on the cliff face. The Mallawi papyri were found rolled up inside a jar buried in amongst the debris inside one of the subsidiary chambers of tomb W3, located to the west of that of Pepy-ankh, and belonging to a man named Gesa, called Meri. The chamber in which the jar was found is said to date to the Greco-Roman Period, presumably, therefore, it was added at this time to the existing structure.74 Another coffin (Inv. № Ä14), also belonging to a high priest of Horus, though his name was illegible, was originally recovered from the Old Kingdom rock-cut tomb of Ipy (G7), which had been used again during the Late and/or Ptolemaic periods. The tomb is quite large and is divided into different chambers, although sections of the walls were damaged when this later grave was built. The burial chamber of the latter is located beneath the Old Kingdom tomb, and was found to contain three anthropoid stone coffins.75 2.4 Tower-Tomb Another type of structure attested in the Theban area is the tower-tomb (mkṱr var. mkṱl), attested in P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) and P. Louvre E 3440 A–B + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC). That the mkṱr was a tomb, rather than a type of chapel is indicated by one of the entries in the first document, which mentions ‘the towertomb in which rests the master (ḥry) Amenothes and his people’ (pꜣ mkṱr nt i҆w pꜣ ḥry i҆mn-ḥtp ḥtp n-i҆m=f i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w) (line 4). Similarly, in P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) the structure is identified as ‘the tower 72

73 74 75

Because no mention of tomb types is found in other documents from this part of the country, it is not possible to say whether the noun was used with this meaning in the rest of Middle Egypt, or if it varied from place to place. Gestermann et al. 1988, 57. Zaghloul 1988, 137–138; Zaghloul 1991, 255. Gomaá 1983, 140 and note 20; Gestermann et al. 1989, 9. The coffin was identified inside tomb V23 used as a store for material previously excavated by the Egyptian Antiquities Service (Gestermann et al. 1989: 9).

398

chapter 16

and its s.wt-tombs’ (ḥnꜥ nꜣ šty.w pꜣ mkṱl i҆rm nꜣy=f s.wt) (B line 5a, A line 5c–d, B line 10),76 indicating it could be large enough to include smaller, brick-built burial places. No clear examples of this type of tomb survive today on the ground. Mention of apparently similar types of structures is found on one of the maps produced by the traveller Wilkinson who located them by the Deir el-Bahari cliffs near the temple of Hatshepsut, although it is not clear whether these were ancient or modern structures. Among the structures excavated by the Metropolitan Museum’s expedition there is a group of three tombs that in shape resemble towers (Pl. 24). They were identified by the excavator as birabi, which is the term used in the excavation notes to describe a type of chapel-tomb that is built above ground.77 Another possibility is that the tower to which the textual sources refer is the pylon located at the entrance of earlier tombs, with burial places excavated beneath it. An example of this is represented by TT32. Four shafts were dug in the first forecourt, three (A, B and D) in the court itself, and one (C) in its western pylon.78 The original entrance to this subterranean structure was located in the south-western corner of the forecourt. This consisted of a small area surrounded by a brick wall, possibly an offering place, fronting an underground vaulted corridor. The vaulting used a double course of bricks, like the Ptolemaic structures uncovered on the Asasif by the Winlock, Lansing and Carter/Carnarvon’s expeditions.79 In particular, the presence of brick-built features inside the pylon gate of earlier funerary structures suggests that the latter was indeed what in the textual sources is identified as a tower-tomb, since, according to P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175 BC), it included s.ttombs, that is, structures built with bricks. 2.5 ḳꜣ-tomb Another type of tomb regularly attested in Memphite documents from 305– 304BC (P. Louvre E 2412 + P. Bibl. Nat. 226) to 64 BC (P. Leiden I 380 a–b) is the ḳꜣ-tomb. One of the most detailed descriptions of this type of tomb is that found 76 77

78 79

P. Louvre E 3440 A (line 5c–d), P. Berlin P. 3112 (line 10). On the basis of the photograph code (5A) it is possible that these were part of what Lansing identified as a Large Ptolemaic tomb, although it is not possible to be certain since the relationship between the two cannot be ascertained from the photographs (Cannata in preparation). See Kákosy 1994, Fig. 1; Kákosy 1985, Fig. 1; and Kampp 1996, Fig. 126. Evidence for its use during the Ptolemaic Period is indicated by an inscription on one of the wrappings bearing a fragmentary cartouche of Ptolemy IV, and by material found in the corridor, as well as in a side chamber of shaft D, including coffin and cartonnage fragments and some shabtis (Kákosy 1994, 24–25; Kákosy 1996, 324).

tombs

399

in P. Leiden I 373 b–c (204–203BC), a sale and cession contract of funerary properties and liturgies in the Memphite necropolis, which identifies it as ‘the stone ḳꜣ-tomb, which is called “the stone ḳꜣ-tomb of Ptahmaa[cheru],” which measures [7]⅓ divine cubits from south to north, b[y] [2]5 divine cubits from west to east’ (pꜣ ḳꜣ n i҆ny nt ⟨i҆w=w⟩ ḏ n=f pꜣ ḳꜣ n i҆ny n ptḥ-mꜣꜥ-[ḫrw] nt i҆r mḥ-nṯr [7]⅓ n pꜣ rsy r pꜣ mḥt ḥr-[ẖ] mḥ-nṯr [2]5 n pꜣ i҆mnt r pr i҆ꜣbt) (line 3). The text also mentions ‘[the four store]rooms which are in it, their specification: two storerooms along the south wall, two storerooms along the north wall’ ([pꜣ pr]-ḥḏ 4 nt ẖn=f pꜣy=w wn pr-ḥḏ 2 ḥr tꜣ ḏy n pꜣ rs pr-ḥḏ 2 ḥr tꜣ ḏy n pꜣ mḥt) (lines 3– 4). Inside this particular tomb there is also a ‘stone ḳnḥy-chapel which is [to its] west, and measures 9 5/6 divine [cubits] from south to north by 12 divine cubits from west to east (…) (and) [four] storerooms [which are in it, their specification]: one storeroom along the south wall, two storerooms along the canal to the north, one storeroom along the wall to the west, cut into the mountain’ (ḳnḥy n i҆ny nt i҆r [n=f ] i҆mnt nt i҆r [mḥ]-ntr 9 5/6 n pꜣ rs r pr mḥt ḥr-ẖ mḥ-ntr 12 n pꜣ i҆mnt r pr i҆ꜣbt (…) pr-ḥḏ [4 nt ẖn=s pꜣy=w wn] wꜥ pr-ḥḏ ḥr tꜣ ḏy rs pr-ḥḏ 2 ḥr tꜣ ḥnꜣe n pꜣ mḥt ky pr-ḥḏ ḥr tꜣ ḏy n pr i҆mnt nt št ḥr pꜣ tw) (lines 4–5). In addition, the description indicates that this type of tomb could have more than one entrance since party A transfers a ‘share (…) of its main entrance (and) [its] doors’ (tni҆.t (…) pꜣy=f rꜣ ꜥꜣ [nꜣy=f ] sbꜣ.w) (line 5), as well as a ‘forecourt which is before it [on the eastern side]’ (ꜣrb nt ḥr-rꜣ=f nt [i҆r n=f i҆ꜣbt]) (line 5). Two other stone ḳꜣtombs are found to the north and to the south of it, while to the west there is a mountain and to the east the ‘road of Anubis-who-is-upon-his-mountain, the great god’ (lines 6–7). From the description given, the complex appears somewhat reminiscent of hypogea, such as that of Bocchoris located to the north of Unas valley temple and dating to the Saite Period. The tomb, hewn into the cliff face, consists of a square forecourt, halls, as well as an upper and a lower gallery from which shafts led down to burial chambers (see Fig. 3 below).80 The tomb complex described in P. Leiden I 373 b–c (204–203 BC) may be reconstructed as shown in Figure 19. That the ḳꜣ-tomb was a rock-cut tomb is clearly shown by P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) in which the two ḳꜣ-tombs transferred are said to be ‘cut into the mountain’ (št ẖn pꜣ tw) (line 3). The contract also specifies that their ‘entrances open towards the east’ (nt i҆w rꜣ=w wn r pꜣ i҆ꜣbt) (line 3), and that they include ‘plots of [land], which are before them (…) (and) ten storerooms which are in them’ (wr[ḥ].w nt ḥr rꜣ=w (…) pr-ḥḏ 10 nt ẖn=w) (line 3). The temple of Isis and its watch-post are located to its west and south, while to the north there is another 80

Bresciani 1976, 5–6. Another hypogeum apparently also used during the Ptolemaic Period is that of Ninetjer located beneath the causeway of Unas (Dreyer 2006, 153–154).

400

chapter 16

figure 19 Comparison between a schematic reconstruction of the tomb complex described in P. Leiden I 373 b–c (204–203 BC) and the plan of the tomb of Bocchoris (the latter after El-Naggar 1986, Fig. 1) (Memphis)

ḳꜣ-tomb and to the east a road. It seems possible that the temple of Isis is to be understood as being located higher on the cliff with the tomb dug out beneath it.81 A schematic reconstruction of the tomb would appear as shown in Fig. 20.82 Another three ḳꜣ-tombs are listed in P. Louvre E 3266 (197 BC) where they are identified as the ‘three ḳꜣ-tomb of the choachyte Ph[choiphis] son of Hapimenes.’ The tombs are said to have a forecourt at their entrance, with a halfcover, and three storehouses built within the court (line 1 H–K). Figure 21 shows a conjectured reconstruction of the tomb complex and neighbouring landmarks. 81 82

Martin 2009, 50 section 4, 82 note x. The size and orientation of these tombs and structures, as well as the preceding one, are hypothetical.

tombs

figure 20 Schematic reconstruction of the ḳꜣ-tomb described in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) (Memphis) and its neighbours

figure 21 Schematic reconstruction of the ḳꜣ-tombs listed in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) (Memphis) and its neighbours

401

402

chapter 16

Additional examples of this type of tomb are found in the Giza necropolis. Existing Old Kingdom tombs in the Eastern mastaba fields, for example, were used for burials during the Late and Ptolemaic periods, often following modifications and the addition of new shafts.83 In some instances, new shafts were dug inside these tombs, in others new chambers were dug inside the existing pits. Both individual and family tombs are attested.84 Additional tombs used again during the Ptolemaic Period are those located to the north-west of the sphinx, hewn out in the rocky escarpment surrounding its temenos. These were decorated and used from the Saite Period, although it is possible that they were actually dug in the Old Kingdom and then used again from the Late Period onward (Pl. 3).85 A number of rock-cut tombs found in the escarpment located in the area between the causeway of Kafre’s pyramid and that of Menkaure’s, and the funerary complex of Khentkhawes, dating from the Old Kingdom, were also used during the Ptolemaic Period on the basis of finds recovered from this area.86 To the north of tomb LG87, for example, inside one of the chambers of shaft № 790, were discovered four fragments of a coffin lid, decorated with ritual scenes, and belonging to Horkhebi, prophet of Ptolemy III and Ptolemy IV.87 East of Khafre’s pyramid, in a tomb which exact location is unknown, was discovered the bottom section of a wooden coffin, inscribed for the overseer of the army Searthos, dating to the end of the 30th dynasty or the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period.88 2.6 ꜥ.wy-tombs Another type of funerary structure attested from different areas of the country is that which employs the noun ꜥ.wy either by itself or in compounded form with rmṯ, ḳs, ḥtp, or ḥp. Although the first noun can be translated as ‘house,’ when used in a burial context the word is employed with its more general meaning of ‘place.’89 The information provided by the documents themselves on these structures is often too limited to be able to determine with certainty

83 84 85 86 87 88

89

Zivie-Coche 1991, 273. The material discovered here, however, is also very limited and of rather low quality (ZivieCoche 1991, 279). Zivie-Coche 1991, 288. It remains uncertain how intensively this area of the plateau was used during the Ptolemaic Period (Zivie-Coche 1991, 289–290). PM III 233, Pl. XXI B–C2; Hassan 1944, 313–314; Zivie-Coche 1991, 290. Zivie-Coche 1991, 292; PM III 291. The coffin was published by Daressy who, however, did not provide any information on the tomb beyond the fact that it was severely damaged by damp (1902, 158–159). CDD letter ꜥ, 6. Although the noun is rendered as house (= oikia) in Greek, the documents

tombs

403

their specific typology and the difference, if any, between them, but a number of points can be drawn from their analysis and a comparison with actual remains in the archaeological record. 2.6.1

(Burial)-Place (ꜥ.wy), (Burial)-Place for People (ꜥ.wy-(n)-rmṯ) and Burial Place (ꜥ.wy-ḳs) (var. ḳs.(t)) Examples of the use of the noun ꜥ.wy by itself are found at Memphis and at Sharuna (Middle Egypt). In P. BM EA 10384 (132 BC), from Memphis, these (burial)-places (ꜥ.wy.w) are given as neighbours of a ḥ.t-tomb. The same document also lists ‘the endowments, the (burial)-places (ꜥ.wy.w) and the ḥ.t-tombs which belong to Chaintief (son of) Pachemen and which are in the Memphite necropolis’ (nꜣ sꜥnḫ.w nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w nꜣ ḥ.wt nt i҆w=s ḫꜥ-i҆n.ṱ=f (sꜣ) pa-h̭ e-mn nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr) (line 7); and further down: ‘the 1/8 share (of) the plots of land which are ˹dug,˺90 together with the 1/8 share of the (burial)-places (ꜥ.wy.w) which are built on them (and) which are part of the endowments of the men who are written above (and) which are in the Necropolis of [Mem]phis’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 nꜣ wrḥ.w nt ˹šte.w˺ ḥnꜥ tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w nt ḳt ẖn=w nt ẖn nꜣ sꜥnḫ.w n nꜣ rmṯ.w nt sẖ ḥry nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n [mn]-nfr) (lines 10–11). Therefore, the document clearly indicates that these places were located in the necropolis and were part of endowments, which means that they generated an income and, consequently, that they must have been tombs.91 This same usage is attested in P. Hermitage 1122 (135 BC) which lists the ‘1/16 share of the (burial?)-places, the tombs (and) the memorials92 that are built within them’ (tni҆.t 1/16 n nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w nꜣ ḥ.wt nꜣ mꜣꜥ.w nt ḳt ẖn=w) (line 3). The same noun (ꜥ.wy) is employed in both P. Mallawi Museum 602/10 (111 BC) and P. Mallawi Museum 602/7 (101BC), both from Sharuna, in relation to funerary properties. Unfortunately, neither of them provides any information as to its typology. In P. Mallawi Museum 602/10 (111 BC) the plaintiff asserts that he and his colleagues had divided a number of revenue-places (ꜥ.wy.w n šty) amongst themselves, explaining that among the liturgies that devolved to him there was ‘the (burial)-place (ꜥ.wy) of Petosiris son of Thotmais, his children and

90 91

92

analysed here are written in Demotic and thus I have chosen to translate it according to the meaning it has in this language over the one it has when translated into Greek. The reading is not certain, see Martin 2009, 123 note qq. Although when these (burial)-places (ꜥ.wy.w) are given as tomb neighbours the noun could simply have the general meaning of places or areas, the fact that in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) (line 10) they are said to be built indicates they are structures of some type. For this translation of the noun mꜣꜥ see CDD letter M, 24; Pestman 1993, 466–467 §23 B, iv; and below § 2.8.

404

chapter 16

his women’ (pꜣ ꜥ.wy n pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r sꜣ ḏḥwṱ-m-ḥb i҆rm nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w nꜣy=f sḥm.wt). Similarly, in P. Mallawi Museum 602/7 (101BC) the sellers declare: ‘you have caused our heart to agree (to) ⟨the money⟩ (for) the endowment for the (burial)place (ꜥ.wy) of ˹Herchi˺’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=n (n) ⟨pꜣ ḥḏ⟩ (n) pꜣ sꜥnḫ n pꜣ ꜥ.wy ˹ḥr-ḫy˺) (line 3).93 Another type of tomb attested at Memphis and at Hawara is the ꜥ.wy-(n)-rmṯ, literally ‘(burial)-place for people’94 (henceforth (burial)-place). In the Hawara documents it occurs from 138–137BC (P. Ashmolean 1968.1 + 1968.2) to 79 BC (P. Hamburg 9). That this was a burial place is shown by P. Cairo 50126 (116– 107BC), in which Party A cedes ‘the half share of the 1/10 (…) of the endowment of seal-bearer and embalmer that is in the aforesaid necropolis’ (tꜣ tny gs 1/10 (…) ˹pꜣ˺ sꜥnḫ ḫtmw wyt nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t nt ḥry) (lines 5–6). Following this statement, the deed lists, among others, ‘the (burial)-place of Petesouchos and Haryotes his brother (…); ˹the (burial)-place of Sochonopis (son of) Marres˺’ (pꜣ ꜥ.wy rmṯ pꜣ-ty-sbk i҆rm ḥr-wḏꜣ pꜣy=f sn (…) ˹pꜣ ꜥ.wy rmṯ sbk-ḥꜥpy (sꜣ) mꜣꜥ-rꜥ˺) (lines 6– 7). Similarly, in P. Hamburg 9 (79BC) the liturgies transferred include ‘the half share which makes one share within two of the (burial)-place of Totoes the beekeeper, his children and his relative(s),95 (and) the half share which makes one share within two of the (burial)-place of Ptolomaios the pitch-dealer, his children and every person who will be brought (in) his name, and the man Heraklides, the pine-wood-dealer’ (tni҆.t pš nt i҆r tni҆.t 1.t ẖn 2.t pꜣ ꜥ.wy rmṯ twt pꜣ i҆bṱ i҆rm nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w nꜣy=f šmꜥ.(w) tꜣ tni҆.t pš nt i҆r tni҆.t 1.t ẖn 2.t pꜣ ꜥ.wy rmṯ ptlwmi҆ꜣs pꜣ s-n-nḏpt i҆rm nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w i҆rm rmṯ nb mtw=w i҆n.ṱ=w rn=f pꜣ ḥwṱ hrꜣḳlṱs pꜣ s-nḳt) (lines 8–10).96 In P. Ashmolean 1968.10 (99–98 BC) this structure appears to be big enough to accommodate several family members. The seller states: ‘you have caused my heart to agree to the price for the (burial)-place (and?) hall97 of Petesouchos (son of) Paesis, his mother being Tasos […] (and?) Zoil[o]s who died and their women, their children and the strangers who will come in their

93 94 95

96 97

The examples from Sharuna are slightly ambivalent, in that they could refer to either the tombs or the households which were included within the ‘revenue places.’ Thus also Johnson 1986, 80. This translation follows that of Pasek (2007, 514 note 10), which I have preferred over a translation as ‘stranger’ since it would not be a logical one in view of the presence of the possessive nꜣy=f. For the translation of nḏpt as ‘pitch’ see Quack 2000, 292. Reymond (1973, 88–89 note 6) read rmṯ-n-ḫyt understanding the noun ḫyt as ‘office building,’ and translated the title as ‘official.’ The CDD (letter H̱ , 21) reread the title as rmṯ n ẖy, literally ‘(land) measurer,’ taking ẖy as the verb ‘to measure.’ Pasek (2007, 394 note 8) read it as ḫꜣj also understanding it as the title ‘surveyor.’ Den Brinker et al. (2005a, 20 text 10.4) read the noun as ḫyt ‘hall,’ which is the translation adopted here.

tombs

405

name’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=y n pꜣ ḥḏ n pꜣ ꜥ.wy-n-rmṯ n ḫyt pꜣ-ty-sbk (sꜣ) p-i҆s.t mw.t=f taswr […] sylꜣ[w]s n i҆.i҆r mwt i҆rm nꜣy=w sḥm.wt nꜣy=w ẖrṱ.w i҆rm nꜣ šmꜥꜣ.w nt i҆w=w r-i҆y n rn=w) (lines 4–5). The same compound noun is attested in P. Louvre E 3266 (197 BC),98 from Memphis, which De Cenival translated as ‘maison d’ habitation.’99 In this document the god’s seal-bearer Imouthes son of Ptahmaacheru, cedes to his halfsister, the woman Smithis, the revenues originating from four different endowments. The deed includes three long lists of (burial)-places-for-people (ꜥ.wy n rmṯ).100 At the end of the document Party A declares: ‘(with respect to) that which is paid for a deceased person, a female deceased person, or a young (deceased) person, and the (burial)-places (ꜥ.wy.w) of the people whose names are written above, (and) the one who will come in their name, (and with respect to) that which is paid (to) any man at all in my name, without me having paid you for your half share in accordance with what written above, I will give you 100 silver (deben)’ (pꜣ nt mḥ […] ḳs ḳs.t ḫm-ẖl i҆w=s nꜣ tmy.w nt ḥry ḥnꜥ ꜥ.wy.w n nꜣ rmṯ.w nt i҆w pꜣy=w rn sẖ ḥry pꜣ nt i҆w=f r i҆y rn=w pꜣ nt mḥ=w rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ (n) rn=y r bn-pw=y mḥ=t n tꜣy=t tny.t pš r-ẖ pꜣ nt sẖ ḥry i҆w=y ty n=t ḥḏ 100) (line 11 C– E). The fact that the compound noun ꜥ.wy n rmṯ was abbreviated to ꜥ.wy in one of the final legal clauses perhaps suggests that the examples in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) and P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC) should also be understood as abbreviations of the former. The final compound form used in the Memphite documents to identify a tomb is ꜥ.wy-ḳs, literally ‘place ( for) burial.’ This type of tomb is attested from 305–304BC (P. Louvre E 2412 + P. Bibl. Nat. 226) to 64BC (P. Leiden I 380a– b), and it is one of those most commonly listed in the Memphite documents. The compound noun is typically listed among the properties that are part of the endowments object of the transaction, as, for example, in P. Leiden 380a (64BC) which lists the ‘1/6 share of the rest of the ḳꜣ-tombs, the ḥ.w-tombs, the burial places (ꜥ.wy.w-ḳs), the places of mourning (and of) the anointings (…) pertaining to the above endowment in the Memphite necropolis’ (pꜣ sp nꜣ kꜣ.w nꜣ ḥw.wt nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w ḳs nꜣ mꜣꜥ.w nhpy nꜣ wlḥ.w (…) mtw pꜣ sꜥnḫ nt ḥry ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mnnfr) (line 5).

98

99 100

It is possible that the compound noun ꜥ.wy n rmṯ was also used P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC), but this cannot be ascertained at present since Revillout omits to produce a facsimile of the relevant passage (Revillout 1880b, 115–116, Pl. IV). De Cenival 1972a; corrected in CDD letter ꜥ, 15. The list follows the pattern ‘the ½ share of the (burial)-place-for-people of Petosiris son of Imouthes’ (ḥnꜥ tꜣy=t tny.t pš n pꜣ ꜥ.wy n rmṯ pꜣ-ty-wsr sꜣ n i҆y-m-ḥtp) (De Cenival 1972a, 23, line 5 L–M).

406

chapter 16

In addition, a number of the documents also employ the noun ḳs, which is used with two different meanings. In the first place this noun is used to denote deceased persons, which should be understood as a reference to the right to perform the mummification and/or the entombment and burial rites for these individuals.101 On the other hand, there are three examples in which the noun ḳs may have been used as an abbreviation of the compound noun ꜥ.wy-ḳs. They occur in P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) which lists: ‘the 1/8 share of the (burial)-place of the Gree[k]s (in) the courtyard of the Great Ones’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 tꜣ ḳs.t ⟨nꜣ⟩ wyn[n].w pꜣ i҆nḥ nꜣ wr.w) (line 8), ‘the 1/8 share of the (burial)-place of the Sechmes(?)’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 n tꜣ ḳs.[t] n pꜣ sẖms) (line 9), and ‘the 1/8 share of the upper (burial)place and the lower (burial)-place’ (tꜣ tni҆.t 1/8 n tꜣ ḳs.t ḥry.t tꜣ ḳs.t ẖrꜣ.t) (line 9). Although the first two examples are perhaps slightly ambiguous, and could be translated in the same way as the preceding ones, the last instance has to be an abbreviation of the compound noun ꜥ.wy-ḳs since the fact that they are qualified as ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ denotes a physicality which would not be logical if the meaning were that of ‘deceased persons.’ One aspect in which these two types of tombs differ, on the basis of the textual evidence alone, is the fact that while the ꜥ.wy-n-rmṯ-tomb is always identified by the name of a person, the ꜥ.wy-ḳs-tomb never is. In addition, the fact that one of the entries in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) identifies the tomb as ‘the (burial)-place of [name?] which is called (that of?) Menon son of Ephonychos’ (pꜣ ꜥ.wy n rmṯ [name?] nt i҆w=w ḏ n=f mnn sꜣ i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ) (line 3 N–O), suggests that it would have been possible to distinguish these tombs on the ground.102 Additionally, one of the shares transferred with P. BM EA 10384 (132 BC) concerns some plots of land and the (burial)-places that are built on them.103 Therefore, if the suggestion that the noun ꜥ.wy is an abbreviation of the compound noun ꜥ.wy n rmṯ, then it is possible that the ꜥ.wy ḳs perhaps denoted a simple pit in the ground (see for example Pl. 25), while the former was a slightly more elaborate tomb, which remained visible on the ground and was large enough to accommodate various individuals.

101 102

103

This is the case in P. Brussels E 6033 (276–275 BC) (line 7), P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC) (line 3), P. Leiden I 379 (256 BC) (line 4 and 6), P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) (line 11 H–I). I am unable to read what follows on from rmṯ, but it could presumably be the name of the tomb owner. The following expression seems unusual in that, if it refers to the tomb’s owner, it is strange that it would give a name and a patronymic since this is not generally the case with this type of expression. If it refers to the tomb, it is unusual since we would expect to have ‘the pꜣ ꜥ.wy n rmṯ nt i҆w=w ḏ n=f pꜣ ꜥ.wy n rmṯ (n) mnn sꜣ i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ’ or a similar clause. See, for example, in the same document line 8 H–I. For this passage see above.

tombs

407

An indication of what the typology of the ꜥ.wy (n rmṯ) may have been is provided by the remains in Sharuna necropolis. As mentioned above, only two types of tombs are attested in the textual record of this area, the ḥ-t-tomb, which is very probably a rock-cut tomb, and the ꜥ.wy-tomb. The archaeological record also shows only two types of tombs, rock-cut tombs and pits cut into the ground. Three groups of pits were distinguished in the ground on the basis of their form and orientation: 1. square pits, dating from the Old Kingdom, 2. long rectangular pits with a north-south alignment, with no firm dating established for these, 3. long rectangular pits with a west-east alignment, and dating from the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.104 The latter consisted of underground tunnels branching out in various directions and leading to more than one chamber.105 A number of these tombs belonged to the high-priests of Horus. One of these tombs, R22, was located in the central necropolis among the Old Kingdom rock-cut tombs, and was dated to the Ptolemaic Period on the basis of textual evidence. The tomb belonged to the high priest of Horus Peteamounis and still preserved evidence for painted decoration, although much of the scenes had been damaged during illicit excavations.106 In the doorway two scenes show the deceased before Osiris, while part of the autobiographic text inscribed on the tomb walls described the role of Peteamounis in the performance of the cult of the god Harsiese.107 In addition, the inscription provides information on the use of the tomb as a family grave since the parents of the deceased are said to be buried in this same tomb.108 Another tomb belonging to a high priest of Horus is that of Iuefaa (I20) where his coffin (Inv. № 89/2) was discovered still in situ.109 Additional Ptolemaic textual material was recovered from other tombs and included the beginning of a line of text recovered from a pit approximately 10m east of tomb G12; a coffin lid (dating probable) 104

105 106 107 108

109

Gestermann et al. 1989, 10; Gestermann et al. 1988, 57–58. The cemetery, it was estimated, comprised between 800 and 900 tombs, of which most are pit tombs (Gestermann et al. 1987, 27). Gestermann et al. 1987, 27. Brinks et al. 1985, 64–65. Brinks et al. 1984, 81; Brinks et al. 1986, 75. Gestermann et al. 1987, 36. Part of this autobiographic text describes the tomb as being located ‘to the east of the cenotaph of Osiris, beside the tomb of the falcons’ (Gestermann et al. 1987, 36) (The excavators point out that the text could also be translated as ‘opposite the cenotaph,’ for a discussion on the two possible translations see Gestermann et al. 1988, 59–60). Indeed, excavations around this tomb (R22) have unearthed a number of pit tombs with dog (Q14) and cattle (R16) burials (Gestermann et al. 1987, 26), while falcon and ibis burials were found in tomb S25, as well as graffiti referring to the sacred ibises (Gestermann et al. 1988, 60). Gestermann et al. 1989, 9.

408

chapter 16

inscribed for a daughter of a priest of Horus, a man of Hutnesu, in a pit approximately 50m north-east of S14; and a coffin lid (dating probable) mentioning ‘Osiris, lord of Hutnesu’ found in a pit (T16) approximately 10 m south-east of S14.110 As noted above, the textual record from Hawara also indicates the presence of two tomb types, the ḥ.t-tomb and the ꜥ.wy n rmṯ tomb. However, beside the rock-cut tombs of earlier periods (with or without superstructure), Petrie reported the presence of two further types, the well-tombs and the pit-tombs.111 A number of the well-tombs appear to have been originally built during the 20th, 26th and 30th dynasties, and were still in use during the Ptolemaic Period.112 New, small ones were also made during the Ptolemaic Period. These consisted of shafts about 2.5–3m deep, often reinforced with bricks. These led to small underground recesses in which a coffin was placed, in some cases jutting out into the shaft itself.113 This type of tomb is also attested at other sites in the Fayum, where it tended to be slightly more elaborate than at Hawara, with the shafts leading into underground chamber(s), sometimes hewn one above the other.114 From the late Ptolemaic Period the majority of the tombs in use at Hawara were pit-tombs. Some of these were quite deep and contained coffins.115 Similar types of tombs were found at Gurob,116 Theadelphia,117

110 111

112 113 114

115 116

117

Brinks et al. 1986, 68. I am not entirely sure of the difference between these two types of tombs, since both of them appear to have consisted of shafts, often quite deep. It is possible that the well-tomb led to one or more underground burial chambers, while the pit consisted only of a shaft at the bottom of which the burials were located. It is also possible that Petrie excavated some shallow pits (Uytterhoeven 2009, 466; Petrie 1889, 8), but this is not entirely certain from his description. Petrie 1889, 8. Petrie 1889, 14. At Soknopaiou Nesos the shafts were between 2 and 4m deep, and led to sizeable rooms with space for as many as ten coffins (Grenfell and Hunt 1901b, 4–5; Davoli 1998, 41, 50–51). At Backias these tombs had shafts between 4.5 and 9m deep, each leading to an underground vaulted room (Grenfell et al. 1900, 41; Pernigotti 1994, 5–25; Pernigotti 2000, 41–57; Davoli 1998, 118, 126–127). Petrie 1889, 14. Located in area VIII of Leuven survey. Here the mummies were decorated with cartonnage elements and laid in rough-cut wooden coffins placed at the bottom of the tombs. See Petrie et al. 1891 and 1890; Davoli 1998, 167. In these tombs the walls of the pits were lined with mud-bricks for added strength. Some were covered with a vaulting. The dead were placed in these tombs individually or in groups. Aside from the poorer burials, the dead were placed in roughly cut wooden coffins (some roughly anthropoid in shape), or in crude terracotta sarcophagi (Grenfell et al. 1900, 55–59; Davoli 1998, 286–287).

tombs

409

and Kom el-Khamsin.118 Although it cannot be established with certainty, it is entirely possible that no distinction was made in ancient times between these two types of tombs and that they were identified by the same term, ꜥ.wy n rmṯ. In the Memphite archaeological record, aside from the shafts cut inside existing structures during the Ptolemaic Period or earlier, there are also shafts cut into the ground without any associated superstructure. These are found for example in the area west of Mariette’s house along the Serapieion Way. Here were unearthed a group of seven tombs dated by the excavators to the Late Period on the basis of the style of associated artefacts, while a number of shaft-tombs had been dug between these tombs in successive periods. These consisted of shafts between 3 and 9.5m deep leading to a central area that gave access to a number of burial rooms.119 Deep shafts leading to one or two burial chambers, sometimes paved with limestone slabs, were discovered at Tûra ElAsmant on the east bank of the Nile, not far from the predynastic site of Maadi and Helwan (Pl. 1). More than 1500 burials, spanning the entire period of Egyptian history from the Archaic to the Greco-Roman periods, were discovered here during the development of a local cement factory whence the cemetery derives its name (Pl. 6).120 Beside the rock-cut tombs, the chapel-tombs and the shaft tombs, there is a fourth tomb typology attested in the Memphite archaeological record, which consists of shallow pits in the ground with or without protective structures around the body. Examples of this type of inhumation have been found in a cemetery dating to the Ptolemaic Period located to the west of the step pyramid on the slope of the earth-bank that extends toward a longitudinal depression known as the ‘dry moat.’121 The majority of these interments were either deposited in the sand over earlier structures, or in cavities that cut into the underlying Old Kingdom structures, in some instances reusing bricks from these earlier tombs to build a crude type of superstructure over the burials. Some of the deceased had been simply wrapped in a mat without any type of container, or placed in a hollow with mudbrick or stones as edging. Others were wrapped and decorated with painted cartonnage, while a few had been placed inside wooden or terracotta coffins.122 Both individual and group burials were found, with mummified and skeletal remains, with and without

118 119 120 121 122

Here the pits appear to have been fairly large (Grenfell and Hunt 1901c, 3–4; Davoli 1998, 265–266). Basta 1966, 15, 19 and Pl. I. Yacoub 1983, 103–105. Myśliwiec 2002, 349; Myśliwiec 1997, 103; Myśliwiec 2003a, Fig. 2. Myśliwiec 1997, 109; Myśliwiec 1998, 93; Ćwiek 2000, 116; Myśliwiec 2003, 348.

410

chapter 16

coffins.123 Excavations were also extended westward of the so-called dry moat over a surface of 25m (E-W) by 10m (N-S), which was divided into a threesquare grid numbered 1714, 1715 and 1716. This revealed the presence of differences both in terms of the strata’s composition and in the number of later inhumations within these squares (Pl. 26).124 In particular, the upper stratum at the western end (square 1716) consisted of a compact mixture of flints, rubble and crystallised sand (dakka) over a thin stratum of sand below which Old Kingdom structures and late, possibly Ptolemaic, inhumations were located.125 The latter were placed in the upper sections of the earlier tombs making use of them as protection for the interments. An example of this is the pit dug between shafts № 56 and 58 to house a coffin (Pl. 26).126 By contrast, the upper stratum at the eastern end (squares 1715 and 1714) consists of a deep layer of wind-blown sand, and contained a dense agglomeration of what are suggested may be mainly Ptolemaic inhumations127 Some of the interments were placed inside an anthropomorphic cavity dug into the ground, as, for example, burial № 4, which was found in one such hollow hewn into the floor of the courtyard of an Old Kingdom tomb, covered with a mat bordered by stone blocks (Pl. 27).128 Examples for this type of burials are also found in the Mastaba of Ptahshepses and surrounding areas. A number of inhumations were found in the area between the mastaba and its enclosure wall. Some were located in pits dug into the top layer of the ruined enclosure wall, while others had been placed in the sand drift which stands about 1 m below the present surface. However, no evidence for burial structures was found in any of the graves excavated, the only means of protection afforded to the corpse being a coffin

123 124 125

126 127 128

Myśliwiec 2001, 114; Myśliwiec 2004, 113–114. Myśliwiec 2003a, 113. A total of 136 burials, including three Old Kingdom inhumations and two of uncertain date, were discovered in this three-grid square, which represents over a third of the 353 interments discovered by the Polish mission in the period between 1987 and 2002. In a large number of cases the deceased was oriented with the head to the west and feet to the east, although this may not have been a strict rule since a number of the interments showed a south-north orientation with the head mainly to the south (Myśliwiec 2003a, 114). Myśliwiec 2003a, 114. Myśliwiec 2003a, 114 and Fig. 3. Myśliwiec 2002, 351; Myśliwiec et al. 1995, Fig. 13b, 14 and 15. A common feature between the cartonnage found on this mummy (burial № 4) and other fragments from other burials was the presence of a solar disk with wings spreading over the chin of the deceased, a characteristic that has been dated to the Late Ptolemaic Period, although Myśliwiec suggests an earlier date for this type of decorative scheme on the basis of the stratigraphic position of the body (Myśliwiec 2002, 351).

tombs

411

which was used in about half of the burials unearthed within the concession of the Polish mission.129 Simple inhumations in the ground were also found in the Eastern mastaba fields located in the paths between the ancient mastabas, which they eventually obstructed. These are simply placed in the ground with structures in mud-brick or reused stone over them as a protection. In general they contained very few, if any, artefacts.130 Similarly, at Tûra El-Asmant, during the latest phase, identified by the excavator as Greco-Roman, the deceased are generally buried in reused pits inside a rough limestone sarcophagus, usually oriented east-west.131 No information is given on the type of evidence for the reuse of tombs, or on the date of the reused pits.132 The pits ascribed to the Old, Middle and New Kingdom, and later, differed in terms of orientation but in general consisted of rectangular pits, left either unlined or lined with mudbrick or limestone slabs. In a number of cases sarcophagi were found lying side by side, which may be an indication that these were interments of members of the same family (Pl. 59).133 2.6.2 Resting Place(s) (ꜥ.wy-ḥtp) and Place(s) of Hiding (ꜥ.wy n ḥp) The compound form ꜥ.wy-ḥtp, literally place of rest, is attested both at Thebes and at Memphis, where it appears to have had both a generic and a specific meaning. At Thebes it is attested from 240 BC (P. Philadelphia XIX) to 114 BC (P. Berlin P. 3116), while at Memphis it is found in only two of the published documents, P. BM EA 10398 (119BC) and P. Leiden I 380a–b (64 BC). The clearest example of this term being used to refer to a tomb in general, without any reference to its typology, is found in the transfer tax receipt recorded in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC), where the buyer states that he is going to build a ‘s.t-tomb (as a) place of rest (ꜥ.wy-ḥtp) for Petenephotes’ (line 4).134 This appears to be also the way in which the compound noun is used in P. Berlin P. 3099 (124BC) in which the testator states that he has assigned to his eldest son an additional portion which includes ‘Pchorchonsis son of Osoroeris and his children who are among the pure ones (wꜥb.w), his women, his children who are among the ˹people˺ of the town (= the living), and their women, together with their resting places (ꜥ.wy.w-ḥtp)’ (pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw sꜣ wsi҆r-wr i҆rm nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w nt

129 130 131 132 133 134

Strouhal and Bareš 1993, 75. Zivie-Coche 1991, 279. The pits ranged between 1.80 m and 3 m in length, 0.90cm and 1.30m in width, 0.15cm and 1.25 m in depth (Yacoub 1988, 209 and Pls. XX and XXI). Yacoub 1983, 106. Yacoub 1988, 210 and Pls. XX and XXI. For this tax receipt see Chapter 15 § 3 above.

412

chapter 16

ẖn nꜣ wꜥb.w i҆rm nꜣy=f sḥm.wt i҆rm nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w nt ẖn nꜣ ˹rmṯ˺.w n tmy i҆rm nꜣy=w sḥm.wt ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w ꜥ.wy.w n ḥtp) (lines 4–5).135 Another example is found in P. BM EA 10398 (119BC), from Memphis, which, among the properties ceded, lists ‘any resting-place (ꜥ.wy-ḥtp), any tomb, any s.t-rmy, any ꜥ.wy-ḳs-tomb’ ([ꜥ].wy-ḥtp nb ḥ.wt nb s.t-rmy nb ꜥ.wy-ḳs nb) (line 3). On the other hand, in a small number of documents the compound noun ꜥ.wy-ḥtp denotes a place inside a tomb, whichever its typology, where the deceased rested. In P. Berlin P. 3099, 3100 and 5508 (124 BC), with which a father shares among his three children his properties, the testator gives each of the sons ¼ of the share which devolves upon him in the ḥ.t-tomb of Abunefer, with ¼ of the pure ones (wꜥb.w) who are in the said tomb, ¼ of their children, their women and their resting places (ꜥ.wy.w-ḥtp);136 as well as ¼ of the three pure ones (wꜥb.w) who are in ḥ.t-tomb of Harwa, together with ¼ of their children, their women and their resting places (ꜥ.wy.w-ḥtp). In these instances, given that the deceased are specifically said to be in a ḥ.t-tomb, it seems logical to assume that the term ꜥ.wy-ḥtp refers to the actual place in which the bodies lay inside the said tomb. Similarly, in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC) the list of the deceased includes ‘Psenasychis son of Osoroeris, his woman, his children, their resting places (ꜥ.wy.w-ḥtp) and his shaft-tomb’ (ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f ꜥ.wy.w n ḥtp ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f šḳ) (col. 2 lines 12–13), where the term may be understood as referring to the specific areas of the shaft-tomb in which the bodies lay. Similarly, P. Leiden I 380a–b (64 BC), from Memphis, lists the ‘1/6 share of the rest of the ḳꜣ.w-tombs, the ḥ.wt-tombs, the ꜥ.wy.w-ḳs-tombs, the places of mourning (and of) the anointings (…), every building (or) place pertaining to the endowment which is above in the Necropolis of Memphis, together with my 1/6 share of the resting places (ꜥ.wy.w-ḥtp) which are in them’ (tni҆.t 1/6 pꜣ sp nꜣ ḳꜣ.w nꜣ ḥ.wt nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w-ḳs nꜣ mꜣꜥ.w-nhpy nꜣ wlḥ.w (…) pr mꜣꜥ nb m-sꜣ pꜣ sꜥnḫ nt ḥry ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr ḥnꜥ tꜣy(=y) tni҆.t 1/6 n nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w-ḥtp nt ẖn=w) (line 5). Thus the available evidence clearly indicates that the ꜥ.wy-ḥtp was, at least in some instances, to be found inside other (funerary) places, and that the compound noun may have referred to the burial chamber proper. In addition, this is the term regularly used in the Memphite necropolis, at Hawara, and in the Theban area to identify the galleries in which sacred animals, such ibises, falcons, the Apis bulls, and crocodiles, were buried.137 At 135

136 137

Another possible example is found in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) which lists among other liturgies ‘Harmais, his wife, his children, and his resting place’ (ḥr-m-ḥb tꜣy=f ḥm.t nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f ꜥ.wy n ḥtp) (col. 3 line 25). P. Berlin P. 3099 omits the phrase ‘and their resting place(s).’ See Ray 1976, 139–140. The Fayum religious associations’ documents mention the resting

tombs

413

Thebes, for example, two tombs sold with P. Philadelphia XIX (240 BC) are said to be on ‘the path to the resting place of the Ibis’ (pꜣ myt n pꜣ ꜥ.wy-ḥtp n pꜣ hb) (line 2). In P. BM EA 10223 (195–171BC)138 the neighbours of one of the tombs sold is identified as ‘the path of the resting place `and those who rest therein´’ (pꜣ myt pꜣ ꜥ.wy-ḥtp`i҆rm ⟨nꜣ⟩ nt ḥtp ẖn=s´) (lines 7–7a).139 As noted above, the compound noun is attested in Theban documents until 114BC, when it may have been replaced with the phrase ꜥ.wy n ḥp, literally place(s) of hiding, attested from 116 BC (P. Berlin P. 3118) to 98 BC (P. Turin 2132), with the same meaning. The name suggests a place of hiding, very likely underground, without any typological indication. In P. Berlin P. 3107 (99 BC) party A sells some liturgies for a number of people together with their ‘share of the s.ttomb, their places for/of hiding and everything which pertains to them’ (tni҆.t s.t ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w ꜥ.wy.w n ḥp nt nb nt ṯ r-r=w) (line 12). In P. Berlin P. 3106 (98 BC) the liturgies alienated include ‘˹Snachomneus˺ (the) smith, his woman, his children, together with ˹those who will come to them˺, their places for/of hiding (and) their blessed ones’ (˹ns-nꜣ.w-ẖmn.i҆w˺ bsnṱ tꜣy=f sḥm.t nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w ḥnꜥ ˹nꜣ nt i҆w=w r i҆y r rṱ=w˺ nꜣy=w ꜥ.wy.w n ḥp nꜣy=w ḥsy.w) (lines 4–5). In P. Berlin P. 3139 (98BC) the seller declares to be satisfied with the money for his share of the ‘(religious)-services, the purificatory offerings, the šty-revenues of the pure ones, the gods, the people […], their women, their children, together with those who will come to it, together with their blessed ones (and) their places ( for/of ) hiding’ (šms.w nꜣ ꜥrš.w nꜣ šty.w n nꜣ wꜥb.w nꜣ nṯr.w nꜣ rmṯ.w […] nꜣy=w sḥm.wt nꜣy=w ẖrṱ.w ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt i҆w=w r i҆y (r) rṱ=w ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w ḥsy.w nꜣy=w ꜥ.wy.w ḥp) (lines 4–5). Similarly in P. Turin 2132 (98BC) where the sellers state: ‘you have caused our heart to agree to the money for the (religious)-services, the purificatory offerings, and the šty-revenues for (the work as) choachyte for Patous son of Pachnoumis, his woman, his children, their servants, their nurse, their blessed ones (and) their places ( for/of ) hiding’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=n n pꜣ ḥḏ n nꜣ šms.w nꜣ ꜥrš.w nꜣ šty.w n wꜣḥ-mw n pa-tꜣ.wy sꜣ pa-ẖmn tꜣy=f sḥm.t nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w nꜣy=w bꜣk.w

138 139

place (ꜥ.wy ḥtp) of the crocodile as the place where the members’ reunions took place, see Chapter 8. For the dating see Den Brinker et al. 2005a, 68. The document also lists pꜣ ꜥ.wy-ḥtp mḥṱ n pꜣ hb (line 8), which can be translated as ‘the northern resting place of Paibis (Pꜣ-hb)’ or as ‘the northern resting place of the Ibis.’ According to Andrews (1990 45 note 12), if the repeated word mḥṱ is not a scribal error, Paibis may have owned more than one burial place. A like-named man is found in a s.ttomb in P. BM EA 10615, in a s.t-tomb with the title of scribe in P. Berlin P. 3096, in a mꜣꜥ-chapel with the title the master, the blessed one (pꜣ ḥry pꜣ ḥsy) in P. Louvre N 3263, in a ḥ.t-tomb identified as the son of Nechtenibis in P. Berlin P. 3098+5507.

414

chapter 16

tꜣy=w mnꜥ-i҆ry.t nꜣy=w ḥsy.w nꜣy=w ꜥ.wy.w ḥp) (lines 3–4). An indication that the meaning of this phrase was synonymous with the compound noun ꜥ.wy-ḥtp is provided by a comparison between P. Berlin P. 3099 (124 BC) and P. Berlin P. 3118 (116BC), a donation of a share of liturgies and a hn-agreement between heirs, respectively, concerning the same parties and some of the same liturgies. In P. Berlin P. 3099 (124BC), quoted above, the testator transfers to his eldest son the right to ‘Pchorchonsis son of Osoroeris and his children who are among the pure ones (= the dead), and his women, and his children who are among the ˹people˺ of the town (= the living), and their women, together with their resting places’ (lines 4–5). Some years later the same testator and his heirs stipulate another agreement, preserved in P. Berlin P. 3118 (116 BC), and concerning, among others, the liturgies of ‘Pchorchonsis (son of) Osoroeris, his wife (and) his children, together with their places-for-hiding ˹in˺ the ḥ.t-tomb of Abunefer’ (pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw (sꜣ) wsi҆r-wr tꜣy=f ḥm.t nꜣy=f ẖrṱ.w ḥnꜥ nꜣy=w ꜥ.wy.w-ḥp ˹n˺ tꜣ ḥ.t ꜣbwnfr) (lines 1–2). This indicates that the terms were synonyms and that they both probably referred to the burial chamber proper inside any given tomb regardless of its typology. An example of this type of structure is probably represented by the partition walls built inside earlier structures with the aim to create discrete burial areas, perhaps to be used by individual families. These are found, for instance, inside the tomb of Ankhhor (TT414)140 where the space between the columns in Room 2 was bricked up so as to create a burial chamber (Pl. 29 and 29a).141 In addition, remains of bolting devices were found in the secondary masonry by the area of the western pillar thus indicating that this space was also used as a burial place.142 Similarly, in the tomb of Harwa (TT37) architectural modifications were made to allow for the addition of doors,143 while in the tomb of Mutirdis (TT410) where crude masonry was added between chambers two and three.144 To this same category perhaps belong the crude protective structures built around the inhumations placed inside larger structures. Examples of this type of ‘architectural coffin or burial chamber’ were excavated on the Asasif by the MET’s expedition inside what was identified as the ‘large Ptolemaic tomb’ (Pl. 30).145 Different types of protective emplacements were used, some built entirely with bricks, while in other cases they employed a variety of bricks and

140 141 142 143 144 145

Manniche 1987, 145. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 81–82. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 155. Tiradritti 2005, 170. Arnold and Settgast 1970, 3–4. See Cannata in preparation.

tombs

415

architectural fragments from earlier structures. One of the examples unearthed in this part of the concession made use of a number of offering tables as well as limestone slabs and other architectural fragments (Pl. 31 and 32). The body was laid inside these structures with or without coffin(s) (Pl. 33). Other examples are, for instance, found in the tomb of Djehutymose (TT32) where, in the passage between Rooms I and II, were found remains of a low mudbrick wall still present on three sides of the body (№ 7).146 Similarly, in the tomb of Horemheb, in the Memphite necropolis, crude brick blocking had been used in Magazine A to create a type of basic superstructure over the interments placed there. The skeletal remains found in situ in Magazine A were those of four adults and a child, who had been placed on a low platform of reused mud bricks and debris built directly over the original floor level.147 The bodies had been covered with limestone slabs perhaps originally part of a revetment or packing of walls in the courtyard.148 A final type of tomb attested in the Theban necropolis is represented by the brick-built underground tombs found in the cemetery area overlaying the funerary temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu, north of Medinet Habu. Four different types were unearthed: family tombs, individual tombs (two types) and simple inhumations in the ground (Pl. 34a).149 Those identified as family tombs (Pl. 35) appear to have been the same as those excavated on the Asasif consisting of an underground vault accessed via a pit giving access, through an arched doorway, to the burial chamber. The excavators noted that, after each interment, the door would be sealed and the pit backfilled. The individual tombs were of two varieties with the difference between them resting on their elaborateness.150 The finer type (II) consisted of a brick-lined pit sunk into the ground with a gabled roof springing from the top of the side walls, which were about five courses in height. The roof was pitched rather than arched and stood lower than the short sides which maximum height is that of the ridge of the roof (Pl. 36 and 37).151 The lesser type (III) consisted of a single course of bricks, laying on their edge, and forming the sides over which the gabled roof rested.152 The roof was also pitched rather than arched, although the end walls, which consisted of two bricks laid on edge as stretchers, did not rise over the level of

146 147 148 149 150 151 152

Kákosy and Gaál 1985, 14, 16. Martin 1989, 51–52; Schneider 1996, 6. Martin 1989, 52. Robichon and Varille 1936, 43 and Fig. 11; Spencer 1979, 54; Strudwick 2003, 178. Robichon and Varille 1936, 43–44. Robichon and Varille 1936, 44 and Fig. 11, II; Spencer 1979, 54 and Fig. 34. See Robichon and Varille 1936, Fig. 11.

416

chapter 16

the roof (Pl. 39).153 The excavators note that they would not have been visible on the surface (Pl. 38). No structures were associated with the simple inhumations, although the unmummified bodies were placed in individual pits often dug into the bedrock, which may have served as a type of protection, not unlike those attested in the Memphite necropolis in the area west of the dry moat.154 However, it is not clear from either the textual or the archaeological record by which name these brick-built underground tombs would be known. The fact that they are individual burial places means that they could be classed as a resting place (ꜥ.wy-ḥtp), although they could also be classified as a shaft (šḳ) given that they are underground structures, or as s.t-tombs since they are built using bricks. 2.7 ḳnḥy-chapel The literal meaning of this noun is ‘dark place’ whence the derived connotation of ‘shrine, chapel and burial vault.’155 In particular, this term was used in the Memphite necropolis to refer to the vaults containing the burials of the Apis Bull.156 Among the documents analysed it occurs in P. Leiden I 379 (256 BC), P. Leiden I 373c–b (204–203BC), P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) and P. Leiden I 380a–b (64BC) where it always appears to be located inside a tomb.157 This means that its meaning could be either that of ‘chapel, shrine’ or that of ‘burial chamber.’ The latter connotation in the present texts has been rejected in view of the fact that P. Leiden I 373c–b (204–203BC) gives the dimensions of this structure and specifies that it is made of stone, both of which are seen as redundant details in the case of a burial chamber, but entirely appropriate in the case of a tombchapel.158 Nonetheless, the translation of ḳnḥy as ‘chapel, shrine’ seems also justified by the evidence of P. Leiden I 380a–b (64 BC) which lists it after the ‘resting place’ (ꜥ.wy-ḥtp), itself perhaps a term for burial-chamber.159 2.8 mꜣꜥ-chapel Another common type of structure was the mꜣꜥ, a memorial-chapel or a shrine, attested in the Theban textual record from 273–272 BC (P. BM EA 10827)

153 154 155 156 157 158 159

Robichon and Varille 1936, 45 and Fig. 11, III; Spencer 1979, 54. Robichon and Varille 1936, 45. CDD letter Ḳ, 48–49. Smith 1992, 202–203; Donker van Heel 1998, 45–46 note XV; Gallo 1987, 38–39. See above § 2.5. Martin 2009, 57–58. See above § 2.6.2.

tombs

417

to 114 BC (P. Berlin P. 3116).160 In fact, the noun mꜣꜥ could be used generically to refer to places that, in this context, were used for burials, and specifically to identify a memorial place.161 In P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC) the list includes ‘the (burial)-place (mꜣꜥ) of the mistress Mutemwia together with the master Horos who is therein with her’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ tꜣ ḥry.t mw.t-m-wyꜣ ḥnꜥ pꜣ ḥry ḥr nt n-i҆m=w i҆rm=s) (lines 3–4). In this case the term is probably being used with the generic meaning of ‘place,’ a wellattested connotation of this noun, and which, contextually, is to be understood as referring to a (burial)-place. Such a use is, for example, attested in P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC) where the seller states: ‘they belong to you, they are your (burial)-places (mꜣꜥ.w) aforesaid’ (mtw=k s nꜣy=k mꜣꜥ.w nt ḥry nꜣ.w) (line 5) referring back to the listed s.t-tombs. Another example is found in P. Amherst 58b (153BC) which lists ‘the (burial)-place (mꜣꜥ) of T. with its pyramids, and two (burial)-place(s) (mꜣꜥ) south of it and two (burial)-place(s) (mꜣꜥ) north of it’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ n t ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f mr.w ḥnꜥ mꜣꜥ 2 (n) pꜣy=f rs ḥnꜥ mꜣꜥ 2 (n) pꜣy=f mḥṱ) (col. 1 lines 20–22).162 Other examples for the use of this term with a generic meaning are found, among others, in P. BM EA 10074 (230BC) where party A declares ‘I shall not be able to bring a person among them out of your (burial)-places’ (i҆w bn i҆w=y rḫ i҆n rmṯ n-i҆m=w r bnr n nꜣy=t mꜣꜥ.w) (col. III lines 4–5); and in P. BM EA 10227 (230BC) where party A states: ‘while to you belongs the share of the remaining place(s) (and the) property which will be revealed to belong to Patemis son of Panouphis (…), while to me belongs their share which is separate from your places aforesaid’ (i҆w wn mtw=k tꜣ pš n pꜣ sp mꜣꜥ nkt nt i҆w=w r wnḥ i҆w i҆w=s pa-tm sꜣ pa-nfr (…) i҆w wn mtw=y tꜣy=w pš nt pꜣ bnr n nꜣy=k mꜣꜥ.w nt ḥry) (lines 4–5) On the other hand, the noun also denoted a memorial chapel. A clear example of this is found in P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC) which lists ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Petobastis together with the s.t-tomb in which he rests’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ pꜣ ḥry pꜣ-ty-bꜣst.t ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t nt i҆w=f ḥtp ẖn=s) (line 3), and ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master

160 161

162

Pestman 1993, 466. Interestingly, mꜣꜥ-chapels appear more commonly in the 2nd century archives than in those of the 3rd century (Vleeming 1995, 249), although not exclusively so. That they are not confined to the 2nd century documentation is shown by the fact that some are mentioned in P. BM EA 10829 (209 BC) (3), P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC) (6), P. Wien ÄS 6052 (239 BC) (4), P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC) (1) and P. BM EA 10074 (230BC) (1). [The numbers in brackets refer to the number of attestations in each document]. The use of the noun mꜣꜥ to refer to a burial place in general is attested also at Memphis, for which see Martin 2009, 57. Pestman 1993, 466. In this case I have not translated the noun as ‘chapel, memorial,’ since this appears to be the function served also by the pyramid-structures (see below).

418

chapter 16

Herpa[…] (…) together with the s.t-tomb in which he rests’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ pꜣ ḥry Ḥr-pꜣ[…] (…) ḥnꜥ tꜣ s.t nt i҆w=f ḥtp ẖn=s) (lines 4–5). Similarly, P. Amherst 58b (153 BC) lists ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of Tasentsent together with her shaft-tomb’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ n tꜣsn.t-2.t ḥnꜥ pꜣy=s šḳ) (col. 1 line 11).163 A similar case is found in P. Amherst 60b (153BC) which lists ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master (sic. mistress) Hetpheubastis together with his (sic. her) s.t-tomb’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ n pꜣ ḥry (sic. ḥry.t) ḥnꜥ tꜣy=f (sic. tꜣy=s) s.t) (col. 1 line 14).164 Additional examples are found in P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) which lists a number of mꜣꜥ-chapels together with the tombs in which the named deceased were probably buried: ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Belles and his people and his ḥ.wt-tombs’165 (i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w nꜣy=f ḥ.wt); ‘the mꜣꜥchapel of the master Petechons the blessed one and his s.wt-tombs’ (ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f s.wt); ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Herieus and his s.wt-tombs’ (i҆rm nꜣy=f s.wt), ‘another mꜣꜥ […] and his people’ (i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w); and ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the mistress Uaxis,166 her people and her ḥ.wt-tombs’167 (i҆rm nꜣy=s rmṯ.w i҆rm nꜣy=s ḥ.wt). In addition, there also examples in which individuals said to be in a s.t-tomb are also listed, in other contracts, as being in a mꜣꜥ-chapel. This is, for example, the case of the master Amenrosis who is listed in a s.t-tomb in P. BM EA 10827 (273–272BC), while he may be the same man listed in a mꜣꜥ-chapel in P. BM EA 10829 (209 BC) and P. BM EA 10830 (198BC), although without the title master.168 In this case it is likely that the latter was a type of memorial or chapel while the former was the actual place of burial. If this suggestion is correct, the three texts may be referring to the same person but to two distinct types of funerary structures.169 This is also corroborated by the fact that in P. BM EA 10830 (198BC) party A renounces claim on ‘Amenrosis and his s.wt-tombs’ (i҆mn-rwš ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f s.wt) (lines 5–6) thus suggesting that more than one structure was associated with this person. 163

164 165 166 167 168

169

The possessive pronoun pꜣy=s refers back to the woman and not the tomb (Pestman 1993, 466). Therefore the shaft is to be understood as belonging to Tasentsent rather than being part of the mꜣꜥ-chapel, possibly indicating that the two structures were not necessarily located in the same spot. Pestman 1993, 467. Andrews (1990, 23 note 8) suggests the word ḥ.wt may be a scribal error for s.wt. See Andrews (1990, 33 note 18) for the suggestion that the name is mistakenly written for Touaxis. Andrews (1990, 23 note 8) suggests the word ḥ.wt may be a scribal error for s.wt. The identification is based on the apparent rarity of this name during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC at Thebes. Andrews (1990, 49 note 7) also understood this as another indication of the inconsistency with which the terminology for tombs was applied. Additional examples may be found in P. BM EA 10615 (195–175 BC). Pestman 1993, 466–467.

tombs

419

In a number of contracts these mꜣꜥ-chapels are listed together with other funerary structures, thus indicating that they, too, stood in the necropolis amidst the rest of the funerary structures as shown by the fact that various contracts list them together. In addition, in P. BM EA 10615 (175 BC) one of the mꜣꜥ-chapels is defined as ‘lower mꜣꜥ-chapel’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ ẖry) (line 8). This indicates either that there was an upper and a lower floor to these structures, or that they were located in a lower part of the necropolis. Some of the structures listed in P. BM EA 10388 (223BC), for example, are said to be located in the upper necropolis, thus implying that there was also a lower cemetery area, as discussed before. However, there also examples that are more difficult to explain since the noun mꜣꜥ seems to refer specifically to a burial structure, or even to a specific area inside a tomb. The liturgies listed in P. BM EA 10615 (175 BC) include the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Mires, the master Parates ‘and his people, and those who rest with him’ (i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ); the mꜣꜥ-chapel of Senmouthis ‘and those who rest with her’ (i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=s); the mꜣꜥ-chapel of (the) master Nechthmonthes ‘and his people, and those who rest with him’ (i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ); the mꜣꜥ-chapel of (the) master Panas ‘and those who rest with him’ (i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ); and the mꜣꜥ-chapel of Petenephotes […] ‘and those who rest with him’ (i҆rm nꜣ nt ḥtp i҆rm=f ).170 The previous list appears to indicate that the named deceased were buried in the mꜣꜥ-chapel. On the other hand, in P. BM EA 10074 (230BC) among the deceased listed there is ‘Petemestous, the brother of ˹Pmois˺ (and) the children of Panitis who is in [the (burial)-place (mꜣꜥ)] of your s.t-tomb’ (pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy pꜣ sn n ˹pꜣ-mꜣy˺ nꜣẖrṱ.w n pa-ny.t nt n [pꜣ mꜣꜥ] n tꜣy=t s.t) (col. III lines 1–2), where the noun mꜣꜥ seems to refer to a specific area of the s.t-tomb. It is possible that what these phrases referred to was the performance of the mortuary cult for the deceased in the chapels listed, which were attached to the tomb in which the dead rested since these passages do not specifically indicate that the dead rested inside the mꜣꜥ-chapels.

170

In the same document there are 21 examples which list the mꜣꜥ, followed by the name of the owner/deceased and the phrase ‘and his people,’ for example ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Thotsytmis the letter carrier and his people’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ n ḥry Ḏḥwṱ-stm pꜣ fꜣy šꜥ.t i҆rm nꜣy=f rmṯ.w) (line 8).

420

chapter 16

2.9 mr-chapel A less common type of structure is the mr-chapel, or pyramid,171 attested at Thebes from 235BC (Marseilles 299–298) to 153 BC (P. Amherst 58b). The term refers to a type of brick-built pyramidal structure either surmounting the tomb, similar to those of the New Kingdom tombs at Deir el-medina, or perhaps similar to that of Petenet at Deir el-Bahari dating to the Late Period. The latter appears to have served as a kind of memorial, a function perhaps served by the Ptolemaic structures too since pyramids could be found also within a settlement. This is indicated in P. BM EA 10387 (212 BC) by the mention of ‘the pyramids’ as neighbours of plots of lands located in the north-western quarter of Hermonthis, while a ‘pyramid-chapel of Theodoros’ is noted as one of the neighbours of the house sold in P. BM EA 10407 (224BC) and in P. BM EA 10386 (210BC).172 That the pyramids located in the necropolis served as a kind of chapel as well, rather than as tombs, is indicated by the fact that more than one of these structures could be associated with the same individual. P. Amherst 58b (153BC), for example, lists ‘the (burial)-place (mꜣꜥ) of T. with its pyramids’ (pꜣ mꜣꜥ n t ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f mr.w) (col. 1 line 20).173 An actual example of such a pyramid was excavated by one of the expeditions of the Metropolitan Museum on the Asasif (Pl. 40). The structure was built next to one of the vaulted tombs (B45), which the excavator dated to the 26th dynasty. The structure, identified as ‘pyramidal tomb,’ was apparently later than the tomb it adjoined, though no explanation is given in the field notes for the identification of the pyramidal structure as a tomb. 2.10 ḥ.t-bꜣ.w-chapel This structure, literally the ‘temple of the bas,’ is attested in four of the documents analysed: P. Brussels E 6033 (276–275BC) (line 3), P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC) (line 3),174 P. Wien ÄS 3874 (149–148 BC) (line 4)175 and P. BM EA 10398 (119BC) (line 3). The compound noun seemingly refers to some type of chapel, perhaps a place where offerings to the dead may be made, and is probably to be distinguished from the funerary objects known in Egyptological literature as ‘soul-houses,’ since the use of the noun ḥ.t suggests it was a more substantial structure than these artefacts. The ‘house of the bas’ attested in the Memphite

171 172 173 174 175

For a distinction between the mr and the ml chapel see Vittmann 1980, 136 note to line 6; CDD letter M, 139–140 and 162. Andrews 1990, 74 note 12, 87 note 13, and cat. 35, 38, 39; see also Vittmann 1980, 136. Pestman 1993, 466. Reference in Brunsch 1990, 75 note o. Reference in Martin 2009, 58 note 252.

421

tombs

documents may be comparable to the sanctuary or shrine mentioned in the texts from the Esna Temple and said to be a place where the gods dwelled, and where, during religious festivals, processions from the main temple would stop.176 2.11 s.t-rmy, mꜣꜥ.w-nhpy and wlḥ.w The first compound noun, literally ‘place of weeping’ or ‘place of lamentation,’177 is found only in P. BM EA 10398 (119BC),178 while the last two, literally ‘places of mourning (and of?) anointings,’ are attested only in P. Leiden I 380a– b (64BC).179 The first two terms seem to denote places used specifically for the mourning of a deceased person, and neither of which are attested in any of the other documents from the rest of the country. One would assume the vestibule at the entrance of a tomb, where perhaps a chapel would be located, to be the place where the deceased were mourned and offerings presented to them. However, the context in which these two terms are mentioned seems to indicate that they were distinct from the tomb itself. Equally incorrect would seem their possible identification with the ‘house of rejuvenation’ since there is no evidence that the family was ever allowed to be present during the various stages of the mummification process.

3

Building a New Tomb

On the subject of tomb building only one document survives, P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301BC), which records the list of expenses undertaken for the construction of a s.t-tomb in the necropolis of Djeme.180 The text consists of

176

177 178 179 180

Žabkar 1968, 47, 131–156. It seems possible that the ḥ.t-bꜣ.w referred to in these texts were a type of shrine comparable, in some respects, to the Middle Kingdom memorial chapels at Abydos with stelae of the deceased located along the route taken by the religious processions from the main temple. CDD letter R, 35; Smith 2005, 326. Brunsch 1990. The compound had been read by the text’s editor as ꜥ.wj-ꜥršj. For the correct reading see Vittman 1998, 367 note 540. For the transliteration and translation of the passage, see above §2.6.1 and §2.6.2. See Pl. 27. Select passages of this text have been published by Thissen 1984; El-Amir 1974; Vleeming 1995; Zauzich 1996, 383 note 25; Depauw 2000, 68 note 207, 182 note 584, 187 note 623; Den Brinker et al. 2005a, 319–320. A continuous translation of this papyrus has recently been published by Thissen and Zauzich 2018. I have updated my own translation with any new readings they have proposed, and with references to their readings where mine differ from theirs.

422

chapter 16

two columns of 42 and 28 lines respectively, and it is written to the left hand side of a roll of papyrus following after P. Philadelphia V (November 302BC) and P. Philadelphia VI (October 301 BC) all of which refer to the same tomb. With P. Philadelphia V Teos (party A) transfers the tomb’s ownership to Parates (party B), while with P. Philadelphia VI Tamin, daughter of Heh and Taratis,181 wife of party A, cedes the rights to this tomb to party B who may be her halfbrother. Reich believed the document (P. Philadelphia XXX) to be unrelated to the preceding two contracts, and that it had been written there only because there was a blank space.182 El-Amir suggested that since all three documents appear to have been written by the same scribe, the latter was probably in charge of the affair, keeping notes of the work and of the expenditures, and possibly paying bills on behalf of the parties.183 However, given that the seller, in his capacity as choachyte, was also responsible for the building of the tomb, it is possible that the list of expenses he produced was later copied onto this larger roll perhaps to keep all related documents together. In fact, the document bears two successive dates: Regnal year 4, first month of the inundation season (col. 1 line 1) and Regnal year 5, second month of the inundation season day 22 (col. 1 line 30). The first corresponds to the date of P. Philadelphia V, while the second corresponds to the 23rd December 301 BC and it is therefore later than P. Philadelphia VI dated to October 301 BC. This shows that the building of the tomb started around the time the donation deed was written, but was completed only a few months after the cession deed had been drawn up. The list is divided into various sections, some under a specific heading, and each referring to different aspects or stages of the building process. Strangely, the list omits a very important detail of the tomb architecture, the shaft (šḳ), which is instead mentioned in P. Philadelphia V: ‘I have given to you this s.ttomb, which is in the necropolis of Djeme, together with its shaft’ (tw=y n=k tꜣy s.t nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n Ḏmꜣ ḥnꜥ pꜣy=s šḳ) (line 1), and in P. Philadelphia VI: ‘I am far from you with respect to this s.t-tomb, which is in the necropolis of Djeme, together with its shaft’ (tw=y wy.ṱ r-r=k n tꜣy s.t nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n Ḏmꜣ ḥnꜥ pꜣy=s šḳ) (line 2). Presumably this was excavated at the time the tomb was built, or just before.

181 182 183

This woman seems to have also been known as Tetearpochrates and as Sarpochratis. If the suggestion is correct, Tamin may be the half-sister of Parates. See PP III 6847b. Reich 1936c, 32. el-Amir 1974, 113.

423

tombs

The first part of the list concerns the building of the tomb itself and includes a record of the materials used and their price:

Line Column I 1.

The labour expenses for the s.t-tomb undertaken in regnal year 4, first month of the inundation season: 2000 vault-bricks, each 1000 bricks cost ½ kite making 1 silver kite, 6000 building-bricks, each 4000 bricks cost 2 kite making ˹1˺ silver (kite).

2. 3.

pꜣ hy he184 r tꜣ s.t ṯ ḥꜣ.t-sp 4 tp ꜣḫ.t tby ḳpe185 2000 tn tby 1000 r-ḏbꜣ ḳt ½ r ḥḏ ḳt 1 tby n ḳt 6000 tn tby 4000 (sic. 3000) r-ḏbꜣ ḥḏ ḳt 2 r ḥḏ ḳt ˹1˺186

This is followed by a record of the wage and food-rations of the builder:

4.

The wage of the builder for 12 days: 2 kite, half hin of oil (and) ˹1 artaba˺ (of grain).

184 185 186

187

188

tꜣ mtn n pꜣ ḳt n hrw 12 ḳt 2 tgm187 hn ½ ˹rtb˺1881

Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149 and note to line I.1) read i҆.˹i҆r=w.˺ I have left the word as he because it seems to me that it shows the same determinative as the preceding hy. For the reading ‘vaulting bricks’ see El-Amir (1974, 113), Thissen (1984, 53–54), and CDD letter Q, 27 for additional examples. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149 and note to line I.3) suggest that perhaps we should correct the last figure from 1 to 3 silver kite, since this would be the total cost of 6000 bricks if the price was 2 kite for each 4000 bricks. On the other hand, if the figure 4000 is a mistake for 3000, the total cost would be 4 kite and thus the last numeral should be changed from 1 to 4 kite. However, if one were to restore either of these figures, the total would no longer match that given in line I.23. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149 and note to line I.4) exclude the possibility that the ½ hin of oil listed was meant for consumption, given that the builder’s food ration is listed in the following lines, and suggest may have been oil for illumination (for example in the tomb). Note, however, that the entry begins with the heading ‘The wage of the builder’ thus showing that these were items given as payment to this worker, rather than as items to be used while working. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149 and note to line I.4) read šš ‘container’ (CDD letter Š, 212). However, a comparison between this word and that in Col. II line 11 and even the one in Col. I line 25 does not seem to me to support this reading. Possibly the signs should be read as ‘artaba.’

424

chapter 16

(cont.)

5. 6.

His food-(rations) for 12 days, 4 ration(s) for each day, tꜣy=f ẖr.(t) n hrw 12 tn ꜥḳ-psi҆189 4 ẖr being 48 rations: 2 silver (kite); hrw r ꜥḳ190 48 ḥḏ (ḳt) 2191 wine: 2 bꜣk-vessel(s), 2 h̭ y-jar(s) (and) 1 krmy-jar’ i҆rp192 bꜣk 2 h̭ y193 2.t krmy1941

There follows again a record of the materials used with their price and of the wage and food-rations for a workman:

7. 8. 9. 10.

Price of 20 (measures) of chaff for the clay: 1 kite; six locks for the doors being 1 silver kite; the stone-mason who made the offering-basin: ⅓ silver (kite); the door(s) which were made for the doorways: 8 doors. Specification: 1 which was stolen (and)

189 190 191 192 193

194 195 196 197 198

199 200

swn tḥ 20 r pꜣ ꜥm ḳt 1 mrkrꜥ195 6 r nꜣ rꜣ.w r ḥḏ ḳt 1 pꜣ ẖr.(ṱ)-nṯr196 i҆.i҆r pꜣ šy ḥtp197 ḥḏ198 (ḳt) ⅓ nꜣ sb(ꜣ.w) i҆.i҆r=w r nꜣ rꜣ.w sb(ꜣ) 8199 wp-s.t r.ḏwy=w 1200

For the reading ꜥḳ-psi҆, rather than just ꜥḳ, see Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 149 and note to line I.5. Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 149; or tmt? Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149) read 2.t. After Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 149; see also 151–152 note to line I.6 for a discussion on the possible capacity of the following three vessels. This vessel is perhaps to be identified with the Coptic ϣⲓⲱ (= χύτρα ‘jar’), possibly a vessel with ‘bulbous sides’ (Vos 1993, 187 note 1 to Rt. VI a, 5), see also Crum 1939, 549b and CDD letter Ḫ, 20. On this vessel see Vittmann 1996, 443; Zauzich 1988, 139–140; CDD letter Q, 76. Literally ‘bolt fastener’ (CDD letter Q, 70–71), possibly a variant of ḳrꜥ (CDD letter M, 161). Vittmann 1997, 273 note bb; CDD letter H̱ , 59. Zauzich 1996, 383 note 25; Den Brinker et al. 2005a, 319. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149 and note to line I.9) suggests that although the text clearly writes only ḥḏ, we should understand here ḥḏ (ḳt), as shown by the summary of the expenses given in line I.23. Reading of the numeral 8 after Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 149. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149 and note to line I.10) note that, according to the entry in line 8 where are listed six door-locks, only six doors would have been needed, though a total of eight were made since one was stolen and another was destroyed. Note, though, that in line I.11 the text clearly states that only one additional door was made. Moreover, beside the six locks listed in line 6, the text lists another two in lines I.14 and I.15, thus bringing the total of the doors to eight.

tombs

425

(cont.)

11.

despoiled. He made another which stands (ready) for the doorways: door (1) being 8 days of work, totalling 2 silver kite his food-(rations) for 8 days, 4 baked bread(s) for each day, being 32 rations, making 1⅓ silver kite

12. 13.

r.h̭ r=w201 i҆.i҆r=f wp.t k.t nt ꜥḥꜥ r202 nꜣ rꜣ.w sb(ꜣ) (1)203 r hrw 8 n i҆r-wp.t r ḥḏ ḳt 2 tꜣy=f 204 ẖr.(t) n hrw 8 tn ꜥḳ-psi҆ 4 ẖr hrw r ꜥḳ205 32 r ḳt 1⅓

The list continues with a specification of two types of bolts used in the tomb:

14.

Price of one Greek bolt with its key, being 2 silver kite, price of one Syrian bolt with its key, being ˹⅔˺ silver (kite)

15.

201 202

203 204 205 206 207 208 209

210

swn wꜥ.t ḳrꜥ206 wynn i҆rm pꜣy=s šštꜣ207 r ḥḏ ḳt 2208 swn wꜥ.t ḳrꜥ ẖr209 i҆rm pꜣy=s šštꜣ r ḥḏ (ḳt) ˹⅔˺210

Often used in conjunction with ḏwy in documentary texts (CDD letter Ḫ, 152). For the compound ꜥḥꜥ r ‘to wait for’ see CDD letter ꜥ, 118. I follow Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149) in rendering this expression as ‘to stand ready for,’ as this is clearly what is meant by the passage. Restoration of the numeral 1 after Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 149. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149) read tꜣy=w. Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 149; or tmt? CDD letter Q, 59, 70. CDD letter Š, 220–221. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149) read 2.t. The document does not indicate what the difference between the two types of locks was. Actual examples of locking mechanisms indicate that a difference may have rested on the materials used in the fashioning of the lock, whether in stone, wood or metal, as well as on the actual style of the door, whether it consisted of one or two leafs, with the former making use of a bolt sliding in and out, or a niche located in the doorframe. Modest doors would have been bolted close with metal or wooden bars, while elaborate examples made use of a bolt, sometimes even decorated in the shape of a lion, resting inside a niche in the wall, which was pulled out in front of the door through a chain attached to it (Nowicka 1969, 98; Husson 1983, 104–105; Pillet 1924 and 1940; Grenfell et al. 1900, Pl. XVI fig. 6 and 10). Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149 and note to line I.15) read 1 since a value of ⅔ would not match the total given in line I.23, and understand the long descending sign as wp-st and as belonging to the next line. However, the following entry does not appear to be detailing something already mentioned.

426

chapter 16

Next, the text records the wage and food-ration(s) of a different category of workmen:

16.

the wage of the draughtsmen: 2 kite together with their food-(rations).

tꜣ mtn n nꜣ sẖ.w-ḳt ḳt 2 ḥnꜥ tꜣy=w ẖr.(t)211

The cost of the food-rations is not individually itemised, presumably because it was the same as that of the other workmen already mentioned, rather it is incorporated with the wage. This is followed again by an entry concerning materials and labour:

17. 18.

Price of (?): 2 kite being 4 silver kite; the price of the bricks that were transported to the s.t-tomb: 2 kite.

swn (?)212 ḳt 2 r ḥḏ ḳt 4 tꜣ mtn n nꜣ tby.w r.fy=w r tꜣ s.t ḳt 2213

Next, the list groups together the various amounts paid to the different workmen:

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

The wages of the workmen, their name(s) (being): Parates son of Panouphis, Pausis son of Panouphis, Psennesis (and) Esminis being four persons for three days, being 12 days of work, together with their food-(rations): 4 kite (in) total. Specification: 2 silver (deben) 4⅔ kite, one hin of castor oil,

211 212

213 214 215

pꜣ bꜣk n nꜣ rmṯ.w hy pꜣy=w rn pa-rṱ sꜣ pa-nfr pa-wsr214 sꜣ panfr215 pꜣ-šr-i҆s.t ns-mn r s 4 n hrw 3 r hrw i҆r-wp.t 12 ḥnꜥ tꜣy=w ẖr.(t) ḳt 4 tmt wp-s.t ḥḏ 2 ḳt 4⅔ tgm hn 1

Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149) read wp-st following the noun ẖr.(t). As Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 152 note to line I.17) note, the reading of this word, which ends in y and appears to have a book-scroll determinative, is unclear. They suggest it may refer to something needed by the draughtsmen, since at the end of the line the sums listed in lines I.16 and I.17 appear to be added together. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149) read 2.t. After Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 149. Pa-ḏḥwty?

427

tombs (cont.)

25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

a (pair of) sandals, two bꜣk-vessel(s), two h̭ y-jar(s), 1 krm(y)-jar. Total.

tbty216 1 bꜣk217 2 h̭ y 2.t krm(y) 1 tmt

The next section dates to the following year and begins under the heading:

30.

Regnal year 5, second month of the inundation season (day) 22. The consecration of the s.t-tomb. The properties which were taken therein: one offering altar which is inscribed (and) complete with engraving-work, one gt-container(?) of ⟨…⟩ one olive tree, being 1 silver kite; the wage of the men that brought it: ½ kite; total. One offering-table of the craftsman (?) The vessel(s), specification:

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

216

217 218 219 220 221 222

223 224

ḥꜣ.t-sp 5 i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t 22 pꜣ ꜥyḳ218 n tꜣ s.t nꜣ nkt.w r.ṯ=w n-i҆m=w ḥtp.(t) i҆w=s mtn wꜥ.t i҆w=s mnḳ219 n wp.t bsny220 gt221 wꜥ.t n ⟨…⟩222 ḏyt 1 r ḥḏ ḳt 1 wp-s.t pꜣ bꜣk rmṯ.w i҆.i҆r fy.(ṱ)=f ḳt ½ tmt ḥtp n ḥm ꜥꜥe223 1 pꜣ wnh̭ 224 wp-s.t

CDD letter T, 161–166; CDD Numbers, 7; Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 149) read šš ‘container,’ which would certainly fit the context better than the entry ‘sandals.’ However, a comparison between the noun in this line and the noun šš ‘container’ in Col. II line 11, suggests these are perhaps two different words. Reading as bꜣk-vessel(s) after Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 149. After Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 150. CDD letter M, 119. Literally ‘chisel work’ (CDD letter B, 84). The meaning of this word is uncertain (CDD letter G, 74), but it is perhaps linked to that for ‘box’ (Wb V, 208.10–11) (Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 152 note to line I.33). As noted by Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 152 note to line I.33), the scribe appears to have forgotten to specify either the material of the gt or its contents given that there is an n following the numeral 1. The meaning of this word is unknown (Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 152 note to line I.35). It is possible that the noun wnh̭ is used in the present text as a collective term denoting a group of vessels, which is then followed by their individual specification, as in the Apis

428

chapter 16

(cont.)

37. 38. 39. 40.

four ḳrꜥs-vessel(s) of the temple of Montu (lord of) Medamud, 20 thm-receptacle(s), 10 h̭ y-jar(s), one ˹bowl,˺ 20 ꜥny-vessel(s); a pair of ˹door-ring(s),˺ two Greek ˹earrings(s).˺

225 226

227

228

229

230

ḳrꜥs225 n pr mnṱ m(ꜣ)tn 4 thm226 20 h̭ y 10 ḫwy.(t)227 wꜥ.t ꜥny228 20 ꜥ.wy ꜥrꜣ229 1 gḏ 230 wynn 2.t

embalming ritual (P. Wien ÄS 3873 [Late Ptolemaic]) (Vos 1993, 179 note 5 to Rt. V line 1; CDD Problems2, 24). Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 152 note to line I.36) note that because of the use of the book-roll determinative, it is not possible to determine with certainty the meaning of this word, which could refer both to a vessel or to the word ‘clothing’ and similar (Wb I, 323–324). They suggest that, because of the types of items that follow, it may refer to a process linked to the consecration of the tomb and thus translate the word as Einkleidung (Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 150). CDD letter Q, 59. The noun thm, ‘measure’ or ‘receptacle,’ is attested in hieroglyphs thm with the meaning of ‘large vessel,’ and in Coptic as ϯϩⲙⲉ, where it is a measure for water, grain, meal and so on (CDD letter T, 270; Crum 1939, 459a). The meaning of the word ḫwy.t is uncertain. It could be a term for a type of ‘altar’ or for a ‘bowl’ (CDD problems2, 42; letter Ḫ, 45). Although in the present text the orthography of the noun ḫwy(.t) is different from that of the noun ḫw ‘bowl’ (CDD letter Ḫ, 40), the fact that it is found in a list of containers, and that it is both preceded and followed by other types of receptacles, suggest that this too may be a type of container. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 150) translate it as ‘altar.’ The noun is clearly written with the ‘pot’ determinative, thus showing that it is a word for a type of vessel. It may be the same as that attested in the Apis embalming ritual (P. Wien ÄS 3873 [Late Ptolemaic]) and also found in a list of items (Rt. VI b, 4), though there it is written with a different determinative (Vos 1993, 334 number 138). The meaning of this compound noun is uncertain. The second term maybe a predecessor of Coptic ⲁⲣⲁ with the meaning of ‘door ring’ (CDD Problems2, 13; letter ꜥ, 95). Could the scribe have mistakenly written ꜥrꜣ in place of ꜥrꜥ, a predecessor of Coptic ⲁⲣⲉ, which denotes a type of ‘bucket’ (Crum 1939, 14b, 15a; Alcock 1996, 1)? A translation as ‘pair of buckets’ would certainly fit the context better than ‘pair of door-ring(s),’ given that the entry follows on from a list of vessels of different types. It is to be wondered whether the scribe made a mistake here too, and what he intended to write was ḳḏ (CDD letter Q, 54), possibly from the hieroglyphic = kḏ, a noun deriving from a Semitic word for vessel (Wb V, 148.20), and surviving in Coptic as ⲕⲁϫⲓ ‘pitcher’ (Crum 1939, 134b; Černý 1976, 69). The determinative is clearly that for the word earrings, but the word ‘pitcher’ would certainly fit the context better than any of the other translations, given that the item follows on from a list of different types of vessels.

429

tombs

This is then followed by a short list of building expenses:

Two workers: sailors for preparing231 the straw: ten knḏ-basin(s) of the temple of Montu (lord of) Medamud,

41. 42.

bꜣk 2 hyt.w232 wbꜣ i҆r tḥ knḏ n pr mnṱ m(ꜣ)tn 10

Line Column II 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

half hin of oil, one wick of a lamp ˹totalling˺ 200, one ḏmpꜥṱ-measure of wine, one ḏmpꜥṱ-measure of syṱ.t-beer, ten (measures) of resin, ten hins of wine, Two (measures of) fresh qty-wood.

231 232

233 234

235 236 237

tgm hn ½ šrṱ ẖbs 1.t233 ꜥḳ234 200 ḏmpꜥṱ235 i҆rp 1.t ḏmpꜥṱ n ḥnḳ(.t) syṱ.t236 1.t ḥḏ ḳt ½ ꜣwš 10 i҆rp hn 10 ḳty rpy237 2

Literally: making. The noun hyt is clearly written, though it does not seem appropriate in this context. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 150) translate this line as ‘Wages: 2, (for) seaman: 1 on account of straw-making,’ understanding bꜣk as the word for ‘wage,’ and the tall sign following the noun hyt as a numeral, rather than a plural stroke. CDD letter H̱ , 27; letter M, 162; but see corrected reading in Den Brinker et al. 2005a, 319– 320. Reading ꜥḳ after Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 150. As they note (153 note to line II.3), if a person’s daily ration of bread loaves was 4 per day (based on the entry in line I.5), then there may have been as many as 50 participants to the consecration of the tomb. Note, though, that the daily ration of bread in line I.5 refers to payments, and does not necessarily correspond to the quantity of bread consumed by a single person each day. On this noun and its surviving Coptic counterpart see CDD letter Ḏ, 48. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 150 and 153 note to line II.5) translate as ‘jug of Siut-beer.’ The noun ḳty may derive from the hiroglyphic ḳd.t (Wb V, 79.9–13) denoting a type of ‘foreign tree’ (Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 153 note to line II.8; CDD letter Q, 96; letter R, 28–29).

430

chapter 16

There follows a list of expenses concerning some workers:

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

30 wreaths of the mḥ-(n)-gnṱ-plant one (measure) of incense two šš-containers of ointment. The choachyte: 2 kite. Wine from/in(to) the hand of Pausis, barley 1/6 (artaba), emmer 1/8 (artaba)s stone ht cuttings Total. The wage of Paoueris the artisan who made two locks, 238

239

240

241 242 243

244

trm238 n mḥ (n) gnṱ239 30 h̭ w240 wꜥ.t šš 241 sgn 2 pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw ḳt 2 i҆rp n-ḏr.t pa-wsr i҆t 1/6 bt 1/8242 i҆ny ht243 šty.w244 tmt tꜣ mtn pa-wr pꜣ ḥm i҆w=f i҆r-wp.t ḳrꜥ 2.t

For the reading of this line see Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 150 and 153 note to line II.9. As they note, the first word is quite clearly written as trm, and one would be inclined to take it as a writing for ḳlm ‘wreath’ were it not for the fact that a comparison between the orthography of the signs ḳ and t (in the words ḳrꜥs and thm in lines II.37 and II.38 respectively) seems to discount it. However, a translation as ‘wreath’ would certainly fit the context. Note also the remarks by Chauveau on the use of the ‘silver’ determinative instead of the ‘plant’ determinative (quoted in CDD letter Q, 77). As noted by Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 150 and 153 note to line II.9), the mḥ-(n)-gnṱ attested here is to be identified with the mḥ-(n)-knwṱ (literally ‘wreath of a knwṱ-plant’), denoting a type of plant (CDD letter M, 194; Glossar 174). The same plant is attested in a number of other texts, including the London-Leiden Magical Papyrus (Vs XIV, 4) and in P. Harkness (written as mḥ-gnwṱ), among others. A Coptic form of this compund noun (ⲙⲁϩⲛϭⲛⲟⲩⲧ) is attested in a passage in the Manichaean Psalm Book (Smith 2005, 109 note f). Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 150) translates this word as ‘altar.’ I have translated it as ‘incense’ because a comparison between the noun h̭ w here and the noun ḫwy.(t) in Col. I line 39 shows very different spellings. The hieroglyphic spelling of the noun ḫꜣ.w (see Glossar 353; Wb III, 221.2) does not differ too much from that of the Demotic noun in this text. For the writing of the vertical plural strokes in this way see El-Aguizy 1998, 384–385; for a discussion of this word see also De Cenival 1972, 19. For this word see CDD Problems2, 69. Reading after Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 150. The meaning of this word is unknown (CDD letter H, 100), and my translation far from certain. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 150 153 note to line II.14) also note that the meaning of this word is so far unknown, and tentatively suggests a link with the hieroglyphic hd ‘stone break’ (Wb II, 505.10), although this would seem to be negated by the presence of the previous noun i҆ny, also meaning ‘stone,’ unless this is an indirect reference to the tomb shaft (šḳ), which, curiously, is not mentioned in the present document. Or šty 1? Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 150 153 note to line II.14) tentatively translate this word as ‘piece,’ noting that the translation is uncertain given the many words originating from šd.

tombs

431

(cont.)

17. 18.

for his food-(ration), his wage being ⅓ silver (kite). The work which was left undone, it being the rest which he did 12 construction-day(s): 200 vaulted Bricks (and) 300 building bricks making 1˹1/4˺ silver kite. Specification: his work and his food-(ration): ½ silver kite; price of the brick(s) and their (lit. his) manufacture: 1 ⅔ 1/12 silver kite one fresh i҆ꜥbt-plant(?), 20 ḳrm-tree, vegetable(s), ḥttplant(s) Without documents Nechthminis son of Petechons the draughtsman: day of work on the day in which the great man was awakened.

19.

20.

21. 22. 23.

245 246 247 248

249

250 251

252 253

n tꜣy=f ẖr.(t) tꜣy=f mtn r ḥḏ (ḳt) ⅓ pꜣ hy nt i҆w=w ḫꜣꜥ=f 245 n šw i҆w=f sp r- i҆r=f hrw ḳt 2 tby ḳp 200 tby ḳt 300 r ḥḏ ḳt 1 ˹1/4˺246 wp-s.t pꜣy=f bꜣk ḥnꜥ tꜣy=f ẖr.(t) ḥḏ ḳt ½ swn tby ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f bꜣk r ḥḏ (ḳt) 1 ⅔ 1/12247 i҆ꜥbt248 rpy 1.t ḳrm249 20 sm250 ḥtt251 wš sẖ.w252 nḫṱ-mn sꜣ pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw pꜣ sẖ-ḳty hrw i҆r-wp.t n pꜣ hrw (n) nhs pꜣ rmṯ ꜥꜣ i҆ir҆ =w253

Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 150, 153 note to line II.18) read wḫꜣ.ṱ=f. Reading of the fraction after Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 150. Reading of the fractions after Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 151. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 151) read n-d.t ꜥbk ‘in the hand of Abok;’ for the reading i҆ꜥbt rpy 1.t see CDD letter I҆, 41, meaning unknown. Given the presence of the adjective rpy ‘fresh’ and the fact that what follows are also plants, it seems possible that this was a type of plant too. The meaning of this word is unknown. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 151, 153 note to line II.21) read ḳrš, who suggest it on the basis of a possible connection with the Semitic word krś with the meaning of ‘sack,’ and exclude the possibility of reading it as ḳrm (CDD letter Q, 60). Indeed, a translation as ‘sack’ would in some respects be quite appropriate, except for the fact that the text would probably specify what these sacks were meant to contain. On the other hand, it is difficult to fathom why these 20 ḳrm-trees were listed at this point in the text, if indeed this is what is written here, rather than, for example, further up where the olive tree is listed. The reading is suggested on the basis of the signs and of the context in which plants of different types appear to be listed, but the word is not written with the plant determinative and the translation far from certain. For this word see CDD letter S, 207, with further references. The ḥtt plant is a type of onion, or similar alliaceous plant, which survives in Coptic as ϩϯⲧ (Crum 1939, 727a) with the meaning of ‘beet’ or ‘onion’ (Smith 1993, 51 note a to line 6; Smith 1988, 65 note a to line 7; CDD letter Ḥ, 322–323; Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 151, 153–154 note to line II.21). Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 151) understand the tall sign after the noun sẖ as the writing for the preposition n-ḏr.t, rather than as the plural stroke. The great man is, of course, the deceased buried in the tomb (CDD letter H, 75; Ritner 2002, 94; Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 151, 154 note to line II.23).

432

chapter 16

(cont.)

24. 25.

26. 27. 28.

The expense outstanding (in value): 4 ⅔ 1/12 kite to complete 3 silver (deben) again the tax of the necropolis through Harsiesis son of Petemenope the overseer of the necropolis: 2 {˹½˺} kite Petearpres son of Horos the town scribe: ½ kite making 2½ silver kite completing 3 silver (deben) 2½ kite

pꜣ he254 n šw255 ḳt 4 ⅔256 1/12 r mḥ ḥḏ 3 ꜥn257 pꜣ tny.t n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n-ḏr.t ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t sꜣ pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py pꜣ mr ḫꜣs.t ḳt 2 {˹½˺} pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ sꜣ ḥr pꜣ sẖ pr tmy ḳt ½ r ḥḏ ḳt 2½ r mḥ ḥḏ 3 ḳt 2258 ½

The various entries can be divided in three groups: the cost of the materials, the wage and food rations paid for different classes of workers, and a list of items taken in the tomb for which no price is given. The cost of the materials for which a price is given is 1 deben ¾ kite, while the amount paid in wages and food rations to the various workers is 3 deben ½ kite, for a total of 4 deben 1¼ kite, to which needs to be added the overseer of the necropolis tax for 2½ kite, thus making 4 deben 3¾ kite. However, this sum does not include all of those items given as wage to workers or taken to the tomb and listed without price in the document, which means that the final cost of building and furnishing a brick-tomb would be higher than 4 deben 3¾ kite, or 87.5 drachmae. Thus a comparison of this amount with house prices for the end of the fourth century shows that the cost of building a tomb was roughly a third of that paid for a house.259 However, the entry in col. II line 28 appears to indicate that the total outlay for this tomb was 3 deben, plus 2½ kite for funerary taxes, thus corresponding to about a fourth of the price paid for a house around the end of the fourth century. The document also provides invaluable information on the range of workers that would be involved in the construction of a tomb, as well as their pay rate, which included a sum of money, a payment in kind, and food rations too. The builder (col. I lines 4–5) was paid 2 kite, ½ hin of oil and one artaba of grain for 12 days work (as well as four food rations per day), which means that

254 255 256 257 258 259

Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 151) read hi҆. CDD letter H, 7. Reading of the fraction ⅔ after Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 151. Reading ꜥn instead of ⅓ after Thissen and Zauzich 2018, 151. Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 151) read 2.t. See Table 8 infra.

tombs

433

his monthly wage, not including the rations which cost 2 silver deben, would be about 5 kite or 10 drachmae.260 The stone-mason (col. I lines 9, 11–13) who made the offering-basin was paid ⅓ silver (kite), while the person who constructed the doors of the tomb received a payment of 2 silver kite, as well as four food rations for each of the eight days work, for a total of 1⅓ silver kite. If the first sum was considered as piecework payment, the 2 kite pay per eight days work would mean that his monthly wage would be about 15 drachmae, which is higher than that of a builder at 10 drachmae per month. The document also lists an unspecified number of draughtsmen (col. I line 16), who were paid 2 kite including their food-(rations) for an unspecified number of days. A draughtsman, Nechthminis son of Petechons, was also employed for work ‘on the day in which the great man was awakened’ (col. II lines 22–23), that is, during the performance of the final burial rites performed at the tomb on the day of burial, although the exact nature of this work and of his wage are not specified. Four additional workmen (named in col. I lines 19–21), were employed for three days work, of an unspecified nature again. Their wages and food rations apparently cost 4 kite, that is, 4 obols per day or 20 drachmae per month, which seems rather low although comparable to that paid for the draughtsmen listed in line 16. The entry in col. I line 23 gives a total of 2 silver (deben) 4⅔ kite, followed by a list of items for which no price is given, which appears to be the full monetary expenditure up to this point in time. The list continues in col. I line 30 with the expenses of the following year, which include ½ kite for the cost of the transport of an olive tree, and 1 kite paid for the tree itself. Two additional workers were employed for some operation involving straw, although it is not clear what it entailed.261 The list continues with an inventory of items that were apparently used during the consecration of the tomb, and included such disparate items as ten knḏ-basins of the temple of Montu lord of Medamud, half hin of oil, a lamp wick, a ḏmpꜥṱ-measure of wine and one of beer, ten measures of resin, ten hins of wine, and fresh ḳty-wood. Finally, the document also gives an indication of how much a choachyte would be paid for overseeing the

260

261

Considering one artaba of wheat at 4 dr. + ½ hin of oil also at 4 dr. + 2 kite. The price of the oil I have calculated on the basis of P. Tebtunis 887 (c. 2nd century BC) which concerns receipts and expenses of an oil merchant who sold Egyptian oil at 60 drachmae per kotylê (0.27 lt.) and foreign oil at 80 drachmae (http://www.athenapub.com/AR/egypap1.htm, accessed 28/01/2020). Considering a 30 % increase in prices between the fourth and the second century BC, I have estimated the cost of one hin of oil (0.5 lt.) to have been around 4 drachmae. Perhaps, as Thissen and Zauzich (2018, 152 note to line 7) suggest, this was used for making the plaster to use on the tomb walls.

434

chapter 16

construction of a tomb, that is, 2 kite, although this amount seems very low by comparison with the wage of the workers involved.

4

Using an Existing Tomb

The alternative to building a new tomb was that of using an existing one, a practice clearly attested in both the archaeological and the textual record. In the archaeological record it is attested, for example, in the form of: – datable architectural modifications and/or additions, – datable material culture, – datable human remains, – other evidence for later, datable human activity, while in the textual record it is attested, directly or indirectly, in the form of: – tomb autobiographies, – literary texts, – legal documents. Both large- and small-scale building activities are attested in the archaeological record for the Ptolemaic Period. The first involved cutting new chambers off the existing shafts and/or rooms, and it is, for example attested in the tomb of Horemheb where the shafts № ii and iii, located on either side of offering room D and flanked by chapels C and E, were enlarged and adapted for multiple burials.262 Evidence is also found on the Giza plateau, among the Eastern mastaba fields where both modifications and additions of new shafts are attested in existing tombs,263 and the creation of new chambers dug inside original pits.264 Similarly at Sharuna, in Middle Egypt, where, for example, the chamber in which was found a jar with papyri (see below), was probably added to existing structure in the Ptolemaic Period.265 Extensive evidence is also found at Thebes. In TT157 at least three subsidiary chambers were excavated in later periods on the western side of the pillared hall and at either side of the chapel,266 while in TT156 a shaft was dug in the floor of the chapel at the back of the pillared hall, possibly during the later use of the tomb, although it cannot be excluded that it was part of the original structure.267 In TT188, a

262 263 264 265 266 267

Schneider 1996, 5–6. Zivie-Coche 1991, 273. Zivie-Coche 1991, 279. Zaghloul 1988, 137–138; Zaghloul 1991, 255. Kampp 1996, 445–447 and Fig. 341. Kampp 1996, 445 and Fig. 340.

tombs

435

typical T-shaped tomb of the 18th dynasty with a pillared transverse hall, an inner shrine and underground burial chambers accessed via shafts located in the floor of the main room,268 a number of alterations were made to the tomb shafts probably in the Late and/or Ptolemaic periods. Shaft 1, originally blocked up with mud bricks, gave access to a first small room and through this to a second larger chamber via a passage on the north wall. Another pit in the floor near the entrance to this passage led to a lower level and a set of three chambers.269 Shaft 3, on the other hand, appears to have been connected with another set of underground chambers which extend toward the centre of the T-shaped hall.270 Similarly, the original plan of TT190 may have been intended as a Tshaped structure, with an open courtyard leading into a transverse hall with a corridor and chapel to the back of the latter. The tomb was later modified and probably enlarged, as shown by the presence of another room with a central square pillar, at the end of the corridor, and two subsidiary chambers opening into this room on the eastern and western side.271 In TT32 new shafts were dug in the first forecourt, three (A, B and D) in the court itself, and one (C) in its western pylon. Clearance of the subsidiary chambers of shaft B revealed evidence for use during Ptolemaic Period.272 The original entrance to the subterranean structure was located in south-western corner of the forecourt. This consisted of a small area surrounded by a brick wall, possibly an offering place, fronting an underground vaulted corridor, which entrance had sandstone doorjambs, while the inner section was blocked off with a brick wall, the floor covered with mud plaster and the walls with a layer of gypsum.273 Evidence for restorations is also indicative of a close interest of the new tomb occupants in maintaining the physical integrity of the tomb. Interestingly, the original function of the various areas appears to have been maintained, as shown by evidence for cultic practices in the transverse hall where a stela was also placed.274 Similarly, three additional shafts were added in the transverse hall of TT41. One of these gave access via a staircase and a sloping passage to a series of underground chambers, while two subsidiary chambers were added on either side of the corridor.275 In TT36, according to Weigall, a low tunnel was dug into the 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275

Redford 1996, 227. Redford 1996, 228–229. Redford 1996, 229–231. Kampp 1996, 480 and Fig. 375. Kákosy 1995, 3. Kákosy 1994, 25. Among the cultic objects recovered from this area were a number of footed-cups, carinated bowls and lamps (Schreiber 2011, 111, 114, and Fig. 10). Kampp 1996, 236.

436

chapter 16

wall in the pillared hall, to the right of the entrance to serve as a burial chamber, apparently during the Ptolemaic Period. Some ‘coarse painting’ is said to surround the aperture of this tunnel, although no further details were provided by Weigall as to the nature of the painting.276 On the other hand, small-scale building activities normally consisted of erecting mud-brick walls to create discrete rooms that would probably be used as family burial place. The latter are, for example, attested at Memphis in the rock-cut tomb of Bocchoris, where the original decorative elements were either obscured by the new walls or incorporated into these adaptation works.277 In the tomb of Horemheb the east and west sides of Magazine A were crudely blocked with bricks, forming a type of basic superstructure over the interments placed there.278 In the Theban necropolis small-scale adaptation works are attested in TT37 where a sandstone base for an offering table was set up in the centre of the first pillared hall. Excavations unearthed both the damaged offering table carved in relief with libation vessels and loaves of bread, and a number of fragments that joined with the damaged offering slab, both dated on stylistic grounds to the Ptolemaic Period.279 Similarly in TT411 where a cultic emplacement in mud bricks, probably serving as an offering place was built in the courtyard in correspondence of the entrance to the subterranean areas of the tomb with which it was likely connected (Pl. 41).280 Commonly, adaptation works involved the erection of partition walls with the scope of creating separate burial chambers, as is the case in TT410 where crude masonry is present between chambers 2 and 3,281 and in TT32 in which are still preserved remains of mud-brick walls that served to delineate individual burial areas.282 The archaeological record also preserves evidence for restorations carried out in the existing tombs at this time, as in the case of TT410 in which repairs were made to a breach in the west wall of passage 1 which adjoined the sunken court in the tomb of Basa.283 In situ material culture also clearly attests to the use of older structures during this period. This ranges from inscribed artefacts, such as funerary compositions, mummy bandages, and stelae, to coffins, cartonnage, amulets and wreaths; and from wooden and ceramic statuettes to decorated and utilitarian pottery. Datable material culture also includes documents belonging to some 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283

Weigall 1913, 176. Bresciani et al. 1988. Martin 1989, 51–52; Schneider 1996, 6. Tiradritti 2005, 169–170. Arnold and Settgast 1966, 81. Arnold and Settgast 1970, 3–4. Schreiber 2011, 111. Arnold and Settgast 1970, 3–4.

tombs

437

of the choachytes of the Ptolemaic Period discovered inside existing tombs. This is the case of the ostraca O. TT373 doc. 2367, 2368 and 2369 which were discovered inside TT373, a Ramesside tomb laying to the south of the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari. The ostraca were found at the bottom of a pit, inside a cave, together with the bodies of four individuals, located inside the first pillared hall.284 In situ human remains provide further evidence for the continued use of these older structures, although their dating normally relies on the stylistic and/or the palaeographical analysis of the associated material culture.285 Additional evidence is provided by other forms of datable anthropogenic activity, such as the application of decoration and graffiti made during the later stages of use of these structures. In TT190, for example, an inscription was added on the door passage and two on the doorjambs during the Ptolemaic Period,286 a new inscription was added in TT195,287 while an inscribed doorjamb from this period was recorded by Bruyère in TT380.288 New images and scenes were added in TT367,289 and in TT389 where inscriptions were written with a brush in red over an unsmoothed surface wall, in burial chambers 5, and 11. A long text in cursive hieroglyphs in black paint was added in burial chamber 7, while a nearly illegible hieratic inscription was written in black paint in burial chamber 10. Burial chamber 5 contained the most extensive evidence for these later additions consisting of drawings of deities outlined in red in a style similar to that found in some tombs in the Oases.290 The same is true for Memphis. At Saqqara, for example, in the area between the Step Pyramid and the Mastaba of Ptah-hotep were found two inscriptions scored on surface of a possible offering table built into a mudbrick wall, and dated, on palaeographic grounds, to the Ptolemaic Period.291 Use of old funerary or religious structures as new burial places is also attested from textual evidence. The writings on the life of Pisentius, a bishop of Coptos in the 6th–7th century AD, for example, provide evidence for the continued use of tombs through time, first as tombs and then as the retreat of this ascetic individual. From the description of the tomb it seems possible that this is a New 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291

Seyfried 1990, 216 ff., 289; Vleeming 1994, 121 (O. Varia 55, 54, and 56). See Table 19 infra for a list of the material culture recovered from both the new and the old tombs. Quaegebeur 1995, 146; Kampp 1996, 480. Quaegebeur 1995, 146–151. Bruyère 1934, 93; Manniche 1987, 90. Fakhry 1943, 393. Assmann in Arnold and Settgast 1968, 22 and Pl. VIII. Myśliwiec 2002, 355.

438

chapter 16

Kingdom, or even a Middle Kingdom, rock-cut tomb that was used again in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, before being used in Coptic times as a shelter. The text narrates: We came across a place in the manner of a door, wide open. When we had entered there, we found it was like a rock that had been hewn out. There were six pillars rising up to meet the rock. (The interior) was 52 cubits in width; it was square in shape, the height being in proportion. It contained a large number of mummified bodies. Merely passing by that place, one could smell a myriad odours emanating from these bodies. We took the coffins, and stacked them one upon the other: these coffins were very broad, and the wooden caskets, inside which were the bodies, were very ornate. The cloth with which the first mummy, which was by the door, was wrapped was of royal silk. The mummy was well covered, and the digits of its hands and its feet had been wrapped individually.292 However, the Instruction for King Merikare (Middle Kingdom) exhorts: Do not despoil the monument of another; you should quarry stone in Tura! Do not build your tomb-chamber from ruins, for what is done will be what will be done.293 Such an admonition clearly indicates that the practice was, at least officially, unapproved or unsanctioned. Indeed, some tomb autobiographies highlight the fact that a particular funerary monument has not been made using materials from older structures, or belonging to other people. In his tomb autobiography at Saqqara (Old Kingdom, dynasty V) Hetephorakhty emphasises that he built his tomb: In a pure place on the side of the West was where I made this tomb of mine, where there was no (2) tomb of any man, so that the property of one who has gone to his ka could be protected.294 Similarly, Ankhtifi in his tomb autobiography at Moalla (Dynasty X/FIP) stresses: 292 293 294

Amélineau 1887, 142–143. Parkinson 1998, 222. Strudwick 2005, 274, inscription no. 202 (Entrance inscription right) lines 1–2; PM III2, 593–595.

tombs

439

I acquired for myself this sarcophagus and all elements of this tomb, because there is not, in this tomb, a door which is due to a foreigner, no pillar which is due to a foreigner. In some instances, the use of existing structures is even explained or justified in the tomb’s inscriptions, as in the case of the Inscription of Djau at Deir elGebrawi (Old Kingdom, dynasty VI) in which he states: I saw to it that I was buried in one tomb together with this Djau, through the desire to be with him in one place, and not because of lack of means to build a second tomb.295 Similarly, during the 30th dynasty the new occupant of a Saite tomb296 in the Memphite necropolis addresses the original owner and explains that he has done him a great favour by restoring and using his tomb again: ‘I have restored what you have built, I have renewed your work as your memory(?) on earth by having your name endure as a good one at your place in the “great hall.” I have built this chapel for your guardian spirit (called) Anchet, and I have added to it my guardian spirit (called) Shemeset (4) in order to be united with you. May you lay (my) good deeds before the great God, may you ask for years for the king Cheperkara, may he live forever, in whose time I have done this for you’ (Cambridge E.5.1909, frontal face, columns 2–4).297 The original owner replies assuring him, and the king who permitted the transfer of the tomb, of the gods’ goodwill: ‘I have done for you (even) more than you have done by praising the gods so that you are great by the grace of the King, as I go around in the necropolis commending your name and your good deeds to the great god so that I turn blame away from you, and I do good for the good that you have said by giving millions of years to the Son of Ra and the lord of diadems Nechtenibis […] may he live like Ra. I want to be together with you to your age, like your guardian spirit and my guardian spirit are united. He is your Lord and your afterlife is provided by him who put it in your heart because he knows my afterlife is provided because of what I have done’ (Brooklyn 5.6152, frontal face, columns 1–4).298

295 296

297 298

Strudwick 2005, 365–366, inscription no. 267 lines 15–18. The inscriptions are recorded on two door-jambs: Cambridge Fitzwilliam E.5.1909 and Brooklyn 56.152, for which see Jansen-Winkeln 1997 with further references to textual editions of these artefacts. After Jansen-Winkeln 1997, 170. After Jansen-Winkeln 1997, 170.

440

chapter 16

Clear evidence for use of earlier periods’ tombs during the Ptolemaic Period is also found in a number of legal documents attesting to the activity of mortuary priests in whose care they were. Some of these tombs can be located on the ground and their original owners identified, since they were still known, even at this late stage, by the names of their first occupant/owner. In most cases, these were large rock-cut tombs that appear to have been used as family tombs and also for collective burials as indicated by the fact that several (seemingly) unrelated individuals are listed as being buried there. Among these, one of the earliest attested is that of the chief steward of Nitocris, Harwa who died during the reign of Taharka. This is one of the largest temple-tombs on the Asasif (TT37), and is attested in P. BM EA 10827 (273–272BC), P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC) and P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175 BC). In P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC), for example, the buyer is granted permission to access ‘the s.t-tomb of Harwa on account of299 the overseer of the craftsmen and his people, and Petenephotes the priest of Montu’ (mtw=k (sic.)300 šm r tꜣ s.t n ḥrwꜣ301 rn pꜣ ḥry ḥm-ḫt ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f rmṯ.w ḥnꜥ pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp pꜣ wꜥb mnṱ) (lines 7–8), whilst P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) simply list ‘the s.t of Harwa and those who are buried there’ (tꜣ s.t ḥlw i҆rm n ꜣnt ḳs r-r=s) (line 3b). Another one of these tombs is that of Neb-wenenef (TT157), known as ‘the ḥ.t-tomb of Neb-wenen(ef)’ (tꜣ ḥ.t Nbwnn), one of the larger rock-cut tombs at Dra Abu el-Naga, which was built during the reign of Ramses II for the first prophet of Amun Neb-wenenef.302 Evidence for the use of this tomb is found in P. Berlin P. 3119 + P. London Gr. 3 (146BC) and P. Bibl. Nat. 218 (146BC) with which the choachyte Onnophris, son of Horos, gave a number of his liturgies to his brothers before he died.303 In P. Bibl. Nat. 218 (146BC) the tomb is said to be located ‘in the areas of the west of Thebes’ (n nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w n pr i҆mnṱ n nw.t). Among the deceased listed in the latter documents, there are Amenothes, son of Spotous, and Spotous, son of Chapochonsis, the draughtsman, both of whom are also listed in P. Amherst 60b (153BC) (col. 1 lines 3 and 6) and P. Berlin P. 3099 (line 8), 3100 (line 7) and 5508 (line 7) (124BC), albeit without specification of the tomb’s name, thus suggesting a continued use of this tomb for at least twenty-nine years, from 153 to 124BC.

299 300 301 302 303

Literally ‘(in the) name (of).’ mtw=t in the cession document (Vittmann 1980, 129 line 7). Ḥrw in the cession document (Vittmann 1980, 129 line 7). Manniche 1988, 76; Kampp 1996, 445–447; Vleeming 1995, 250–251 and note 43; Pestman 1993, 451; Quaegebeur 1995, 160 note 109. Pestman 1993, 55, 72.

tombs

441

However, of the many tombs mentioned in the documents the majority remain without firm identification.304 This is, for example, the case of the tomb of Abunefer attested in P. Amherst 57 (125 BC), where a certain Osoroeris, son of Horos, and Nechtharmais, son of Piuris are said to be buried in this tomb. Pestman identifies these individuals as being the same as those found in P. Amherst 46+55, 53+54 (cession) and P. Amherst 2, no. 52 (Greek tax payment) (150 BC), which lists Osoroeris the prophet of Min and Nechtharmais son of Pinuris.305 If this is correct, then the tomb would have been in use for at least twenty-five years. The tomb of Abunefer is also attested from P. Berlin P. 3099, 3100, 5508 (124BC).306 Of the individuals listed in the latter documents, Imouthes son of Petenephotes, Imouthes son of Osoroeris, and Esminis son of Imouthes are also listed in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC), although again without the tomb’s name. On the other hand, two deceased individuals, Psenasychis son of Osoroeris and Pchorchonsis son of Osoroeris,307 listed in P. Berlin P. 3099, 3100, 5508 (124 BC), P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC) and P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113 BC), without specification of the tomb’s name, are also listed in P. Berlin P. 3118 (116 BC) where they are said to be in the ḥ.t-tomb of Abunefer. The same individuals are also found in P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC), a list of the liturgies that had devolved upon the choachyte Horos son of Horos from his father, thus suggesting a continued use of this tomb for at least forty years, from 153 to 113BC. Another of these unidentified ḥ.t-tombs attested from the archives of the choachytes is that of Nesbentit. Evidence for the use of this tomb is found in P. Berlin P. 3099, 3100, 5508 (124BC), P. Berlin P. 3118 (116BC), P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC) and P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113BC).308 In addition, indirect evidence for the use of older tombs is found in P. Berlin P. 3089 (230BC) which specifies that among the deceased listed there was an unknown man (pꜣ bw i҆r-rẖ=f ) (line 3),309 presumably an earlier occupant of the tomb.

304 305

306 307

308 309

Quaegebeur 1995, 160 note 109. Pestman 1993, 119 note f, 457. It should be noted, however, that there is another individual identified as Osoroeris son of Horos who, in P. Berlin P. 3119 (146 BC), is listed in the collective ḥ.t-tomb of Neb-wenen, while there is also a Osoroeris son of Spotous who is listed in P. Berlin P. 3099 (124 BC) in the collective ḥ.t-tomb of Abunefer. See Pestman 1993, 449–450 and note 10. The latter is identified as the third prophet in P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC) and P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC), as Pchorchonsis, son of Osoroeris, in P. Berlin P. 3099, 3100, 5508 (124BC) and P. Berlin P. 3118 (116 BC), and simply as Pchorchonsis in P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113BC). See Pestman 1993, 446–448. For the various ways in which the name could be spelled see Pestman 1993, 71 note h, and 130 note j. Andrews 1990, 53 note 10.

442

chapter 16

With the exception of the evidence for the use of the tomb of Harwa, attested from 273 to 175BC, and the evidence provided by O. TT373 doc. 2367, dating to the last quarter of 3rd century BC, evidence for the use of existing tombs concentrates in the documentation of second century BC. This is, at least in part, the result of changes affecting the way in which the deceased are listed in legal deeds, as can be clearly seen from the surviving evidence. In fact, whereas the documents from the first two centuries of Ptolemaic rule list both the name of the deceased and the tomb in which s/he rested, the later lists of liturgies included mostly the names of deceased individuals, but omitted further details such as the specification of the type of burial in which they rested.310 Textual sources also indicate that there were norms in place regulating the re-commissioning and the re-assignation of old funerary places. According to the Hermopolis legal code, tombs could be sold only if unoccupied: ‘There are places which are built of stone or brick to bury people in them. If it happens that no one has been buried in them, the owner has the right to sell them to another man. If they have been buried in [them], their owner does not have the right to sell them’ (wn nꜣ ꜥ.wy.w nt i҆w=w ḳd=w (n) i҆ny tby gr r ḳs rmṯ ẖn=w i҆w=f ḫpr r bn-pw=w ḳs rmṯ ẖn=w ḫr i҆r pꜣy=w nb i҆rsḫy r dy.t st ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ n gr rmṯ i҆w=f ḫpr r ḳs=w ẖn=w bw i҆r pꜣy=w nb i҆r-sḫy r dy.t st ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ).311 col. IX lines 30–31

Similarly in P. Berlin P. 23757A recto (col. II lines 1–4) where it is stated that a document of sale will not be cleared if it concerns the alienation of a tomb in which individuals are still buried, presumably because, as noted by Lippert,312 the new owner would have to discard, or at any rate relocate, the existing burials in order to use the tomb. In practice, however, it may have been possible to hide evidence of previous burials, and thus be able to acquire the right to use the tomb again. The presence of laws regulating the re-commissioning of tombs indicates that ownership of tombs whose owner’s family line had died out reverted to the state, who then re-assigned them. This type of organization

310

311 312

The last document in the archive to mention a ḥ.t-tomb is P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC), although the disappearance from the archives of this type of tomb may be due to chance survival of documentation, since the archives end at the very beginning of the first century BC, and/or to a change in the way the liturgies were listed. After Donker van Heel 1990, 107. Lippert 2004, 35–36.

tombs

443

appears to have been in place since at least the New Kingdom, as indicated by a set of documents from Deir el-Medina concerning a dispute over ownership of a tomb. The writer of this legal narrative, Amenemope, provides some background information on the original owner of the tomb in question, claiming descent from him through a female relative. From this account it transpires that the tomb in question had been re-commissioned during the reign of Horemheb (18th dynasty) and reassigned to a certain Khay, who apparently had no male heirs and thus the tomb was at risk of becoming abandoned. More than 140 years later, Amenemope, in need of a tomb, makes recourse to the oracle of Amenhotep I to have this tomb reassigned to him.313 From the Memphite area there is also some indication that tombs could be given as royal gifts to worthy individuals. This is indicated by P. Cairo 52002, which concerns the construction of a tomb in the Memphite necropolis in the reign of Ramses III. The document appears to have been a report prepared for the state administration, which, together with the fact that the tomb was intended for a General, suggests that the structure was a royal gift.314 State involvement in the re-assignation of tombs is also documented on the inscribed door-jambs (discussed above) dating from the 30th dynasty. In the response by the original tomb owner, both the new occupant and the king who put it in the latter’s heart to restore and use the tomb are assured of the goodwill of the gods. This indicates that during the 30th dynasty, at least, the transfer of an old tomb to a new user was to be sanctioned by the king. On the other hand, burial tax receipts recording payment for the ‘purchase’ of an existing tomb indicate that the transfer was controlled by the necropolis administration on behalf of the temple.315 Pharaohs’ tombs were likewise recommissioned in later periods, as in the case of the tomb of king Osorkon I parts of which were sold to choachytes.316 This raises the question of ownership of royal tombs—did they belong to the temple in whose domain they were located? Did this mean that once the mortuary cult for that king ceased, the tomb could be used as ‘public’ burial place? It is clear that once the mortuary cult of a particular person, be it a king or a private individual, ceased, the structure would gradually fall into disrepair. It is probably at this point, or even before it got to this stage, that tombs of earlier periods would be adapted to serve as ‘public’ burial places, that is, areas in which several, unrelated, families could be buried following the purchase of building plots inside it, or of any already existing discrete tombs. This, for instance, was the case of 313 314 315 316

McDowell 1999, 69–71; Snape 2011, 238–239. Snape 2011; Posener-Kriéger 1981. See above Chapter 15 § 3. See above Chapter 15 § 3.

444

chapter 16

the tomb of Osorkon I, which was said to be in ruins when areas inside it were being sold off to choachytes. Having looked at the archaeological and textual sources that indicate the (secondary) use of funerary and religious structures as tombs over a period of time, as well as the textual evidence on the regulation of this practice, it is pertinent to look at the reasons behind the choice of using an existing structure as burial place, rather than having a new one built. The interaction between people and past monuments and landscapes is attested cross-culturally and cross-temporally around the world. In Egypt it is attested throughout its history. Although past materialities today are defined by legislation that prescribes the terms by which we can experience them, the interplay between people and past artefacts would have been different in the past without the same legislation and the contextual information we have about these artefacts today. One of the main difficulties, however, in trying to analyse and understand this interplay is to avoid superimposing our personal, modern experiences onto the past.317 Labeled as reuse, this practice is presented in modern scholarship as violation, desecration, destruction, and often ascribed to a lack of economic resources to create the imposing funerary monuments of bygone ages. However, this attitude fails to address the fundamental question of how it was perceived among the people who practiced it. In fact, reuse needs to be understood as an expression of people’s engagement with past material remains, and thus it is to be analysed in its multivariate perspective, and as being potentially influenced by social, religious, political, as well as, to some extent, by economic factors. In trying to assess the range of factors that contributed to, or influenced, the choice of using an existing tomb, it is important to determine, first, the identity, or at least the social standing, of the deceased buried in these funerary structures. Once again, it is the data from the Theban necropolis that provides the basis for such an analysis. In this vast area we find: – newly built Ptolemaic brick tombs, – New Kingdom and Late Period tombs still used in the Ptolemaic Period. In particular, it is the inscribed material culture found inside these tombs, as well as the documents belonging to the mortuary priests that offer the possibility of identifying some of the social levels represented. The inscribed artefacts found in the recommissioned rock-cut tombs, which included religious compositions, stelae, wooden canopic chests and offering tables amongst others, show that a large number of the deceased held priestly functions as indicated

317

Blake 2003, 203.

445

tombs table 19

Comparative list of funerary equipment found in tombs

Material culture Titles (mostly priestly) Religious compositions Stelae Offering tables Hypocephali Coffins Cartonnage Canopic Jars Shabtis Ptah-Sokar-Osiris Statue Ba-bird figurines Other Figurines Amulets Pottery Non-Ceramic Vessel

Old tombs

New tombs

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗

✗ ✗ ✓

?a ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

a Offering tables were found during the excavations of the mud-brick tombs, where they were mostly used to construct a type of protective emplacement around the body, but it is not clear whether they all dated from earlier periods or from the Ptolemaic Period too.

by their titles (god’s father, high priest, prophet etc.),318 while no titles were attested from the material culture found in the brick tombs. By contrast, the documentary sources indicate that the same range of titles is attested for the deceased buried in both the s.t-tombs (brick-built tombs) and the ḥ.t-tombs (Pharaonic and Late Period rock-cut tombs).319 This picture is further complicated by the fact that, as discussed above, a s.t-tomb could be located inside a ḥ.t-tomb, although this is not clearly specified in the relevant textual sources. With the exception of religious compositions, hypocephali, possibly offering tables, and Ptah-sokar-statuettes, which were not found in the brick tombs, and canopic jars and non-ceramic vessels which were recovered from the latter but not from the recommissioned tombs, the material culture recovered from these two types of tombs is comparable, as can be seen from table 19 above. 318 319

See for example Quaegebeur 1995; Schreiber 2011 and 2007. See Table A.39.

446

chapter 16

The lack of variation in terms of the funerary equipment deposited with the deceased in the these two types of tombs is not surprising since one would perhaps expect to find a difference in terms of quality and quantity of funerary material culture, but not so much in terms of typology. To some extent the typological difference in the recovered material culture, and in particular the lack of religious compositions, can be accounted for by accidents of preservation, since the brick tombs would be more subject to natural deterioration through the elements, and were found already plundered when discovered by the early excavators. Indeed, the area of the Asasif where they were located was known amongst the locals as Birábi, a name used to refer to a vaulted tomb,320 which betrays the locals’ knowledge of these structures’ typology. On the basis of the choachytes’ tomb records it is clear that there is no direct correlation between social standing and tomb typology. In terms of what this secondary use entails, the identification of many of the reused structures by the name of the original tomb owner, rather than by those of later tomb occupants, is clearly indicative of a certain degree of respect for these ‘ancestors,’ since the name was a fundamental aspect of an individual, and one of the means by which the same could live in the afterlife. The same measure of respect is shown by the restorations and repairs that were carried out in these tombs, and which were aimed at their preservation.321 Thus reuse did not entail the destruction, desecration, violation of these old tombs, it meant the creation of burial spaces through architectural modifications, the continuous upkeep of these structures to ensure their physical integrity, and the open acknowledgment of who the original owners were. It is generally suggested that in the Greco-Roman period there were not enough resources to build new rock-cut tombs, only to enlarge the existing ones.322 This is undoubtedly the most obvious explanation, and it is certainly the case that tombs were of more modest scale, and, in some cases, even lacked

320 321

322

Carnarvorn and Carter 1912, 2 note 1. In fact, during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, many monuments were extensively restored or rebuilt (McClain 2007), with ancient reliefs being recarved in the name of the original king albeit in the Ptolemaic style (Brand 2010, 9–10). McClain remarks on the particular reality of the Theban sacred landscape in the Ptolemaic Period, which is reflected even in the enriched architectural terminology used to define these sacred spaces. This, he interprets, as evidence for the Ptolemaic veneration of older monuments, which were repaired and used again (McClain 2007; Dorman and Bryan 2007, xvi). See Vleeming 1995, 251; Assmann 1991, 17, 242–244 (§191, 199). These statements are not entirely supported by the evidence of tombs such as that of Petosiris at Tuna el-Gebel and those at Alexandria, which size and elaborateness show that some of the elite still had the resources to build large tombs.

tombs

447

a superstructure altogether during this period. Naturally, it would take much less time to create a tomb shaft with an average depth of 5 m and a chamber of about 3×2×2m (with a total volume of approximately 17m3),323 than a tomb with a chapel and a shaft with a total volume of more than 500 cubic metres.324 According to an ostracon from the tomb of Senmut, to excavate a volume of 1.3m3 it would take 11 masons one day, which means that a shaft of the Third Intermediate Period would perhaps require about 15 days to excavate.325 Indeed, economic hardship is one of the most common explanations put forward to explain secondary use of ancient structures worldwide. A striking example is provided by the Byzantine (AD700–1250) secondary use of a number of Sicilian Bronze and Iron age hypogea that were adapted and used again as houses and Christian chapels following thirteen centuries of abandonment.326 Although architecturally quite varied,327 they were all used as tombs or, in some instances, possibly as cult places as well, though they were never used as housing during the prehistoric period. The exterior of these tombs was some times modified by the addition of a façade, the interior remodelled, and the walls frescoed with Christian imagery.328 Interestingly, this secondary use did not always involve the removal of the deceased from their tombs.329 Several explanations have been put forward to explain the secondary use of these rock-cut tombs as dwellings at Pantalica, including economic crisis, especially because the phenomenon of troglodytism does correspond to periods of eco-

323 324 325 326

327

328 329

The dimensions and the information refer to a Third Intermediate Period tomb shaft (Strudwick 2009–2010, 257). For example that of Sennefer (TT99) (Strudwick 2009–2010, 257). Strudwick 2009–2010, 257; Hayes 1942, 21, Pl. XIII no. 62. The largest of these hypogea is Pantalica (built from around 1250BC), located on the southeast side of the island, and dating from the Copper Age (3rd millennium BC) and possibly even from the Middle Neolithic (Blake 2003, 204). The site appears to have been abandoned from around 650 BC for 1300 years (Blake 2003, 206). The reuse of the necropolis during the Byzantine period dates from the end of the seventh to the middle of the twelfth century AD (Blake 2003, 211). Some were underground chambers accessed vertically from above, others were carved into the cliff face where the entrance is located. A number of the tombs housed only one or two bodies, while others, possibly later, consist of large multiple chambers linked together by corridors. Bodies appear to have been added inside the same cavity over time, while the older ones were rearranged to make room for the new corpse, or, in some cases, removed (Blake 2003, 204–205). Blake 2003, 204. In grave 56, for example, although the cells had been cleared, the prehistoric skeletal remains had been left in situ. The reasons for this selective treatment of past vestiges, retaining some while discarding the rest, are not clear (Blake 2003, 210).

448

chapter 16

nomic difficulty.330 Clearly it is easier to use an existing structure than to build a new one of comparable size. Thus this has been taken as an indication of the extreme poverty to which the population had been reduced, explaining the reuse of the tombs as a matter of convenience. However, the existence at the site of three separate villages, churches decorated with frescoes, free-standing structures, and the discovery of a hoard of gold jewellery and coins, does not support the theory of a population reduced to abject poverty. Rather, reuse of Pantalica is to be understood as a cultural phenomenon, although not in terms of continuation of prehistoric practices, since the later occupants of the site probably knew very little about it, and in general show a disregard for the tombs.331 It follows that if they did not share a culture, it must have been the site itself that was important. In this case the link between the old site and the new occupants, Blake suggests, was familiarity. People would have known and been familiar with the place, even if they did not know its history. The later inhabitants were thus using a ‘familiar local place from which to engage with broader contemporary cultural currents,’ the phenomenon of troglodytism and the reuse of older sites which was taking place around the Mediterranean in general.332 On the other hand, a manifestly political gesture is represented by the reuse of the monumental Bronze Age towers in Sardinia, the nuraghi, by the local population.333 Built as domestic architecture, over time, the nuraghi gradually became a symbol of social division between those who lived in them and those who lived in the huts around them and further away.334 The nuraghi’s original identity was not forgotten, but their importance diminished as a result 330

331

332 333 334

Blake 2003, 215. Other explanations include the interpretation of the site as a monastic one, despite the fact that there is no indication at all that the site was used by a monastic community; or understanding the move as a response to the threat of invasion, although the island appears to have been fairly safe during the beginning of the Byzantine period. Any flight into the interior during the Arab incursion appears to have been only temporary, while these rock-cut settlements did not replace those dispersed around the countryside, with 56 percent of the villages still being occupied during the Arab occupation (Blake 2003, 214). Another theory sees this phenomenon as an attempt at escaping the heavy tax burden, although the presence of Pantalica in 12th century church documents clearly indicates that the city was neither ‘hidden’ nor overlooked. Yet another theory tries to explain the phenomenon in terms of flight from iconoclastic persecution, with the caves used as chapels being undistinguishable from the habitations, and thus allowing pictorial production to continue, perhaps even as a safe act of defiance (Blake 2003, 215). In fact, the Christian population did not purposefully destroy these tombs, rather they used some, but not others, they cleared out the human remains from some of them, but left others intact (Blake 2003, 216). Blake 2003, 217–218. Blake 1998, 64. Blake 1998, 61.

tombs

449

of the reshaping of ‘politicised space.’335 The reuse of these structures took many forms during the Roman period (238BC–AD 455), ranging from residential function to storage facilities, from cultic to mortuary purpose (albeit the latter two were quite rare). Original constructions were added to and modified, often creating elaborate buildings and villas. Thus poverty or lack of economic resources cannot be seen to be at the basis of this reuse. Because Roman occupation of Sardinia meant the imposition of a new way of life over the native one, and entailed the bombardment of local populations with Roman culture, the reuse of indigenous monuments has to be understood as a political statement by the local populations as they forged a Romano-Sard identity.336 As these examples clearly show, economic straits cannot explain all cases of reuse of past materialities, even in instances that appear fairly clear cut as in the case of Pantalica. Similarly, with respect to the Ptolemaic reuse of older tombs, lack of economic resources cannot, alone, account for the phenomenon, especially given that the native elite was buried both in the new brick tombs and in the recommissioned ones, and thus other factors must have contributed to such a choice. Another aspect that is also important to remember is that although the creation of a monument provides a window into the world view of its original builders, its history does not end there, since a monument will continue to influence human practices even independently of the original purpose and intentions of its creation.337 In some cases, the reuse of past materialities would probably have involved a certain amount of reinterpretation, which could be helped, or influenced, by the survival of past written sources. This, for example, appears to have been the case with the reuse of spolia in Byzantine churches, which special significance was due to their historical associations,338 rather than representing a source of cheap building material.339 Similarly, one could postulate that the Ptolemaic elite may have chosen to be buried in the recommissioned tombs as a way of associating themselves with a period of strong central government and a time of return to tradition. Furthermore, secondary use of monuments, in themselves epitomes of the achievements of the past, may look to the past as a source of authority legitimation, and even the addition of new elements to the original monument, or its adaptation, may represent a way in which later people express their links with tradition. In Egypt, it was 335 336 337 338 339

Blake 1998, 63. Blake 1998, 63–64. Blake 1998, 60. Bradley 2003, 224. Papalexandrou 2003.

450

chapter 16

tradition and lineage that already in the 1st dynasty represented a more powerful legitimation instrument than the scale of the funerary monuments, or their proximity to Memphis, the new centre of power. A statue base in the Step Pyramid, dated much earlier than the complex itself, may have been included for antiquarian reasons, while thousand of stone vases, many of which inscribed with the names of the 1st and 2nd dynasty kings, may have been deposited there as a form of pietas. The presence and use of such ‘ancestral’ material may have served to legitimise the position of the king in contemporary society.340 The same ideological component is behind the use of hundreds of inscribed and decorated Old Kingdom blocks belonging to various kings’ monuments and incorporated in the pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht. The fact that these blocks were purveyed from a variety of sources at Giza and Saqqara, argues against this being a simple economic expedient to acquire building materials, rather it indicates it was a measure aimed at lending legitimacy to this king’s own rule (the first reign of the 12th dynasty). In fact, as Brand remarks, stone elements inscribed with the name of illustrious ancestors ‘carried a patina of ancient authority [that] could imbue new constructions with this legitimacy.’341 Similarly, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, mobilised workers to excavate millennia old sites to find and restore vestiges of a powerful predecessor. Such efforts provide evidence for the past construction of a social memory.342 The latter is also used to create and reinforce a sense of community identity.343 In fact, memory and place cannot be separated, they are intertwined together to form what has been described as a ‘sense of place,’ which is based on the history of people’s engagement with the landscape, and thus it is closely linked with memory and time. As people interact with and move through a space, the negotiation ‘between spatial experience and perception reflexively creates, legitimates, and reinforces social relationships and ideas.’344 Thus another possibility would be to understand the elite’s association with the large recommissioned tombs, and their illustrious owners, during the Ptolemaic Period as serving the same purpose of strengthening their sense of identity and position in society. However, ‘monuments are not created as an exercise in ergonomics,’ rather they are enduring features of the landscape and leave their mark on it even

340 341 342 343 344

Baines 1994, 133–134. Brand 2010, 3. From a cuneiform tablet (600 BC) from Larsa (modern Iraq) (Van Dyke and Alcock 2003, 1). Van Dyke and Alcock 2003, 3. See, for example, the case of Sardinia’s nuraghi mentioned above (Blake 1998). Van Dyke and Alcock 2003, 5.

tombs

451

when no longer in use.345 In fact, the most important feature of ritual monuments is their lasting character, because the conception of time embodied by ritual is markedly different from that of everyday life, rooted as it is in an unchanging past.346 These monuments need to be understood as representing a ‘link between everyday life, ever visible in the landscape, and the sacred, marked by ceremonies at the sites, which emphasised the continued link between the past and present, between the ancestors, the dead and the living community.’347 Sacred monuments were generally built ‘in places that had long held special significance,’ thus showing that sacred sites tend to maintain their perceived sanctity over long periods of time.348 In fact, even a natural landscape, devoid of any manmade structures, could be perceived as being sacred, as shown by the graffiti left by workmen in the Gebel el-Silsila sandstone quarries. Additional examples are represented by the desert topography at Abydos and Amarna, by the uraeus-shaped outcrop at Gebel Barkal, and the pyramidal mountain peak at Gurna, which was personified in the goddess Meretseger.349 Ancient visitors, just like their modern counterparts, would have experienced the landscape, the temples and the tombs in a variety of dynamic, ever changing ways,350 since, in the words of Bradley, ‘monuments constrain the movement of the people who visit them and provide a kind of stage setting for the performance of ritual and ceremonial,’ whilst ‘feed[ing] off the associations, not only of places, but also of other monuments.’351 As Ashley has remarked with respect to art used in ritual, ‘ritual creates its artworks while the art or architecture also enables ritual activity.’352 Sacred spaces and sacred gestures/rituals share the same reciprocal relationship in that ritual contributes to the sanctity of places, while the latter provides a setting for the ritual performance and even elicit it.353 In fact, ‘places do not merely situate actions yet nor do they determine them: they enable them.’354 345 346 347 348

349 350 351 352 353 354

Bradley 1984, 62. Bradley 1984, 63. Cooney 1994, 35. Dorman and Bryan 2007, xiv. One question that is pertinent here is that of how social memories were preserved through practices and material culture, and how long they survive intact. Meskell (2003) argues that the inhabitants of Deir el Medina did not remember past events over more than two generations, although actual estimates vary between one and two centuries (Bradley 2003, 221). Dorman and Bryan 2007, xv. Tilley 1994, 14–17; Dorman and Bryan 2007, xv. Bradley 1993, 45, 129. Ashley 1992, 10. Dorman and Bryan 2007, xv. Blake 1998, 68.

452

chapter 16

Monuments also represent one of the ways in which memory, or oral tradition, can be codified,355 while the regular performance of rituals and other forms of practices create memory. One of the key elements in the creation of memory is the act of moving in a landscape which topography, and the monuments within, in turn shape the individuals’ visual experience as well as their movements. Periodical religious processions and pilgrimages are two examples of the ways in which meaning is attached to a specific landscape through memory.356 The Theban necropolis was in fact also the destination of major annual processions, which lasted at least eleven days or more.357 One of the most important was the ‘Beautiful festival of the Valley,’ during which the Theban triad (Amun, Mut and Khonsu) crossed the river to the west bank visiting first the ‘House of millions of years’ of the reigning king, and then those of former rulers, before the final stop at Deir el-Bahari, essentially a sanctuary of Hathor. The deceased buried in the necropolis were believed to be able to take part in this procession and to profit from the gods passing by their tombs. In addition, during this festival, families visited the tombs and held a banquet there, thus showing it had a primarily funerary character.358 A number of these festivals continued during the Ptolemaic Period as shown by a decree in Greek inscribed on a stela of Ptolemy V that mentions a barque festival of Amun and the crossing of the god’s image to the West bank, such as during the annual ‘Festival of the Valley.’ This was an important public event attended by important officials, such as the epistrategos of the Thebaid, in their capacity of representatives of the crown.359 Another of the processions that visited the west bank was that of the ‘Festival of the decade’ during which Amun, in his ithyphallic manifestation as Amun of Luxor, visited the Djeserset temple at Medinet Habu, in which the primordial gods known as the Ogdoad were believed to be buried, to perform their funerary cult.360 Naturally the Theban landscape was primarily a burial landscape, punctuated by myriads tombs of varying age and dimension marking the passing of time, as well as a funerary landscape characterised by ritual and ceremonial 355 356 357 358 359

360

Bradley 2003, 222–223. Ashmore 2004, 264. Stadler 2008, 3. Stadler 2008, 7. The stela (SB I 4542 [142? BC]) was originally erected in the dromos of the Amun temple at Karnak around 191 BC. It is likely that the procession also stopped at the Deir el-Medina temple, now much grander following Ptolemy IV rebuilding, since the festival is mentioned in the temple’s north sanctuary (PM II2 406 [30c and d]) (Montserrat and Meskell 1997, 193–194). Stadler 2008, 5; Montserrat and Meskell 1997, 194; see also Bietak 2012 and 2012a.

453

tombs

activity, social activity, performed there since time immemorial and associated with specific religious beliefs. Participating in these activities could also serve to create and maintain a social and community identity manifested through social memory, which is closely linked to funerary landscapes. The continued disposal of the dead in this same landscape would transform it into a place of remembrance of individuals and their deeds, as well as becoming a focal point in the community’s social memory. Such places represent not simply burial sites, but, above all, places associated with intense human experiences, in this specific case, sorrow, loss and grief.361 The above examples indicate quite clearly that a variety of reasons could lay behind the individual choice of being buried in an existing tomb or having a new one built. To dismiss tomb reuse as a simple economic expedient would mean to ignore the fact that these choices were made by individuals, whose reasons may have been as varied as humanity can be, and that a single, one-for-all explanation for these choices cannot be given.

5

Collective Tombs

Many of these old tombs were used as a burial place for unrelated families and/or individuals, while in a number of cases the deceased appear to have been grouped according to their profession, their origo and/or their ethnic origin. In academic literature these interments are often termed mass burial. However, because this terminology is closely associated with burials related to war crime activities (genocide and ethnic cleansing) and pandemic diseases, I prefer to use the more neutral term of collective burials. Here, in fact, the bodies are not placed inside the grave chaotically and with lack of respect, which generally characterises mass burials,362 but rather are laid to rest systematically and respectfully. Indeed, even the definition of collective burials is not always entirely appropriate. The large Pharaonic and Late Period tombs used in the Ptolemaic Period were often divided into discrete burial areas, likely used as family tombs. In this sense, therefore, these massive mausolea were treated as burial grounds and, as such, were no more collective burials than those in regular cemeteries. Use of collective tombs was shared between mortuary priests, at least at Thebes, as shown by the presence of clauses in the choachytes’ documents in

361 362

Tibor-Tamás Daróczi 2012, 200–201. Jæger 2013.

454

chapter 16

which the seller either reserves, or grants, the right to access specific tombs on account of certain individuals temporarily placed there.363 Unfortunately, the documents provide no evidence for the mechanics behind the choice of whether to be buried in a collective tomb or in one’s personal grave, nor indeed whether the deceased and his/her family had any choice at all in the matter. It could be posited that some of these tombs were reserved for lower status individuals who could not afford to have their own burial place. However, the existence of a tomb of the goldsmiths, or of a tomb of the priests, would argue against it, at least as a general rule, although it cannot be excluded that some were used by the less wealthy. Similarly, one might postulate that professional guilds and religious associations could give their members the possibility of being buried in such collective tombs. The evidence indicates that members of some religious associations were entitled to a contribution from the latter toward their funeral expenses, and it is, therefore, not impossible that some could have also offered their members with the choice of a burial space inside these structures.364 Table 20 below lists the collective tombs, grouped according to profession, attested at Thebes. On the other hand, at Memphis the only evidence for this type of collective tomb is found in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC), which lists the ‘ḥ.wt-tombs of the ˹door-keepers˺ (and) the ḳꜣ.w-tombs of the horoscopes (and?) of the ˹porters,˺’ and in P. BM EA 10384 where we find ‘the ꜥ.wy-tomb of the scribes of the place of writing of the temple domain of the gods of Hapimenes son of Phchoiphis.’365 In addition, there are examples of grouping according to both profession and origo, as in the case of the ‘tomb of the doctors (embalmers?) of the district of Pathyris (1),’ and the ‘tomb of the lectorpriests of the district of Coptos (1),’ both from Thebes, and of the ‘herder, a 363

364

365

Thus also Vleeming 1995, 251; and Pestman 1993, 443. Examples are found in P. Philadelphia XVIII (241 BC), P. Philadelphia XIX (240 BC), P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC), P. Louvre N. 3263 (215 BC), and P. Amherst 58a (153 BC). See further Chapter 12 §4. In P. Rylands 580 (78BC), for example, Heraclides, a member of a soldiers’ club, bequeaths his burial benefit worth 100 drachmae to which he is entitled as a member of this club. The document consists of an inner text of three lines and below this an outer text of six lines. The contract is signed at the bottom of the papyrus by the president and the secretary of the club who acted as witnesses to the document (Roberts et al. 1952, 31). No beneficiary is named in the document, thus suggesting that the payment would have been made to anyone presenting it. The authors mention a similar case in a loan (74BC) recorded in P. Mich. Inv. 6051 (= SB 7532) in which a blank space has been left, in both outer and inner text, where the name of the creditor should be, thus suggesting that the contract was negotiable. It is also possible that Herakleides was giving his burial benefit back to the club itself (Roberts et al. 1952, 32). After Martin 2009, 116 line 8.

455

tombs table 20

Theban collective tombs grouped by profession

ḥ.t-tomb of the doctorsa of the people of Hermonthis ḥ.t-tomb of the priests of Montu s.t-tomb of the door-keepers of Montu s.t-tomb of the door-keepers of Osiris ḥ.t-tomb of the door-keepers of Tutu ḥ.t-tomb of the door-keepers of Mut (2 entries) s.t-tomb of the ˹door-keepers˺ and the goldsmiths s.t-tomb of the kalasiris s.t-tomb of the herdsmen

s.t-tomb of the ibises’s servants ḥ.t-tomb of the nurses of Pawedjametues s.t-tomb of the nurses of the first prophet s.t-tomb of the menders/barbers s.t-tomb of the potters s.t-tomb of the gardeners ḥ.t-tomb of the land measurers shaft-tomb of the royal-joiners s.t-tomb of the gelhebub

a Perhaps to be understood as embalmers? b On the noun glhb.w see Vittmann 1987, 124–125 note 23. table 21

Collective tombs grouped by origo

Thebes large s.t-tomb of the people of Djeme (1) tomb of the people of Thebes (1) tomb of other people from the town (1)

ḥ.t-tomb of the people from ˹Peralk˺ (1) s.t-tomb of the people from Persheha (1) s.t-tomb of the Ethiopians (1)

Memphis share of the Carians share of the Meqwesh those of the new land of the river burial of the Greeks vault of the (people from the) Quarter of the Greeks

man from Taachinsetmeseh man from the Anubieion people of Tawecheri people of Taachinheriitem people of Naukratis in the district of Sais

man from the Serapieion(?),’ the ‘herder, a man from the temple of Bastet,’ and the ‘pigeon(?) seller (s n ḳrppy), a man from Pachercher(?)’ all from Memphis. Finally, a small number of these collective tombs group the deceased according to their origo (see Table 21 above).366 Over a total of about 850 deceased individuals named in the choachytes’ archives, spanning the period between 302BC and 98 BC, only slightly more than 10% of them are identified by their origo (see Table 22 below). 366

The numbers in brackets indicate how many times each entry occurs in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC).

456 table 22

chapter 16 Theban individuals identified by origoa

Thebes Individuals from Coptos: (1) Individuals from Gebelein: 1 Individuals from Djeme: 1 (5) Individuals from Hermonthis: 1 (8) Individuals from Thebes: 1 (9) Individuals from Ope: 8? (2) Individuals from Pei: 1 (1) Individuals from Pinpoor: (1) Individuals from Peribt[…]: 1 Individuals from the shrine of Montu lord of Medamud: (4) Individuals from Tarkytis: 1 (1) Individuals from Ihy[…]: 1 Individuals from Pois: (5) Individuals from Paherenpaihy: (1) Individuals from Psameris: (1)

Individuals from Toame: 1 Individuals of Aut(?): 1 Individuals from Patadjeser: (2) Individuals from Tmotnenphamenis: (4) Individuals from Temesteites: (1) Individuals from Tmotnesous: (1) Individuals from Hut: (1) Individuals from Kochlax: (1) Individuals from Tasetiuiu: (6) Individuals from Pmounemounis: (4) Individuals from Papa: (4) Individuals from Tmononkepis: (2) Individuals from Apollonopolis:b 1 Smith from Koussai:c 1 Goldsmith from Latopolis: 1 Individuals from […]: 2 (2)

Memphis Share of the Carians Share of the Meqwesh Those of the new land of the river Man from Taachinsetmeseh

Man from the Anubieion Individuals from Tawecheri Individuals from Taachinheriitem Individuals from Naukratis in the district of Sais

a The numbers in brackets indicate how many times each entry occurs in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC), while those outside the brackets refer to the occurrence of the same entry in any of the other documents analysed. b CDD letter G, 70. c CDD letter K, 37.

However, as noted above, cases in which the deceased are designated by their origo are found mostly in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC), from Thebes, accounting for over ⅔ (67) of the total occurrences, thus suggesting that such specification may have been influenced by personal scribal practices. The formula used to indicate a place of origins consists of an epithet formed with the noun rmṯ followed by a place name, and it is attested in a number of legal deeds and tax receipts. Census records indicate that the identification of an individual as being from Elephantine, Philae, and possibly Aswan, was an official designa-

457

tombs table 23

Memphite tombs organised according to mater familias

ꜥ.wy n rmṯ of the woman Ta[…] ꜥ.wy n rmṯ of the woman Ta[…] daughter of […] ꜥ.wy n rmṯ of the woman Taues daughter of Teos ꜥ.wy n rmṯ of the woman Mesuiset ꜥ.wy n rmṯ of […] her brother

ꜥ.wy n rmṯ.t of the woman Tjaibastet ꜥ.wy n rmṯ.t of the woman […] (2) ꜥ.wy n rmṯ.t of the woman Pn-[…] ꜥ.wy n rmṯ of the woman Tagereb

tion that conferred a special tax status.367 However, it is doubtful whether this would have had any relevance in tems of burial (unless these individuals were also offered the option of a burial place inside a collective tomb) and may have served simply as a means of identification in death as they had in life. With regard to the internal organization of the individual tombs, it is likely that members of the same family would be grouped together, according to the pater368 or mater familias. The latter possibility is indicated by the large number of Theban documents that identify women as owners or occupants of specific tombs. Similarly, P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) suggests that at Memphis, as at Thebes, the deceased were not grouped solely according to the pater familias, since a number of the ꜥ.wy n rmṯ.(t)-tombs listed in this document give the name of women as owners or occupants (see Table 23 above). However, according to P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78 BC), if wife and husband fall between two separate liturgies, their children would automatically be assigned to the mortuary priest(s) in whose care the husband was, thus indicating that in case of dispute, or uncertainty, it was on the basis of the pater familias that this would be resolved. In Middle Egypt, a curious aspect of the list of individuals recorded in P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC) is the presence of almost exclusively males, with possibly very few exceptions. In view of this, it may be speculated that the list concerns either tombs or households, and that they were arranged by pater familias.369 However, the archaeological record shows that this was by 367 368 369

Clarysse and Thompson 2006a. Vleeming 1995, 251. As remarked before, it is not always possible to determine whether the individuals listed were the deceased occupants of a funerary structure or the living owners since the fact that a person could have more than one burial place suggests that the association of name with tomb can indicate ownership as well as occupation. See for example P. BM EA 10830 (198 BC) which lists ‘the mꜣꜥ-chapel of the master Amenothes and his s.wt-tombs, the mꜣꜥchapel of the master Snechetis and his s.wt-tombs, the mꜣꜥ-chapel of Panouphis and the master Amenrosis with his s.wt-tombs, and the s.t-tombs (sic. mꜣꜥ) of Apelos and his s.wttombs’ (lines 5–6).

458

chapter 16

no means the norm given the presence of a tomb complex, N16-O15-O17-O17a, in which were buried a number of female relatives of the Horus priesthood (see Pl. 43 and 44).370 The latter were discovered in the central necropolis to the north of tomb S14, and appear to have been reserved for female members of the upper class, and in particular for those with links to the Horus temple.371 In the underground chambers of these tombs were found a large number of coffins, many anthropomorphic, and some bearing inscriptions in which the deceased was identified by means of their patronymic and of the titles held by their fathers as members of the priesthood of the Horus temple.372 Where human remains were preserved, the coffins could be sexed on the basis of facial characteristics. Surprisingly, most of them appear to be burials of women.373 In total 54 coffins were discovered, of which 21 belonged to women and four to men, while a number of them belonged to children.374 370 371 372 373 374

Gestermann et al. 1989, 9. Gestermann et al. 1987, 27, 34. See Gestermann et al. 1987, Pl. 6 and 7. Gestermann et al. 1987, 34–35. Some of the coffins were not anthropomorphic and could not be gendered since they contained no human remains (Gestermann et al. 1987, 35). Gestermann et al. 1987, 35. Four of the coffins belonging to women had been inscribed for daughters of priests of Horus (Gestermann et al. 1987, 35).

chapter 17

Burials As will be apparent from the foregoing sections, the range of burial solutions in use during the Ptolemaic Period was quite wide, and families were able to chose from a range of tomb types. A number of different solutions were also possible in terms of body treatment (including the use of coffins). The following survey examines some of the data available in an attempt to ascertain whether there is a direct correlation between the body treatment and the typology of burial.1

1

Select Survey of Inhumations’ Typology

As is to be expected, at the top end of the scale one finds carefully mummified bodies, covered with cartonnage elements or cases, encased in coffins, and, generally, buried in one of the imposing tombs of earlier periods. At the other end there are the simple inhumations of unmummified bodies, wrapped in mats and placed directly in the ground. However, in between these there is much variation in terms of body treatment and burial typology, which are not always in direct correlation.2 In the Theban necropolis, attestations of the high end type of burial are found, for example, in TT32 where a number of later burials were discovered in the lower strata of the debris that filled Room I, and which the excavators suggest was used as a ‘common burial place’ during the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.3 All the bodies found in the tomb showed signs of having been mummified.4 A total of ten adults and three children were found in rooms I and II. Only two of them were found in a good state of preservation, the remaining bodies having been heavily damaged by repeated plundering in search for valuable items. One of these (№ 7) lay in the passage between Rooms I and II, with remains of a low mudbrick wall, intended as a crude protective struc-

1 The data is summarised in Table A.40. 2 Unfortunately, the vast majority of burials had already been plundered when excavated, which means that their original context, the body treatment and the interment typology are not always clear. 3 Kákosy and Gaál 1985, 14, 21; for the human and faunal remains discorvered in this tomb see now Fóthi et al. 2010. 4 Kákosy and Gaál 1985, 21.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_019

460

chapter 17

ture, still present on three sides of the body.5 On the south-western side of the outer court, near a Ptolemaic wall, was found a pot, closed with a mud stopper, containing mummy wrappings and bags of natron.6 The bodies found in ‘Corridor-tomb 1(= B)’ and its subsidiary chambers (B I–IV) had all been mummified too.7 Room IV contained at least six inhumations, four adults, one subadult (10–18 years) and a child, while three adults, three sub-adults and a child were found in Room V. However, the presence of a large quantity of skeletal material indicates that more individuals would have been originally interred in these rooms.8 The mummified remains recovered from this tomb were all of the black type charachterised by a heavy use of bituminous substances used both to fill the internal cavities and to soak the wrappings. In a number of cases the internal organs had been replaced inside the thoracic cavity. One of the individuals had gilt fingernails, another had a limb artificially reconstructed using palm branches as support. Large quantities of linen bandages were used (in some instances more than 100 layers for a thickness of 10 cm), probably in an attempt to restore the mummy to a life-like appearance.9 Elite burials in TT32 include that of Nesmin and his family members, several of whom bore priestly titles. Nesmin himself held both sarcedotal titles and those of Royal scribe and Scribe of Amun.10 The burials were discoved inside four rooms hewn out of the sides of the tomb’s original shaft.11 The artefactual remains discovered in situ and the objects now dispersed around museum collections worldwide allow to reconstruct (part of) the original burial outfit typical of the early Ptolemaic Period at Thebes. This comprised two wooden coffins,12 a cartonnage case (or separate elements),13 a mummy shroud (decorated with an image of Osiris or with a panther’s skin motif), linen amulets, linen and cartonnage hypocephali,

5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13

Kákosy and Gaál 1985, 14, 16. Kákosy 1995, 10. Kákosy 1994, 26; Kákosy 1995, 3. Kákosy 1995, 3. Schreiber 2011, 122. Some of the wrappings used were decorated with religious imagery others with inscriptions (Kákosy 1994, 26; Kákosy 1995, 3, 6). See also Schreiber (2011, 109–110) for a reconstructed genealogy of this family and for references to earlier studies of artefacts belonging to members of this family that have enabled a reconstruction of their family tree. Schreiber 2011, 109. Several coffins were decorated with the akhom-falcon on their lids (Kákosy 1995, 6). A cartonnage mask was placed over the face, while the wrapped bodies were decorated with cartonnage elements or with bead-nets and amulets (Kákosy 1994, 26; Kákosy 1995, 3, 6). Bead-nets, it is suggested, were more common in middle-class than in elite burials (Schreiber 2011, 122).

burials

461

amulets, optionally some crude shabtis placed in a wooden box,14 a Ptah-SokarOsiris statue, a canopic chest, religious composition(s),15 and offerings stored in pottery vessels.16 Both utilitarian and decorated vessels were found, the latter decorated in the pseudo-Hadra vases’ style with floral motifs.17 A wooden stela was also part of the burial equipment, though it was apparently placed in the cult chapel, rather than the burial chamber, so as to serve as focus for the funerary cult.18 A large amount of human remains were also recovered during the excavations of TT414 from several of the rooms within the tomb, although they too had been heavily disturbed during successive robberies and their original archaeological context could not always be determined. In Room 2 were found the remains of at least 10–12 individuals, probably dating from the Ptolemaic Period,19 while skeletal remains, coffins fragments and architectural modifications in Room 4 and 5 attest to the presence of additional inhumations there. Evidence for nine additional interments was revealed in the original burial chamber (Room 7.1), including mummy bandages and human remains, although it is unclear whether this was their original burial context. Here were also found a number of limestone slabs part of the decoration of Room 1 and 2 that had been reused to create a structure around the interments.20 To the north side of the chamber lay the remains of three coffins, stacked one above the other, with the lowermost being possibly in situ. The coffin stood parallel to the north wall and was oriented E-W with the head to the west.21 In the fill of debris in Room 2 were found numerous fragments of Ptolemaic religious compositions such as copies of the Book of the dead, as well as a large amount of potsherds, beside mummy masks, coffin fragments and skeletal material.22 Room 4 was also full of debris material that in the course of preliminary restoration and conservation was found to have originated from different parts of the tomb, so that it was not possible for the excavators to determine its original

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Kákosy 1994, 26; Kákosy 1995, 3, 6. Papyri fragments written in hieratic with sections from the Book of the Dead were found among the debris (Kákosy 1994, 26; Kákosy 1995, 3, 6). Schreiber 2011, 109, 115, 119, 120–124. Kákosy 1995, 6; Kákosy 1992, 204–210; for an analysis of the decorated pottery see Schreiber 2003. Schreiber 2011, 114, 123. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 85. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 162–163. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 163, 165. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 85.

462

chapter 17

context.23 The finds recovered from this chamber included a number of dishes and bowls (one of which was decorated inside with a painted lotus flower), pots (some of which were painted), wooden boards from shrines, funerary figurines in wood, faience beads and shabtis, two wooden tags (one of which was inscribed with a prayer), and six wooden mummy labels (№ 772–777).24 A comparative analysis of the latter documents and other inscribed material recovered among the debris, indicates that this tomb had been used as a burial place by prominent priestly families.25 A similar range of material was recovered from the fill of the pit in Room 7 including coffin fragments, rope segments, faience shabtis, potsherds and cartonnage remains, some finely decorated with scenes of the hall of judgment.26 From the lower strata of the pit, on the other hand, were recovered mummy bandages and skeletal material, as well as coffin and cartonnage fragments amongst others. Most of these derive from the later burials dating from the 30th dynasty to the Roman periods, although it remains unclear whether they were in situ or in a secondary context. However, the latter seems more likely due to the presence among the debris of inscribed coffin fragments and shrine boards belonging to individuals whose funerary equipment was also found in other parts of the tomb.27 Further cartonnage fragments and a mummy head with a faience atef-crown amulet embedded in the bitumen coating were recovered from the fill in Room 5.28 Among the debris that covered the corridor (Room 7.2) leading to the burial chamber, were found a large number of small faience shabtis fragments belonging to the god’s father and prophet Petemestous, and dating from the time between the 30th dynasty and the early Ptolemaic Period. However, the passage does not appear to have been used as a burial place, rather these finds would have been removed to a different context during the robbing of the tomb.29 The excavators estimated that approximately 40 painted coffins were present in the areas 7.1 and 7.2. The majority of the deceased appear to have been placed inside two anthropoid wooden coffins, some of which were made from dark, hard wood. The surfaces were decorated with columns of texts and religious imagery, and some had a finely carved face bearing a close resemblance to that painted on the outer coffin, thus indicating they belonged together.

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 158. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 155. Quaegebeur 1982, 259–266. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 161. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 162. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 159. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 165.

burials

463

The bodies were decorated with mummy masks, one still preserving the glass inlay of one of the eyes, and cartonnage elements, some of which were finely painted and inscribed.30 In addition, on the basis of the masks, it was estimated that at least 24 black painted coffins, dating from the Ptolemaic Period, were present. These were either left uninscribed or bore crude inscriptions in yellow or red. The deceased were also provided with a fine burial equipment which included Osiris statuettes decorated in the same style as the coffin of the deceased, some still preserving traces of gilding over the pectoral, mummiform funerary figures, wooden stelae and shrines, faience shabtis and pottery vessels.31 However, not all of the interments inside the old tombs were of the same high level. Excavations in TT253 revealed the presence of a large number of disarticulated skeletons and linen wrappings. These were found in room A which is located to the left of the main shaft at the bottom of the staircase. The deposit is tentatively dated to the Ptolemaic Period on the basis of the coffin fragment discovered there.32 At least 181 individuals dating from the different periods of use of this tomb were found in the various underground chambers. However, too few coffin fragments were recovered from this tomb by comparison with the large quantities of linen and the number of bodies present. It seems therefore possible, as Strudwick suggests, that room A and room D (in which similar types of deposits were found) were used for collective burials in which the deceased was simply wrapped in cloth without a coffin. The discovery of a large amount of Late Period pottery in room D, as well as the discovery of coffin fragments dating to the early Ptolemaic Period, suggests that some of the collective burials dated from the end of the Late and the beginning of the Ptolemaic periods.33 A greater variation in body treatment and burial typology is attested among the brick tombs located in the Asasif. Over one hundred tombs were excavated by the MET’s expedition led by Winlock first and Lansing after, but only a few inhumations are recorded for the various seasons. Two in situ burials were found in tomb B4, one in the north and the other in the south chamber, and both described as disturbed.34 The body in the north chamber was that of an adult male with both forearms flexed and crossed over the chest (Pl. 45). Remains of cloth stuffing were found inside the abdomen, while traces of a cof-

30 31 32 33 34

Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 165–167. Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, 165–166. Strudwick and Strudwick 1996, 30. Strudwick and Strudwick 1996, 191. The following paragraphs are based on the unpublished excavation notes made by Winlock and Lansing (Cannata in preparation).

464

chapter 17

fin were present beneath the body. The body in the south chamber was that of an adult female with the left forearm flexed over the chest and the right arm laying along the side (Pl. 46). A palm stick was apparently placed inside the chest cavity to hold the body together, while the pubic bones were said to be bent inwardly, although the bandages were undisturbed thus showing that the body was still pliable when tightly bandaged. Tissue had disappeared almost completely from the leg bones. Tomb B17 contained the remains of six adult individuals, in various states of preservation (Pl. 47 and 48). Three lay on the ground in line with the axis of the tomb, one lay transversely along the short side of the tomb, while two more, only partially preserved, lay across the latter. Burial A is that of an adult, probably male, with both arms crossed over the chest. The ethmoid bone was broken and the cranium filled, presumably with bitumen.35 The viscera had been wrapped and replaced in the abdominal cavity, together with cloth and pitch. The outer bandages had been soaked in bitumen before the application of the cartonnage. The latter included a mask decorated in relief and gilding. The wrapped body was placed inside a wooden coffin, crudely fashioned in an anthropoid shape, painted in plain yellow inside and probably decorated on the outside. Burial B was that of an adult male laying on his back and with both arms crossed over the chest. A wound was present over the left iliac plain. Inside the abdominal cavity were found bitumen-soaked cloths and two bundles containing organs. No evidence for a coffin was found. Burial C was that of an adult, possibly female, with both arms crossed over the chest. The ethmoid bone was broken, although no information is provided on the possible presence of bitumen inside the cranium. The abdominal cavity was filled to a depth of 5cm with liquid bitumen while the body was recumbent, and a parcel of wrapped viscera placed inside. Burial D was that of an adult female, with the right arm crossed over the chest and the left one laying over the pudenda. The abdominal cavity was packed with cloth. As noted above, in the tomb were found the remains of two more individuals, of which one female and the other too little preserved for gender determination. On one of the legs was discovered a cloth anklet 1.8 cm wide painted yellow with alternating red and blue squares in imitation of a gold bracelet with inlays. Remains of a sarcophagus and of coloured cartonnage are reported by the excavator for tomb B18, while the presence of remains of coloured carton35

The question of whether bitumen was employed as preservative during the mummification process has been the object of much scholarly literature, for example by Connan 2005, 163–211, who reports to have found presence of such a substance in a number of mummies, although in variable quantities. I have used the term here because this is what the excavator wrote in his report.

burials

465

nage is noted for tomb B20. In tomb B30 the excavator recorded the presence of about ten adult individuals and one infant, all lying close together side by side at the south end of the tomb, opposite the entrance. The heads are described as being ‘either way,’ presumably meaning towards either the west or the east. One of the adult female individuals had her arms crossed over her chest, while her abdomen was packed with rags. One of the adult males had two ‘parcels of guts’ inside the abdomen. In tomb B37(?) was found a coffin with a large and bold decoration in yellow, emerald green and red paint, with inscriptions in black over yellow, as well as remains of ‘plundered fragments of an adult and an infant, the sex and age unidentifiable.’ Similarly, in tomb B39(?) were found at least three plundered mummies, which still retained the characteristic position of the arms crossed over the chest (Pl. 49). No information is given as to sex and age of these individuals, and no mention is made of the possible presence of cartonnage and/or coffins, although traces of what may have been a coffin are discernible from the photograph. A group of 11 inhumations was found a short distance away to the northeast of tomb B40 (for which no inhumations are recorded) at the same level as the base of the wall of the tomb. It is possible that these bodies too had once stood inside a burial structure, although there is no definite evidence for either its presence or absence. The bodies were arranged in two groups a short distance away from each other (Pl. 50). They all lay either in a northeast or in a southwest direction, with the variation on the position of the head apparently depending on the need, or wish, to lay the bodies closely together (Pl. 51). In addition, they were arranged in two layers, one above the other, with no evidence for coffins. The bodies forming the upper stratum of the northeastern group had lain exposed for some time, since the wrappings had decayed completely. The bodies themselves also show signs of disturbance since the head of burial № 2 was missing, while the bead-net originally placed over burial № 3 was found on the ground beside the body, and partly under an upturned fragment of a sandstone slab. The burials are said to be clearly of the same date and of the same type, hence only the wrapping of burial № 1 is described, since it was the best preserved of the group. The bodies all lay on their backs with their arms either crossed over the chest or extended with the hands over the pudenda. The latter position appears to have been more common for the female bodies, although there were also exceptions. The body in burial № 1 was that of a male who lay on his back with arms crossed over chest, the right hand opened with the palm down, while the left hand was clenched. The outer layer of the wrappings had been coated with a thin layer of pitch. The corpse was wrapped in seven layers of coarse linen bandages, 4cm wide, wound transversally over the entire body without any specific pattern. Under the first layer of bandages, over the abdominal cavity,

466

chapter 17

up to the arms, there was a layer of pitch 8mm thick. A wad of bunched up cloth had been placed under the crossing of the arms. The arms, legs, head and torso had been wrapped separately in 15 layers of the same type of bandages. Over the abdominal cavity, between the 5th and the 6th, as well as the 10th and the 11th layer of bandages, there was a thick layer of pitch. The body was well preserved, albeit so indurated by pitch as to make any detailed examination impossible. With the exception of the lungs, which were found collapsed against the backbone, the organs had been removed and wrapped in three separate parcels and then replaced in the abdominal cavity. The genitals were also covered with pitch and left in position. The body in Burial № 2 was that of a male (genitalia found in position), with the head missing. It lay on his back with the arms extended and the hands over the pudenda. The wrapping was much decayed and torn. The body itself had also been disturbed since the left pelvis bone was found over the chest. Fragments of cartonnage painted green with thin diagonal black, blue and red lines, were found in association with the body in Burial № 2. The body in burial № 3 was that of an adult male (genitalia found in position and separately wrapped), laying on his back with both arms crossed over the chest. The interior of the body cavity was covered with pitch, and contained four large rolled parcels containing the removed organs. Under the first layer of bandages placed over the chest and under the crossed arms were found six faience amulets (wedjat eye, djed pillar, thet, uraeus head, and double plume amulet) strung on a thin 3-ply linen thread. Underneath these amulets, just below the crossing of the arms, were found a pair of faience wings, with the inner ends strung close together thus indicating that the scarab was never present. All these amulets were found stuck to the bandages. Immediately to the west of the body, laying on the ground, was found a bead-net with the beads strung in alternating transverse panels using a fine linen thread. Burial № 4 was that of an adolescent female, laying on her back with the arms extended and the hands over the pudenda. The right hand was opened while the left hand clenched an onion. The brain had been removed and the cranium half filled with pitch while tilted backwards. An incision was present over the left flank. The body had been wrapped first in a series of sheets soaked in pitch, the body itself being stiff and black with pitch. The outer bandages, torn from ordinary, medium weave sheets with the edge folded under, were wound around the body so as to form an echelon pattern over the entire body. A bunch of palm leaves was found in association with this burial. Burial № 5 lay on the back with the arms extended and the hands over the pudenda. The body was twisted into a flat S, being very slightly bent to the east at the knees and back again to the west at the waist. The legs were slightly disjointed at the knees with the feet missing, while the left hand was half clenched in a contorted

burials

467

semi-clutching attitude. The body was skeletonised with very little dried skin tissue, blackened by pitch, and with small fragments of coarse, narrow linen bandages adhering to it. Sandstone chips were found between the legs and the ribs. Burial № 6 was that of an elderly male laying on the back with the arms crossed over the chest, and the mouth wide open. Sandstone chips were found throughout the skeleton. Four rolled parcels were found inside the chest cavity. The burial is said to have been in the same condition as that of № 5, presumably with reference to the slight twisting of the body. Burial № 736 laid on the back with the arms crossed over the chest, with the right hand opened and the left clenched. The wrapping was much decayed. The mouth had fallen open, but the skin of the head, ears and torso was well preserved. The organs had been removed through an incision on the left flank. Three large and one small rolled parcels were found inside the chest cavity. Burial № 8, much disturbed, belonged to an adult male of about 35–40 years laying on the left side in an extended position with the arms crossed over the chest. He was identified as a skeleton, which presumably indicates that no evidence for mummification was visible. Burial № 9 was an adult male laying on the back with the arms crossed over the chest. Three rolled parcels were found inside the abdominal cavity. Burial № 10 was that of an adult male laying on his back with the arms crossed over the chest. Fragments of two coarse linen sheets were found adhering over the body, while two rolled parcels were found inside the body, one in the groin area and the other in the abdomen. With respect to what the excavator identified as a Large Ptolemaic tomb,37 only one burial is recorded. The wood was ant-eaten, but there were slight remains at its sides of two coffins, the outer one rectangular in shape and the inner one anthropoid, and both decorated. The coffins appear to have been placed inside a brick-built compartment, to judge from the photographic evidence (Pl. 33). The body was that of an adult female, ca. 35 years old, laying on her back with the head to the west. Over the bandages there was a bead-net, 11–12 meshes wide, extending from just below the elbows to halfway up the feet. Bindings had been placed over the bead-net in the area above the ankles, below the knees, across the thighs and the hips. The body had been wrapped with linen bandages impregnated with pitch and very hard to remove. Two rolls of linen and bitumen were present in the abdominal cavity, while a smaller wad was found in the chest. The abdominal cavity was otherwise empty except for a coating of pitch. The pubic bones of the pelvis had been made to overlap and had been tied together

36 37

No information is given in the excavator’s notes on the gender and age of the deceased. The exact location of this inhumation is not specified in the excavator’s fieldnotes.

468

chapter 17

in front with linen. No ornaments were found inside the wrappings except for some wooden amulets placed over the chest just below the first layer of bandages. The human remains in the cemetery located inside the Funerary Temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu (north of Medinet Habu) were better preserved than those found on the Asasif necropolis, thus allowing the excavators to distinguish between three main types of inhumations. In the brick built ‘family tombs’ the bodies were mummified and then placed inside either a pottery or an unfired clay coffin with a lid crudely fashioned with a human silhouette. From one of these coffins were recovered some decorated fragments of a shroud with a short line of hieroglyphs.38 For the burials inside the individual tombs, two different types were distinguished. In Type II burials the body had been mummified, wrapped in a decorated, though uninscribed, shroud, and then placed inside a wooden coffin. Both the coffin and the shroud had suffered extensive insect damage and pulverised at the touch.39 In Type III burials the bodies were placed inside the burial without having been mummified.40 Very little information has been published about the burials of the Ptolemaic Period at Edfu (Pl. 52). The main type of tomb at either location (Hager Edfu and Naga el-Hisaya) was a rock-cut tomb dug into the cliff face with an inclined stairway leading down to one or more burial chambers, while in the latter cemetery were also present shaft tombs, which were located at the foot of the hill, and consisted of shafts leading to the underground burial chambers. An example of what an elaborate burial of this period included is provided by the funerary equipment of the prophet of Khonsu and of Horus, Nes-shutefnut, excavated by Garstang in 1905 in one of the rock-cut tombs at Naga el-Hisaya, which comprised a wooden stela, a canopic chest and a Ptah-Sokar-Osiris figure.41 The deceased, Nes-shu-tefnut, was placed in a wooden anthropomorphic coffin coated with black resin. Its lid is decorated in yellow paint with an image of the goddess Nut and a pectoral with hawk-head terminals. Below this, a central vertical panel, inscribed with three lines of text, gives the name and titles of the deceased. The eyes are inlaid with plaster while the pupils are in wood. The head and feet of the mummy were enclosed in cartonnage cases, while cartonnage panels were laid on the body and held in place by narrow linen strips

38 39 40 41

On the basis of this inscription the excavators dated the burial to the Ptolemaic Period (Robichon and Varille 1936, 44). Robichon and Varille 1936, 44–45. Information is given for only one of this type of tombs, which was found undisturbed. Robichon and Varille 1936, 45. Gray and Slow 1968, 38.

burials

469

which left all the painted scenes clearly visible. The pectoral is decorated with seated figures of the four Sons of Horus, while on the apron there are different registers of gods. One of these registers is a copy of the central scene on the wooden stela which shows the deceased making offering to various gods. These images are painted in red, blue and gold on a white background, while the mask is gilded. In addition, funerary garlands, made from strings of perhaps palm fibre threaded with palm fronds, were placed over the body. The body is, apparently, that of a teenager of about 15–17 at death, presumably male, with the arms crossed over the chest (Pl. 53). The outer bandages are coated with black resin. A radiographical examination of the body showed the presence of a bone inside the cranium in the region of the right orbit, probably resulting from the process of cerebral extraction. The mouth is gaping. Inside the thorax and abdominal cavities resinous masses are present together with a number of the ribs which became detached post-mortem. A rod-like object is present at the back to the left of the lumbodorsal spine, perhaps in an attempt to consolidate a decomposing corpse. The pelvic cavity, also containing a resinous substance, shows signs of marked post mortem skeletal compression. Post-mortem damage is also present in the necks of both femora, which were fractured, in the heads of both humeri, which were detached from their shaft, and in the feet, both disarticulated at the ankle and then placed one on top of the other. Gray and Slow concluded that the ‘body must have been in a state of decomposition when the necropolis workers set about their task.’42 At Saqqara, on the other hand, there is evidence for a clear division of the burial grounds according to the socio-economic status of the deceased.43 This is shown by the interments in the area between the Step Pyramid and the Mastaba of Ptah-hotep, where the majority of mummified and coffined remains, and those with cartonnage, were found on the eastern side of the concession between the step pyramid and the Old Kingdom mastaba of the vizier Meref-nebef, while skeletonised inhumations are predominant on the western side of the concession between the ledge of the natural terrace and the so-called ‘dry moat.’44 The inhumations found in the western section of the concession (around 50 in number) consist mainly of skeletonised bodies 42 43

44

Gray and Slow 1968, 42–43. The division of burial grounds according to socio-economic levels does not appear to have been a standard practice as shown by the evidence from the Giza necropolis. In the Gebel Ghibli area the inhumations included both mummies equipped with cartonnage cases or decorated coffins buried inside brick tombs, and simpler inhumations, either inside a crude wooden coffin or simply wrapped in a cloth and placed directly in the ground (Zivie-Coche 1991, 302; Dunand 1995, 3229; Leclant 1973, 399). Myśliwiec 2002, 354.

470

chapter 17

showing no sign of artificial preservation, but very few mummies. None of these were found in association with funerary architectural structures, burial goods, coffins or cartonnage. On the other hand, the burials, both mummified and skeletonised, on the eastern side of the concession are almost always found inside a type of funerary structure, such as a cavity dug out into the surface of mudbrick walls bordered with reused bricks. Some of the skeletonised burials in this part of the cemetery are placed between mats. In addition, in some instances, they are enclosed within a type of reed coffin consisting of long facings of reeds each bent so as to form a long and a short side. In the resulting coffin the body is laid on one side with bent knees due to the small size of the container. The corpses deposited directly in the sand were placed on their back in a stretched position. As it may be expected, the burials of mummified bodies were in general more elaborate than those of skeletonised corpses, particularly on the eastern side of the concession.45 However, a difference is also present between the skeletonised burials in the eastern section and those in the western sector. The former are more often found enclosed within a border of bricks, stones, mud, and/or reed mats, while the latter are generally laid directly in the sand.46 Despite the presence of a considerable variation in burial typology, three main categories can be distinguished:47 1. skeletal inhumations with remains of mats over and/or under them. Only burials № 348 and 351 could be positively identified as skeletal, since others may have appeared so because heavily decayed. № 304 and 344, for instance, show traces of what could be a type of crude mummification.48 2. wrapped corpses without any external decoration placed directly over the sand. A total of 96 interments of this type have been identified to date;49 3. coffined burials of either skeletal or mummified remains, the latter with or without cartonnage decoration (Pl. 54).50 45 46 47

48 49

50

Myśliwiec 2002, 353. Myśliwiec 2002, 354. See Myśliwiec 2002, Fig. 2a and 2b. A total of 52 individuals are said to have been left out from this analysis because they were too poorly preserved for attribution, although it is not clear whether the sample includes all inhumations unearthed to date by the mission or only those excavated in the 2002 season. Myśliwiec 2003a, 116; Myśliwiec 2002, 350. Myśliwiec 2003a, 116; Myśliwiec 1998, 93. Parallel examples are attested among the Eastern mastaba fields where simple inhumations were located in the paths between the ancient mastabas, which they eventually obstructed. These are simply placed in the ground with structures in mud-brick or reused stone over them as protection. In general they contained very few, if any, artefacts (Zivie-Coche 1991, 279). Myśliwiec 2003a, 116; Myśliwiec 1998, 95. A similar case is represented by the interments in the hypogeum of Bocchoris. The bodies were those of a man and a woman, each inside

burials

471

A variation was also noted with respect to the position of the arms, of which three occur regularly: 1) arms and hands crossed over the chest, 2) hands over the pelvis, and 3) arms alongside the body.51 The coffins used are of three main types: 1. oblong wooden coffins, generally widening slightly at shoulder level. These usually contained mummified remains, although in some cases skeletal remains were also found inside them (№ 348 and 351);52 2. anthropoid wooden coffins with the head, or in some instances only the face, modelled in relief over the lid.53 The more basic examples were painted in white only, whereas the more elaborate ones show polychrome decorations and bear a longitudinal inscription. Examples of this category of coffins are № 269, 295, 335, 336, 340 and 341, while in the case of burial № 295 even the outer bottom side of the coffin is decorated (Pl. 55);54 3. oval terracotta coffins with flat lids decorated with a face modelled in relief. Examples of this type were found with burials № 345 and 346 (Pl. 56).55

51

52 53 54 55

an anthropoid cartonnage case and a rectangular coffin, both of which had painted decorations. The rectangular coffins were decorated on the long sides with painted images of divinities, directly over the wood, in white, black, red and blue. A longitudinal inscription ran along the centre of both lids, over a blue background in the case of the female and white in that of the man. The body of the woman was entirely covered by a cartonnage case, made from plaster over cloth backing. A shaped wooden panel was placed in correspondence of the face as a base for the funerary mask which was fashioned from mud and covered by a layer of plaster. However, despite the presence of cartonnage cases and coffins, the bodies are described as being entirely skeletonised with no mention of possible mummification (Bresciani 1980, 16–17; Bresciani et al. 1996, 21– 22). Myśliwiec 2003a, 118–119. The excavator does not appear to consider the possibility that the variation in the position of the arms may reflect a chronological difference between the burials unearthed, with interments dating from the time span between the Late Period and the Roman age. Presumably other chronological indicators suggest that the inhumations dated from the same period. For an examination of a number of human remains dating from different periods suggesting that a difference existed in the position of the deceased’s arms during specific periods, see Dawson 1927a and Gray 1972. For a table of these data see Waldron in Strudwick and Strudwick 1996, 145. The presence of burials dating to the Late Period in this part of the necropolis has been noted by a number of excavators and was also revealed by the geophysical survey of the Gisr el-Mudir (Mathieson et al. 1997, 28–33); see also Smith 1997, 390. Myśliwiec 2003a, 116. Myśliwiec 2003a, Fig. 6. Myśliwiec 2003a, 116–118. Myśliwiec 2003a, 118 and Fig. 7.

472

chapter 17

Multiple burials in the form of adjacent coffins or wrapped bodies were revealed in both of the excavated areas. In general these consisted of two simple or coffined remains lying side by side (№ 335/336, 340/341 and 345/346), although series of three (№ 288/289/314 and 329/330/331) (Pl. 57) or even four (№ 317/319/320/321) inhumations were also unearthed.56 This was also the case of the interments placed in and around the mastaba of Meref-nebef where one of the later graves was found to contain two mummies, that of an adult male and that of a child (№ 34 and 35) (Pl. 58). The bodies are said by the excavator to be separated from each other by a border of reused stones, and covered with a slab originally part of an uninscribed false door.57 Some of the mummies were decorated with cartonnage either as individual elements or as a body case. The first type, which comprised a mask and separate body elements, forms a homogeneous category as shown by the widespread use of blue paint for the area surrounding the gilded face, while a variety of paint colours and styles were used for the rest of the elements.58 Some of the interments were placed inside an anthropomorphic cavity dug into the ground, as, for example, burial № 4, which was found in one such hollow hewn into the floor of the courtyard of an Old Kingdom tomb, covered with a mat bordered by stone blocks.59 A number of the mummies, especially those with cartonnage decoration, were placed inside wooden coffins, only some of which have been found undamaged in situ and still enclosing the body (№ 5, 6, 32, 37, 53 and 74).60 In other instances only wood fragments were found in association with the burial thus suggesting that the mummy had been placed in a coffin in these cases too (№ 18, 71, 78, 83, 92, 120 and 121).61 Some of the wooden coffins are simple rectangular boxes, while others are anthropomorphic in shape (№ 32, 37, 53 and 74). Although the wooden coffins are mostly plain, that found in burial № 53 is painted in a redpinkish hue and inscribed, longitudinally at the centre of the coffin, with an

56 57 58 59

60 61

Myśliwiec 2003a, 119. Myśliwiec 2002, 353–354; for this burial, dated to the Ptolemaic or Roman period, see Myśliwiec 1999, 89 and fig. 8. Myśliwiec 2002, 350–351; Myśliwiec 2005, Fig. 11. Myśliwiec 2002, 351. A common feature between the cartonnage found on this mummy (burial № 4) and other fragments from other burials was the presence of a solar disk with wings spreading over the chin of the deceased, a characteristic that has been dated to the Late Ptolemaic Period, although Myśliwiec suggests an earlier date for this type of decorative scheme on the basis of the stratigraphic position of the body (Myśliwiec 2002, 351). See also Myśliwiec et al. 1995, Fig. 13b, 14 and 15. Another burial (№ 65) was found in a secondary context, thus it is not certain whether the mummy and the coffin originally belonged together (Myśliwiec 2002, 351). Myśliwiec 2002, 351.

burials

473

offering formula in hieroglyphs.62 A similar inscription is found inside a terracotta coffin recovered from burial № 29 decorated on its lid with a face in relief.63 A carved face with painted details is also found on a wooden coffin (№ 74).64 A sample of 43 sub-adult remains (from infants to juveniles), dating from the Late to the Ptolemaic periods, were also analysed by the Polish mission. The analysis showed that the same variation in mummification techniques as that recorded in adult inhumations was present in young interments. Thus, the bodies of children were wrapped in the same manner as that of adults, as evidenced by burials № 35 and 183. However, there were also a number of inhumations that showed no sign of mummification, which suggests that in some instances the deceased would be simply wrapped in a shroud.65 With respect to burial typology, the inhumations of sub-adults show the same patterns as those of the adult specimens. Sub-adults were buried either individually or as part of multiple interments. In the latter instance they could be buried either next to a male of a female adult, or beside another child (burials № 188 and 177), or in multiple burials where both adults and children were present, probably members of the same family (№ 181 and 184).66 An anthropological analysis of a sample of 40 human remains was carried out by the Polish mission, all of which were dated to the Ptolemaic Period on the basis of artefactual material. The study of the mummified remains revealed evidence for two main mummification techniques, although variations were present. The first (exemplified by burial № 75) consisted of pouring several layers of molten resin over the body following its evisceration. The removed organs (liver, lungs and intestines) had been immersed in molten resin, then wrapped in bandages and placed inside the abdominal cavity. The brain had been extracted through the nostrils and the cranium filled with resin or other type of bitumen-like substance. The bones had acquired a black or dark-brown coloration as a result of contamination by the resin. The latter also hardened the bandages turning them into a solid mass.67 The second method (exemplified by burial № 80) involved the wetting 62 63 64

65 66 67

Myśliwiec 2002, 351. Myśliwiec 2002, 351–352. Unfortunately the name of the deceased is in both cases lost (Myśliwiec 2002, 352). Myśliwiec 2002, 352. Myśliwiec remarks on the fact that all the coffins found in this area of the Saqqara necropolis are different from those recovered in the Saite-Persian cemetery at Abusir dating to the Late Period (Myśliwiec 2002, 352). This may provide an indication of their date, since the burials at Abusir dated mainly from the Late Period. Kaczmarek 2003, 155. Kaczmarek 2003, 156. Kaczmarek 2000, 119.

474

chapter 17

of the bandages with molten resin with which the body was then wrapped. The body had been eviscerated and the organs wrapped and then placed back inside the abdominal cavity. The brain was either removed through the nostrils or left in place. Only in some instances was the cranium filled with molten resin. The body was wrapped in a total of about 10–12 bandages of varying quality, some used and others new. The outer layers generally employed larger sheets or bandages of a finer weave. Large bandages of about 10 cm in width were cut longitudinally so as to increase their length, as for example that used for the head which was 6m long. Head, neck, arms, legs and fingers were all bandaged separately. Areas between the head and neck, arms and legs and the rest of the body had been padded so as to allow a better shaping of the mummy. Bone colouration and the wrappings’ consistency were not affected by this mummification method.68 An interesting aspect of the burials in the cemetery at Tûra El-Asmant69 was the presence inside a number of sarcophagi of more than one burial, which the excavator suggests may be those of a parent and child, the latter usually placed by the left leg of the adult (Pl. 59 and 60).70 Although the presence of sub-adults among inhumations of adult individuals is attested in other parts of the country too, the deposition of the two within the same coffin or sarcophagus is not as widespread as it appears to be the case here.71 The bodies were placed inside the coffins in a supine position with the head to the west, and are said to have been wrapped in cloth, although usually in a bad state of preservation, usually with their arms crossed over the chest.72 In a number of cases the sarcophagi were found lying closely side by side, which may be an indication that these were interments of members of the same family.73 Only one burial is described in some detail and concerns a mummy wrapped in bandages covered with a layer of plaster decorated with a winged sun disk and two facing jackals inside a shrine, each holding a flail.74 68 69

70 71

72 73 74

Kaczmarek 2000, 119. The area lies on the east bank of the Nile, south-east of Cairo, not far from the predynastic site of Maadi and Helwan. More than 1500 burials, spanning the entire period of Egyptian history from the Archaic to the Greco-Roman periods, were discovered here during the development of a local cement factory whence the cemetery derives its name (Yacoub 1983, 103). Yacoub 1983, 106. Unfortunately, the excavation report does not provide any indication of the percentage of double inhumation over the total of the excavated burials dating from the Ptolemaic and/or Roman period, and it is perhaps best not to draw any conclusions on such limited evidence. Yacoub 1988, 209; Yacoub 1983, 106. Yacoub 1988, 210. The body of a child was found inside the same coffin (Yacoub 1983, 106). It is not clear

burials

475

A large number of burials were uncovered by Petrie during his two excavation seasons at Hawara (1888–1889 and 1910–1911). These he attempted to sequence on the basis of the presence or absence of coffins, their typologies, the use of cartonnage elements, and the body treatment. A first group of burials, dated to the end of Late Period and beginning of the Ptolemaic age, consisted of anthropoid coffins with sculpted faces, crudely manufactured and painted with ochre, black, blue, red and white. Petrie remarked on the poor preservation of the mummies therein, which he described as being not well mummified since they ‘leave hardly anything but bones.’ These were found in ‘graves and not wells,’ sometimes buried rather deeply.75 A second group consisted of coffins of the wooden-box type which contained well bandaged mummies. These were found in pit tombs, with the coffin placed in a lateral recess opening on one side of the shaft, at a depth of about 2.5–3m. In several cases this chamber was not long enough to accommodate the entire coffin so that its end protruded into the shaft. In addition, the shaft itself was so small that the coffin could only be lowered vertically, head or feet first. According to Petrie, the type of coffin used in the early Ptolemaic Period was the same as that of the previous period. This was characterised by a round-topped lid between square corner posts projecting down from the body to form the feet of the coffin thus raising it about 15cm above ground. The body of the coffin was decorated with a cornice, the head and foot sides of the coffin were often painted with seated figures of Isis and Nepthtys, while the lid bore a central longitudinal inscription. Petrie noted that the bodies in these coffins were not well preserved and easily disintegrated into powder and bones. The bodies were finely bandaged with wide bands of cloth, the head covered with a cartonnage headdress painted in black or blue, with a gilded face and, in some cases, with inlaid glass eyes and eyebrows. Petrie dated this style to the 2nd and 3rd century BC. In addition, he noted that in some instances several mummies had been placed in succession inside the same coffin. In one case as many as six mummies had been deposited inside the coffin so that the lid could no longer be closed, while the head of two of the bodies had been cut off by the lid end-board. Another type of coffin attested from this site, and sequentially later according to Petrie, is the plain

75

whether the latter was the only burial in which the body showed possible signs of mummification, or if the difference between the latter and the rest of the bodies lay simply on the quality of decoration. The fact that the rest of the burials are referred to as ‘mummies’ perhaps suggest that all corpses had been mummified and bandaged to some extent, with the difference between the various burials being one of quality. Petrie 1889, 14. Petrie suggested these may date from the later Ptolemaic Period on the basis of the type of tomb in which they were found, although he noted that, if this was really the case, there should be evidence for earlier developmental stages (Petrie 1889, 14).

476

chapter 17

wooden box without foot-posts, with a cornice around the body of the coffin and a flat lid. Almost half of the lid, from the foot-end upwards, was fixed and consisted of boards lying across the width of the coffin, while the upper half was moveable and pegged down when buried. The coffins were very fine and carefully made, though they were not painted. The only type of inscription found on them is a Demotic line on the ends. In some cases this type of coffin contained mummies of the previous style, although in general the bodies had been bandaged in a more elaborate fashion. The outer bandaging consisted of fivesix layers of cloth strips, all of the same width, but so spaced as to create the effect of a sunken rhombic pattern. No buttons or knobs were used in the centre of these rhomboid shapes. The cartonnage decoration consisted of four separate pieces: 1) head-piece painted on the top and sides with figures of deities or other (unspecified) images, and with a gilt face; 2) a pectoral decorated with various types of imagery such as the god Anubis standing over the deceased on a bier; 3–4) cartonnage sandals placed under the outermost layer of bandages and decorated with painted stitches and joins as in the real-life examples, or, at a later stage, with images of bound captives with tied elbows and legs.76 In coffins of this period were often found wreaths placed over the head of the deceased, as well as pectoral garlands and bunches of flowers tied together.77 A similar situation was also noted at Medinet Gurob, where Petrie excavated both pit tombs and 18th dynasty tombs used again in the Ptolemaic Period. The pit tombs usually consisted of a shaft about 2.4 meters deep, widening at the bottom on the west side into a hollow in which as many as a dozen coffins were placed. Petrie used the term mummies to refer to the burials, thus indicating that the deceased had been mummified. Most of the mummies, Petrie noted, were bandaged and then decorated with narrow strips of cloth cross bandaging each other and with edges folded, thus creating a band of about ½ inch in width. The mummies were decorated with separate cartonnage pieces, some held in place by the bandages overlaying their edges. The cartonnage elements comprised a headpiece that came partly down onto the chest over which stood a semicircular pectoral; the openwork apron decorated with figures of gods; the leg pieces, decorated with the four sons of Horus, or with Isis and Neph-

76 77

Petrie 1889, 14. Petrie 1889, 15. Petrie noted another change in style from around the end of the 1st century BC and the beginning of the 1st century AD. The pectoral was placed under the bandages, while the head-piece was enlarged so as to cover the pectoral area, thus becoming a bustpiece. The foot-case was decorated with feet in relief, often gilded and shown standing on a plinth, while the bottom was painted with the outline of the feet and the bound-captives motif (Petrie 1889, 16).

burials

477

thys; and the foot-case with painted sandals on the bottom, or two separate slips over the soles of the feet. In some cases only the head and foot-cases were used. Petrie also remarked on the changes in the way the cartonnage elements were made, using cloth and plaster at first, then glued papyri and plaster, and finally wet papyri and plaster without gluing.78 The deceased were placed inside unpainted coffins of rough, thin wood, narrower at the foot end than at the top. The coffin proper was more of a tray, while the lids had very wide sides that enclosed the body. A crudely carved head was the only decoration on these coffins.79 Petrie reported finding only one fine coffin from this cemetery. It was made of hard, varnished wood, with figures of Isis and Nephthys carved at the head and foot ends and filled-in with green wax. Inside, the body was covered with a headpiece, pectoral, openwork apron, leg pieces and sandals. Two other bodies had been placed inside this coffin.80 Another type of burial was that which employed cases made from rushes over a stick framework, with a hinged lid. Canopies, also made of rushes, were built over these coffins and vividly painted in pink and white.81 The 18th dynasty tombs, located north of the dyke, are described as having irregular chambers cut at the base of a vertical shaft, which contained multiple burials. The mummies were decorated with cartonnage made from papyrus and were placed inside coffins of thin wood, heavily broken by the fall of the ceiling shale.82 The coffins were apparently pushed into the chambers without clearing the sand that obstructed the mouth of the tomb.83 A very clear impression of the range of burial solutions in use during the Ptolemaic Period can be gained from Jouguet’s study of Ghoran necropolis in the Fayum, which tombs he subdivided in nine categories.84 According to the 78 79 80 81 82 83

84

Petrie et al. 1891, 28. The use of discarded papyri in the making of the cartonnage elements indicates that the burials dated to the Ptolemaic Period. Petrie et al. 1891, 28. Petrie et al. 1891, 29. Petrie et al. 1891, 28–29. Petrie does not state whether the cartonnage consisted of separate elements or whole cases. Petrie 1905, 34. Petrie dated them to the 1st century AD, although he provided no explanation for this dating. Given that the cartonnage was made from papyrus documents, a date in the 3rd or 2nd century BC seems more likely (Thus also Drews 2003, 21 appendix A). Jouguet 1901, 402. The tombs found at Medinet Maadi were comparable with those found at Ghoran, though they showed less variety. They could be divided in three main groups: 1. the deceased was placed directly onto the ground at a depth of 0.30 and 0.90cm; 2. the pottery sarcophagus was placed directly on the ground; 3. recesses built in mudbricks with or without pottery sarcophagus. Very little pottery was found in any of the tombs (Jouguet 1901, 407 note 1).

478

chapter 17

excavator, the first category consisted of the poorer internments. The dead were placed at the bottom of a shallow pit (no more than 1 m deep, often less), without trace of having been mummified. All that remained were bones.85 The dead were buried with pottery, comparable to that found in the rest of the necropolis. In addition, he found remains of mats made from palm fibres, probably used to transport the dead, as well as fragments of baskets, probably used to backfill the tombs.86 Category two comprised ‘summarily’ mummified corpses wrapped in a kind of tray made from palm slats, or, less often, in a mat. The mummies were sometimes equipped with cartonnage elements (mask, pectoral, leg and foot covers) made from papyri, almost always in a poor state of preservation. The graves in which these mummies lay were deeper than those of the first category. They were placed directly on the bedrock. The pottery was apparently of the same type as that associated with burials of the first category.87 The burials of the third category comprised roughly anthropoid, wooden coffins, with crudely formed faces, which were placed directly on the bedrock. The deceased was mummified and covered with cartonnage elements made from papyrus sheets. The pottery was the same as that found in the first two categories. Often more than one coffin was found inside the same tomb.88 The fourth category of burials, on the other hand, often contained fine limestone sarcophagi, oblong in shape, with a rounded top, or with a rough anthropoid shape, though without decoration. The mummies were very fine, with the traditional complete cartonnage set, many of which were made from papyrus sheets.89 The fifth type of tomb consisted of an oblong cavity dug into the bedrock on which the mummy was placed. The latter was furnished with a complete cartonnage set, often a wooden coffin too, of a type comparable to those of the above categories, and which was richly painted in the wealthier tombs. Only 1 example of this type of tomb contained a rectangular plain coffin. The mummy inside was finely decorated, with cartonnage made with

85 86 87

88

89

Jouguet remarked that these individuals had been treated no better than the animals buried amidst these tombs (Jouguet 1901, 403). Jouguet 1901, 403. Jouguet 1901, 403. Jouguet makes the interesting link between this type of interment and the description in the story of Setne of the funeral of a poor person that was being carried to the necropolis ‘enveloped in a mat’ (Jouguet 1901, 403 note 1). Jouguet 1901, 403. This type of tomb is comparable to that found at Theadelphia, which the excavators dated to the period between 250 and 150BC (Grenfell et al. 1900, 55; Jouguet 1901, 403 note 2). Jouguet 1901, 403–404. The same type of sarcophagus was found at Theadelphia, which the excavators dated to the early Ptolemaic Period (Grenfell et al. 1900, 56; Jouguet 1901, 404 note 1).

burials

479

cloth backing. In a very small number of cases the coffin was made of pottery. The latter were long, narrow cases without any decoration. The cavity in which these were placed was just deep enough for the coffin, and was backfilled with coarse material to protect the burial from the sand.90 The burials included in category six were slightly more elaborate and consisted of a recess created with mudbrick walls and a vaulted or, more rarely, flat roof.91 In some cases the tomb included as many as three recesses, built one against the other. It was in these tombs and in those of category 5 that the largest amount of cartonnage with papyrus backing was found.92 The tombs in category seven were built in mudbrick and consisted of large rooms, with a square or rectangular plan, and plastered walls. In some cases these tombs consisted of large, vaulted recesses. The tombs’ contents had long since gone, but in a few cases were found numerous coffins.93 The mummies were furnished with cartonnage made with cloth, or a fabric made from palm fibres, as backing. A small number of masks were gilded. These tombs were found mostly on the eastern side of the necropolis.94 Category eight includes a particular tomb, which was found on the south side of the necropolis among tombs of categories three, four and five. The roof of the tomb, found at 0.70cm below the surface, was made in the same way as those of houses, and was built using parallel strata of fairly strong branches on which were placed thatched beams. The chamber below had a square plan, with mudbrick walls of about 1m in height. These rested on the bedrock, which had been dug for about 0.60cm in depth, and which widened towards the bottom. Inside this chamber were found seven wooden coffins, while almost all of the bodies had cartonnage made with papyrus backing.95 The last category of tombs, the burial pits proper, were all located on the north side of the necropolis, and were found to have been opened. The most elaborate was five metres deep, with polished limestone walls. The tomb was found empty except for small fragments of a gilt plaster mask. The nearby pit was also opened and was found to be around 2m in depth, 1.80 m in length and 0.70cm in width. Halfway down its depth there was a big slab, which was found bro90 91

92 93 94 95

Jouguet 1901, 404–405. The same was also attested at Theadelphia (Grenfell et al. 1900, 55; Jouguet 1901, 405 note 1). Jouguet 1901, 405. The same was attested for the early Ptolemaic Period at Theadelphia, Kasr el-Banat and at Umm el Atl (with only the roof in mudbrick in the latter locality) (Grenfell et al. 1900, 55, 67, 62, 41; Jouguet 1901, 405 note 2). Jouguet 1901, 405. In one of the larger tombs were found as many as 12 coffins with cartonnage made with cloth backing (Jouguet 1901, 405). Jouguet 1901, 405. Jouguet 1901, 405–406.

480

chapter 17

ken, probably by tomb robbers. The dead had been placed beneath the slab.96 In the necropolis Jouguet also excavated a structure built with both stone and mudbrick. Inside there were four fairly small chambers. He was uncertain as to the nature and function of this structure, but noted that its small size was better suited for a funerary rather than a daily life structure, and suggested these may be the remains of a funerary chapel. Here were found large quantities of human remains, rests of funerary material culture, and cartonnage. The latter was in very poor state of preservation, but it was possible to determine that, for the main part, it had been made using papyrus as backing material.97 The preceding survey clearly shows that a direct correlation between body treatment and its inhumation did not always exist. The artificial preservation of the physical body through mummification was very frequent, though not the norm, while differences also existed both in terms of the embalming procedures used and of the quality of the resulting embalment. In academic literature, less than perfect mummies are often used as examples of the low standards to which the funerary industry of this period, and in particular the embalmers themselves, had fallen. However, there are other aspects that need to be taken into account, not least the cost associated with the performance of a mummification, which could be as high as that of a house.98 Therefore, it is likely that many people would not have been able to afford a high quality embalment, if any at all. Indeed, a passage in the Book of Thoth provides indirect evidence for the fact that not everybody was mummified, since it mentions some beneficent beings that acted as mortuary priests and arranged the mummification and burial of individuals who did not have funerary books.99 Another factor that probably accounts for some of the unembalmed bodies in the mortuary archaeological record is the presence of foreign ethnics who did not share in the belief for the need of mummification to attain an afterlife. For the vast majority of these individuals a shroud would have been all that was necessary before inhumation.100 In fact, despite the evidence from Memphis 96 97

98 99 100

Jouguet 1901, 406. The small pits located in their vicinity were also found empty (Jouguet 1901, 406). Jouguet 1901, 406–407. The exact dimensions of the structure could not be determined because of the ruinous state in which everything was. This had been caused by the collapse of the upper parts of the structures and by the plundering of this part of the necropolis already in ancient times (Jouguet 1901, 406–407). For which see Chapter 13 § 4 and Table 8 infra. Jasnow and Zauzich 2005, Column 8, B04, 8/12–13, 318, 324. Inhumation was the prevalent form of burial among Greeks during the Hellenistic Period, although there is some evidence that indicates mummification was known during the

burials

481

suggesting the possibility that there were separate burial grounds for different ethnic groups, the archaeological and the textual record from the rest of the country indicate that no such division was implemented, and it is likely that Egyptians and foreigners alike were buried in the same cemeteries. The wrapping of the corpse with bandages was common in most inhumations, thus indicating this was the most important element in terms of body treatment and burial outfit,101 which is not surprising since the bandages represented the encasement that protected the deceased on the journey to the afterlife.102 For those who could afford it, the next important element in terms of burial equipment was the container for the body, variously made from cartonnage, wood or pottery. In particular, cartonnage cases, or separate elements applied to different parts of the body, appear to have been preferred over wooden and pottery coffins since they are used more frequently than the other types of funerary cases. The reason for this is not immediately apparent from either the textual or the archaeological record, but could be due to economical factors, since it would probably be less expensive to acquire a cartonnage case than a wooden coffin given the scarcity of this material in Egypt. The cartonnage set, or a complete case, would provide a perfect loci for the religious iconography deemed essential for the rebirth of the deceased in the afterlife.103 Whether mummified or not, encased in a coffin or simply wrapped in a mat, the body would then need to be buried. A wide range of choices were available, including a place inside a room in one of the recommissioned tombs, in a family (or individual) brick-built tomb, in cavities dug in surface of mud-brick walls (and bordered with reused bricks), or dug in the bedrock, or inside ‘architectural coffins.’ Surprisingly, even mummies decorated with cartonnage were placed directly on the sand inside an anthropomorphic cavity excavated into the ground,104 thus suggesting that a direct correlation between wealth and interment inside a funerary structure may not be always correct. Indeed, status may have been indicated not only by the use of cartonnage elements and the

101

102 103 104

time of Homer and that the way in which, for example, Achilles was prepared is reminiscent of Egyptian mummification (Garland 2001, 34). See for example the burials of an adult male together with a sub-adult, located in the area of the mastaba of Meref-nebef mentioned above, which were placed directly in the ground with only rows of stones as protection (burials № 34 and 35) (Myśliwiec 2002, 353–354; Myśliwiec 1999, 89 and fig. 8). See further Chapter 10. In the poorest burials the dead were wrapped in a mat, but I am not sure whether it shared the same symbolism as the bandages. A wooden coffin could obviously be painted too, but the final expense would probably be higher than for a painted cartonnage case. See for example Myśliwiec et al. 1995, Fig. 13b, 14 and 15.

482

chapter 17

mummification of the body, summary as that may have been, but also by the greater expenditure of effort, hence of cost, of, for example, digging a deeper grave. Thus one gets the impression that in some cases families were trying to hit the middle ground by having a slightly deeper, yet still shallow grave, used together with what may have been the cheapest level of mummification, perhaps enhanced by the application of cartonnage elements imbued with deep religious significance. The tabulated data105 shows quite clearly that a variety of combinations were possible, all aimed at providing the body with as much protection as one’s economic means allowed. 105

See Table A.40.

part 4 Discussion and Conclusion

∵

chapter 18

Discussion and Conclusion The problem of body disposal is one with which mankind has had to contend since its prehistory, and one that has engendered a myriad beliefs and practices. Many cultures across time and space share similar credo and funerary traditions, although the core belief system is unique to each culture. For this reason, if on one hand I have used some examples from different cultures and time periods, as well as the accounts of classical authors, on the other I have focused specifically on the Egyptian documentary sources written in Demotic, the native script, which survive in large numbers. Unfortunately, the data is not evenly spread across time and space, with the bulk of the sources originating from Thebes.1 Thanks to the latter, it is possible to reconstruct what is, in my opinion, a fairly accurate picture of how the funerary industry was organised at Thebes in the Ptolemaic Period. In the preceding chapters, therefore, I have discussed the evidence from this necropolis first, and then used it as a kind of ‘reference model,’ or paradigm, with which to compare and contrast the other necropolises analysed: Edfu, Memphis, Hawara, Sharuna and Siut. In addition, in order to reconstruct as rounded a picture of the Ptolemaic funerary industry as possible, I have also incorporated the archaeological data available on the subject, particularly with regards to the typology of individual funerary structures. The main archaeological data originates from those necropolises whence the textual documentation derived, and draws upon other sites only to provide clarification on structures attested in the former cemeteries, or to test regional uniformity and/or deviation in funerary practices.2 The central question to the entire work was the Egyptian funerary industry of the Ptolemaic Period, which I analysed from three main standpoints, each of which focused on different facets of the topic. In the first part I examined those documents that provide information on the Organisation of the necropolis and its funerary priests, particularly in terms of control and management of the necropolises, which were under the authority of the Temple in which domain the cemetery area lay, as well as the identity of the various funerary attendants and their main roles in funerary matters. The second part of the work was arranged from the standpoint of the deceased’s Death, mummification and 1 See pages LXXXVIII-C for a list of all the documents originating from each necropolis. 2 The choice of these additional cemetery areas is in some respects arbitrary, but mostly dependent on the availability of published excavation reports.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_020

486

chapter 18

burial, thus analysing what happened to him/her from the moment of physical death to that of final burial, and the role of the different mortuary priests in the practical aspects of the embalming, funeral, burial, and mortuary cult. In the third part the Necropolises, tombs and burials were analysed as physical entities, thus focusing on the location of burial grounds, the range of funerary structures in use in this period, the legal aspects of ownership, taxation and acquisition of tombs and building plots in the necropolis, and the possible correlation between body treatment and mode of inhumation. To some of these questions the sources provide a fairly clear answer, to others the answer needs to be teased out, which invariably involves a certain degree of interpretation and uncertainty.

1

The Organisation of the Necropolis and Its Funerary Priests

The first step in trying to determine how necropolises around the country were organised is to understand the meaning of the titles borne by the various mortuary priests and the range of tasks their bearers performed. If we take these titles as being indicative of the type of organisation present in the various necropolises, then it becomes clear that at the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period those at Thebes, Edfu, Memphis, Sharuna and Siut were organised along the same general lines, although differences were present in the specific. Here the two main groups of mortuary priests were the lector-priests and the choachytes, each of which fulfilled specific duties in respect to the families and their dead. On the other hand, at Hawara already from the 30th dynasty (P. O.I. 17481, 365–364BC) only the title god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer is attested. This, I have argued, was an official title borne by funerary priests whose tasks encompassed both those of choachytes and those of lector-priests in the rest of the country. From around 226BC this same title appears at Memphis, while in the 1st century it is adopted by the funerary priests of Middle Egypt, in both instances used in the same way as at Hawara (the geographical and temporal variation in the use of titles around the country is summarized in Table 24 below). During the Ptolemaic Period the functions that the god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers performed were the same as those carried out by the same-titled ‘priests’ from the Old to the New Kingdom: those of an embalmer, or a chief embalmer, who also took part in the burial ceremonies and in the subsequent mortuary cult of the deceased. Thus the type of organisation in place at Hawara appears to have been a holdout from the Pharaonic Period. This may have been due to the limited exploitation of the Fayum area (except for a period of time

487

discussion and conclusion table 24

Geographical and temporal variation in the mortuary priests’ titles

Necropolis

Choachyte

Lector-priest

Thebes

✓

✓

Edfu

✓

✓

✓

✓ (indirectly)

Before 2nd century BC

God’s seal-bearer

God’s seal-bearer and embalmer

Memphis ✓

After 2nd century BC

✓

Hawara Middle Egypt

✓

Before 1st century BC After 1st century BC

✓ (indirectly)

✓

during the Middle Kingdom) before the Greek domination when the area was subject to much land reclamation work, the funding of new settlements and the expansion of existing ones. Until then the Fayum may have been less subject to the changes that took place in other parts of the country. The increased importance of the Fayum during the Ptolemaic Period, together with the fact that it was one of the centres of Greek culture, probably facilitated the spread of practices to the rest of the country. Not surprisingly, the first area in which these changes are detected is Memphis, probably because it was the traditional capital and because of its proximity to Hawara. In terms of the mechanics behind the transmission of cultural practices from one area to another, the mobility of the mortuary priests probably goes some way to explaining how such a practice came to be known in, and eventually adopted at, Memphis. From the archive of the Tanis taricheutai, for example, we learn of the presence of necropolis workers from the Memphite area now living in Philadelphia. Similarly, the letter from the Alexandrian chief physician to the stolistai of the Labyrinth at Hawara again indicates close contacts between different regions. Gradually, the new combination title came to be adopted in Middle Egypt too, at least from the beginning of the last century BC. It is also possible that this is the reason for the apparent disappearance of choachytes and lector-priests from the The-

488

chapter 18

ban record at some point during the last century BC, or at the very beginning of the Roman Period.3 As to the reasons behind the adoption of the new title at Memphis, I have suggested that the title was: 1. used by lector-priests first and was later adopted also by choachytes as the two groups started to intermarry, hence the use of both within the same generation; 2. adopted as a general term for mortuary priests because the two groups started to intermarry; 3. adopted gradually over a period of time independently by lector-priests and choachytes, hence the use of both within the same generation. One possibility is that this was a way, particularly for the choachytes, of increasing their standing by undertaking the function of lector-priests who enjoyed a higher ranking in terms of temple hierarchy. According to the Embalming Ritual [P. Boulaq 3 (1st–2nd century AD)], the standing of god’s seal-bearers was higher still than that of lector-priests, given that they were the only ones allowed to help the overseer of the mysteries with the embalming of the head, thus the adoption of this title would have benefited both choachytes and lector-priests.4 The necropolis was under the authority of the temple in which domain it lay, with an overseer at its head. The position was probably held on an annual basis, with the appointment being farmed out to the highest bidder, according to P. BM EA 10528 (291BC), which is the oldest surviving agreement of this kind. The latter and P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC) indicate that the overseer was chosen from among the lector-priests, possibly because of their higher standing in terms of temple hierarchy by comparison to the choachytes. One of the main duties of this official was the collection of the funerary taxes. These were the transfer tax paid on the ‘purchase’ of a tomb, or a plot of land on which to build one, for the sum of 2½ kite, and the ‘overseer of the necropolis tax’ for ½ kite paid on each deceased brought to the necropolis for burial. In 291 BC the highest bid was 5 deben, which entitled the appointed overseer to take for himself 2 kite out of the 2½ kites paid as transfer tax, while the remaining ½ kite went to the scribe of the city of Thebes. The other tax went entirely to the temple. The overseer was subordinate to the lesonis, a temple official with a mainly financial function, and the steward, a state official, although both functions could be held by the same individual (see O. Brooklyn 37.1865). However, there 3 Because at present there are no known mortuary priests’ archives from Thebes for the last century BC it is not possible to determine with more precision when use of the title choachyte (in particular) declined or was discontinued altogether. 4 One would expect this change in professional titulary to have had to be sanctioned by the relevant authorities, but, if this was the case, no evidence for it survives in the sources analysed.

discussion and conclusion

489

is also a small group of ostraca that suggest the choachytes could also act as overseer of the necropolis. These ostraca represent ‘money documents,’ which are connected with the activity of this group of funerary workers. Two of them, in particular, are reminiscent of the tax farming agreement recorded in P. BM EA 10528 (291BC), in that they record receipt of apparently the same amount of tax-farming revenue, that is, 5 deben. Indeed, during the Late Period the office of overseer of the necropolis was also held by the choachytes, while this official also attended meetings of the choachytes’ association for the New Year. The fact that no choachyte is attested in the Ptolemaic Period as overseer of the necropolis may be due simply to accidents of preservation (there are, in fact, only a few sources that provide information on the identity of this official), or be the result of changes that took place over time in the structure of the necropolis organisation. The lector-priests had, already from the Old Kingdom, the role of ‘ritual director’ in the organisation of the ritual proceedings, which is, of course, in keeping with their role as readers of the rituals. Thus, it is not surprising that, at least in the Ptolemaic Period, they were also at the head of the necropolis. The standing of the choachytes also changed during the Late Period, possibly from the reign of Psammetichos I. This change interested the office of ‘door-keepers’ (i҆ry-ꜥꜣ), the official title of the choachytes of the Ptolemaic Period, who, as a result, went from the low ranking post of temple guards, to that of higher ranking pastophoroi with additional functions as mortuary priests. The possibility of performing additional functions, not as closely linked with the temple, may have resulted in an increase in number and status of the Saite pastophoroi. Further internal changes inherent the organisation of this group concerned their new association with the cult of Amenope, instead of that of Amenothes, one of the manifestations of Amun in his ityphallic form, with his body enveloped in cloth and standing on a chest or a chair. At the beginning of each decade he would sail to Medinet Habu to present offerings to his ancestors, the Ogdoad, believed to be buried there. Such a change may have started during the Saite Period, though it probably acquired a more definitive character only from the 29th dynasty onwards. The sources from Edfu attest to the presence of both choachytes and lectorpriests, and also suggest the existence of an official acting in the same capacity as the overseer of the necropolis at Thebes. Its presence is indirectly suggested by a letter in Greek in which a praktor is being informed that a taricheutes has contracted to underwrite the collection of the funerary tax for a specific period, which is again reminiscent of the stipulations recorded in P. BM EA 10528 (291BC). However, from the large sum of money listed in the letter, P. Elephantine Gr. 8 (225–224BC), it would seem that he was responsible for the collection of the funerary taxes in the entire nome. In this it differed from the arrange-

490

chapter 18

ments at Thebes where the overseer was in charge of the collection of the taxes relating to the Theban necropolis only, at least on the basis of the surviving sources. At Memphis the existence of the office of overseer of the necropolis is not attested during the Ptolemaic Period. However, it clearly existed during the Late Period as shown by Stela Louvre C.101, dating from year 8 of Psammetichos I, recording the purchase of a tomb in the Necropolis of Anubis (= the Memphite necropolis), by a laundryman(?) from the chief of the necropolis.5 From at least the end of the 3rd century BC, following the changes in the title of the mortuary priests, this function was perhaps fulfilled by an archentaphiastes,6 and/or by the overseer of the mysteries, who had a prominent position among the mortuary priests. The fact that this office is clearly attested in the Late Period, and that to some extent a comparable one can be surmised for the period following the adoption of the new combined title, in my opinion indicates that the office still existed at the beginning of the Ptolemaic Period, although we admittedly lack textual evidence for it. At Hawara the function of overseer of the necropolis may have been fulfilled by the overseer god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer, which could be held by more than one person at the same time, and was of limited tenure, perhaps for a calendar year, though it could be renewed in successive years. However, the petitions in the archive of the Tanis embalmers suggest another possibility. The object of these petitions was the right to embalm and bury the deceased from Tanis, rights that had originally belonged to a certain Psenephmous, son of Paos, from nearby Philadelphia. The latter had died during the great revolt in the reign of Ptolemy IV, and his embalming rights were divided among three funerary workers of Philadelphia, perhaps unlawfully, rather than being auctioned like the rest of his property. The income from this activity was managed by the prophet of Sobek in Krokodilopolis. Interestingly, a prophet of Sobek is also mentioned in P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC) in relation to some unspecified wrongdoing, very probably from the latter’s part, in connection to a necropolis tax, of which he apparently declined to acknowledge receipt. This is also the only document, outside Thebes, where we find mention of an overseer of the necropolis. As discussed above, one of the latter’s responsibility was the collection of funerary taxes on behalf of the temple, a role that on the basis of this document appears to have been fulfilled by the prophet of Sobek. If this

5 Malinine 1975; Depauw 2000, 69; Aston and Aston 2010, 120. 6 Attested from UPZ 106–109, which may be the Greek rendering of the Demotic title overseer god’s seal-bearer.

discussion and conclusion

491

was the case in the rest of Lower and in Middle Egypt too, it would explain the lack of attestation for the office of overseer of the necropolis. Indeed, such close involvement by a temple official is not at all surprising given that this institution ‘owned’ the necropolis(es) that lay in its domain. Even at Thebes we find a high temple official, a god’s father, as tax recipient [O. BM EA 5723 (285–246BC)]. At Hermonthis choachytal liturgies could be taken out on a lease directly from the temple.7 All of this suggests that in places, and/or at times, the temple could choose to have a more direct involvement in the funerary industry. Thus the prophet of Sobek may have normally acted as head of the necropolis in some towns, or only in specific circumstances during some terms of office. The main mortuary priests at Thebes were the choachytes and the lectorpriests. At the death of a person there were many tasks that the family needed to deal with, and the choachytes could be hired to take care of all (or some) of them. This included the acquisition of a tomb, or of a plot of land on which to build one, the successive building of the tomb, and the payment of the taxes on either of these ‘purchases.’ The choachytes would also be present in the embalming place where they delivered a number of the materials and items needed during the mummification. They would naturally be present at the burial ceremony and the performance of funerary rituals, and from then on perform the mortuary cult of the dead person at regular intervals. The sources do not clearly elucidate the mechanics behind the territorial division of competences between the choachytes, if any, or the bases on which families chose a particular choachytes over another. From the surviving contracts stipulated between the latter and the family, it is clear some would be associated with the same choachytal family for as many as 99 years, at least formally. It is possible that the different areas of the necropolis were divided among these mortuary priests and that the family chose them on the basis of this zoning, perhaps because of the presence of important shrines or tombs in a particular area. In reality, any division of necropolis areas, or even tombs, among the choachytes would be only temporary given that the liturgies, the right to officiate as a family’s choachytes, could be freely bought and sold. Thus, over time, the family would find itself in the care of a choachyte different from the one originally

7 This is shown by a small number of documents (P. Louvre E 2429bis, P. Louvre E 2428, P. Louvre E 2424, P. Louvre E 2443, P. Louvre E 2438, P. Louvre E 2431, and P. BM EA 10026) in which party A explains that the priests of Montu of the fourth phyle had made a lease in his/her favour granting the right to exercise their profession in the said area. Whether this would also have been the case in the Theban necropolis is not clear from the surviving sources.

492

chapter 18

chosen. The surviving sources give no indication of whether it was necessary for the family to give consent to being transferred to the care of another mortuary priest. The freedom of choice that the family had in appointing a choachyte is one of the aspects in which the latter differ from the lector-priests, since the families had no choice at all on who embalmed their dead. A small number of documents show that the lector-priests agreed collectively on which areas devolved to whom, and that they would be responsible for the mummification, and inherent mortuary rituals, of the people residing in the areas that fell under their jurisdiction. Other areas within the city, such as temple complexes, and outlying settlements with no separate cemetery, were also divided among them, so that those dying in one of the temples, which was considered as a separate entity from the rest of the town, or coming from one of these other settlements, also fell under their responsibility. Besides the lector-priests the Theban sources also mention embalmers and doctors, both of whom were involved in the mummification process, although probably with a lesser ranking than the former. Their lower standing during the performance of rituals is suggested not only by their titles, with that of lectorpriest indicating its bearer was in charge of the ritual operations and read from the sacred scrolls, but also by the fact that in P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) there is only one lector-priest mentioned, but more than one embalmer. The Memphite god’s seal-bearers and the Hawara god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers combined these same services in the hands of a single person, or groups thereof. At Memphis labour division was based on the origo of the deceased, so that they were entitled to perform their services only for people resident in those areas over which they had been granted authority. How such a territorial division of competence was implemented, whether it was decided among the various groups of god’s seal-bearers, or whether these areas were originally assigned among the various mortuary priests, perhaps following a bid by those interested, by an overall organising body such as the temple, is not clear from the sources, but seems likely. Similarly, a territorial division of competence was in place at Hawara among the god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers, who thus had jurisdiction over a specific territory, but again it is not clear how these areas of competence were originally divided. It is possible that it was organised in the same way as at Sharuna where the mortuary priests formed a consortium that collectively decided on the apportionment of liturgies among the various groups of mortuary priests, formalising these divisions with contracts. Naturally liturgies could be bought and sold among mortuary priests, or taken on a lease, and therefore one’s authority could always be extended over new areas. Another way of acquiring liturgies was through bidding at auctions,

discussion and conclusion

493

as indicated by P. Mallawi 602/1–5 (79BC), which mentions shares bought at ‘the auction of pharaoh’ (pꜣ ꜥyš n pr-ꜥꜣ) (line 1).8 The way in which competences were assigned and divided among the mortuary priests at Memphis, Hawara and Sharuna (and possibly in the rest of Middle Egypt), meant that the families were not free to use the services of a priest of their own choosing, but had to go to the one with competence over their place of residence. In this respect this type of organisation parallels that of the Theban lector-priests, but differs from that of the Theban choachytes who, as discussed, were freely chosen by the deceased’s family. The textual data from three of the main necropolises—Thebes, Memphis and Hawara—indicate that there was a certain degree of consistency in terms of the individuals involved in the various stages of a person’s mummification and burial, albeit under different titles, and of the services they could be hired to provide for the families. However, the data from these and other necropolises also suggests that things may not have been as standardised as the foregoing analysis indicates. The Tanis embalmers, for example, received an annual fixed sum of 4000 drachmas, rather than being paid by the families of the deceased in their care.9 A similar scenario is indicated by SPP XXII 183 (AD 138) and BGU I 1+337 (AD140), two temple accounts from Soknopaiou Nesos that show embalmers could be part of temples’ personnel. Both documents record a payment of 16 drachmae for ‘embalmers at the village’ [BGU I 1 + 337 (AD 140)],10 and it is entirely possible that the Tanis embalmers’ documents represent evidence for this different type of organisation of necropolis workers, whereby the embalmers simply received a fixed payment from the temple to which they were attached. Similarly, in P. Cairo 50127 (1st century BC) the writer of the letter states that the tax was paid to the prophet of Sobek and that this fee was intended as a payment for the lector-priests, who in the circumstances stopped the mummification of the person for whom it had been paid. This may indicate that these embalmers were also to be paid by the temple, since the tax was paid to the prophet of Sobek and was meant to cover the embalmers fees, thus along similar lines to the Tanis embalmers. However, this document originates from Hawara whence the first century textual evidence shows that the god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmers were paid for their services by the families of the

8 9

10

The liturgies of the deceased embalmer from Tanis were also to be sold at auction, but it is not clear whether this was the rule, or the result of particular circumstances. However, this situation may have been out of the norm since it is possible that the disputed embalming rights had been claimed by the temple, following the death of Psenephmous, which would, therefore, have received part of the profits (Armoni 2013, 16, 21–22). Johnson 1936, 656, 659.

494

chapter 18

dead in their care. By contrast in the unpublished P. Leuven (93–92BC) from Apollonos polis the embalmers have to pay a tax for 2700 dr. for each embalmment, another for 400 dr. if the mummification goes over the prescribed 70-day period, and 600 dr. for each interment.11 As Clarysse remarked, these may simply represent payments of the burial- and transfer-tax attested from the early Ptolemaic Period, which in turn is indicative of a degree of continuity with earlier times in terms of necropolis organisation. Inconsistencies are also attested in terms of the titles borne by mortuary priests around the country. From the Fayum, for example, P. BM EA 10616 (244– 243BC) and P. BM EA 10750 (213BC) attest to the presence of individuals using the titles of ‘lector priest of the mountain’ and of ‘choachyte’ respectively, and suggests that the title of god’s seal-bearers (and) embalmer may not have been widespread to the whole region. Another difficulty is represented by the additional range of titles attested in documents from Hutnesu, which include ‘man of the necropolis’ (rmṯ ẖr-nṯr) and ‘seal-bearer who attends the god’ (ḫtmwꜥḥꜥ=f-n-nṯr). The first of the two is borne, together with that of god’s seal-bearer, by the same person in P. Mallawi 602/7 (101 BC), which indicates this title is additional to the others attested in the same necropolis. It is possible that this was simply a general designation for individuals who worked in the necropolis, although, if this was the case, one would expect the higher title to be listed first. The only possible explanation I can suggest for the presence of so many titles at Sharuna is that old and new ones were used simultaneously during this transitional phase. Additional difficulties are presented by the range of titles attested in Greek documents, particularly when trying to reconcile them with those found in Demotic documents. In particular, in some sources the title of necrotaphos appears to designate the activity of both choachytes and embalmers, and thus would be comparable to that of a god’s seal-bearer,12 as in the case of the documents from Sharuna and those from the Dush Oasis, while in others it is the title of stolistes that appears to be synonymous with that of god’s seal-bearer (and) embalmer, as indicated by PSI 857 (108 BC) and S.B. I 5216 (1st century BC). On the other hand, it would appear that the title of entaphiastes was, during the Roman Period, synonymous with that of necrotaphos,13 while in the archive of the taricheutai Amenneus and Onnophris from Tanis it is used as a synonym with that of taricheutes.14 In fact, I am not entirely convinced that 11 12 13 14

Clarysse 2007. As suggested by Clarysse (2007, 189) on the basis of the unpublished P. Leuven. Derda 1991, 31–33. Armoni 2013, 17.

discussion and conclusion

495

the Greek rendering of Egyptian titles was more than just an approximation of the Demotic ones. None of these documents explicitly mention the exact nature of these people’s professional activities, nor do they clarify what this occupation actually entailed, and in what way they may have differed from other titles. Another question I have addressed is whether women actively worked as funerary attendants, or if they employed the services of a man, either a relative or a hired labourer, to perform the religious services for the deceased in their care. One of the main objections to this possibility is the fact that women could not hold high office, since literacy was not as widespread among them as it was among men.15 It is certainly true that most of the women attested in legal documents are mainly identified as woman (sḥm.t) in contracts, and as woman (rmṯ.t) in the tax receipts, which it is suggested may be due to Hellenistic influence and the different position that women occupied in Greek society by comparison to their Egyptian counterparts.16 However, documentary sources clearly show that women enjoyed the same legal status as men with respect to inheritance and ownership of funerary liturgies. As I have argued, one of the passages in P. Berlin P. 3115 (Text D, 108 BC) prescribes a fine of one talent for anyone not acting in accordance to a set of rules, specifying that this applies to anyone ‘(be it) man (or) woman (my italics), among the young persons (and) all the choachytes’ (ḥwṱ.w sḥm.wt nꜣ ḫm-ḫl.w nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw tr=w), not because they happened to be related to a choachyte, but because they worked as such. Had they not practiced the profession, why should they be bound by rules regulating, for example, the provision of funerary materials for the mummification of the dead in their care, and the ministration of medicaments to the association’s members? With respect to female embalmers, it is true that there is even less definite evidence for them practicing this profession beyond 15

16

It is likely that, as in earlier periods of Egyptian history, some schooling was imparted at home by the parents, if they were literate (Cribiore 1996, 15; Cribiore 2001, 107), while there does not seem to be any evidence among the Egyptians for discrimination in terms of access to education. Some women, in fact, did receive schooling as in the case of the two twins who lived in the Serapeum, and attended the school of Tothes (UPZ I 78, line 9) (159 BC) (Wilcken 1927, 361; Cribiore 2001, 87), while P. εντευξεισ 26 (220BC) (Gueraud 1931, 70–74), a petition to the king where a father complains that he is being wronged by his daughter despite he educated her, indirectly provides evidence for female education (Legras 1999, 22). In addition, there is some evidence that both notary scribes and temple attendants were in charge of Demotic education. This is indicated by P. Rylands IV 572.1.10 and BGU VI 1214.4 where the word grammatodidaskalos, believed to indicate a Greek elementary teacher, is used to designate Demotic scribes who also taught this script (Maehler, 1983, 196; Cribiore 2001, 51). O’Brien 1999.

496

chapter 18

the fact that they are identified by the titles of lector-priest and embalmer. Nonetheless, this needs to be set against the number of documents relating to this class of mortuary priests, which is actually very small—thus, the fact that evidence for female lector-priests and embalmers exists at all is probably quite telling. On the other hand, the lack of evidence for women’s involvement in the funerary industry at Hawara may be linked to those measures taken by the mortuary priests to prevent the increasing fragmentation of their property through radical partable inheritance, which perhaps meant that daughters received a dowry rather than a share in, for example, a house.17 However, sporadic attestations from the Pharaonic and the Late periods suggest some women did indeed work in the funerary sphere even then. Naturally this does not represent incontrovertible proof that those of the Ptolemaic Period actually exercised these professions themselves, although it does set a precedent. The problem is, in my opinion, more academic than real, with the idea of women not working outside the home still clinging on, since, taken together, the evidence does suggest that at least some women effectively worked as funerary attendants, in some instances by themselves and in others in collaboration with their fathers or husbands, depending on their personal circumstances. There is certainly nothing in the sources analysed that indicates women were precluded from practicing these occupations. The activity of funerary priests, including that of lector-priests, was defined as ‘work’ or ‘office’ (wp.t). In the case of choachytes this meant the performance of religious services (šms.w) and of purificatory offerings for the deceased in their care, for which they would then receive remuneration, both in money and in kind. In Lower and Middle Egypt, where the profession of choachytes and embalmer were combined together and performed by the same individuals, it is not possible to distinguish between the income each of them received. Similarly, the Theban lector-priests were also paid in money and in kind (even if no name is given for the revenues they received for their services). A range of terms is used to identify the revenues of the other mortuary priests around the country, the most common of which is the šty-revenue, attested from all parts of the country. Unfortunately, the documents do not clarify whether this consisted of payments in money or in kind, though it is also possible that such a distinction did not exist and that the term simply referred to any payment in whatever form it was given. Another common term for revenue is i҆ḫy, meaning ‘things, offerings,’ thus perhaps referring to payments in kind, and attested from nearly all parts of the country except for Middle Egypt where the i҆w-

17

For the latter see Muhs 2005a.

discussion and conclusion

497

income may have represented its equivalent. A special payment may also have been received on the occasion of festivals, which in the sources is identified as ẖn(y), ‘special offering,’ and is attested from Memphis and Hawara. This may have been the equivalent of the noun i҆ny, also meaning festival-offerings, and attested only from Middle Egypt. Another term for revenue, attested from all parts of the country except for Memphis, is the ꜥḳ n wsi҆r, or ration(s) of Osiris, traditionally used in the pre-Ptolemaic Period to denote choachytal revenues, specifically revenues in kind. This is perhaps to be understood as the equivalent of the Memphite glflf-revenue also referring to food-offerings. Three additional types of revenues are attested from Memphite documents, the šmꜥ, gyl, and hwh.t. Based on the specific meaning of each of the first two nouns, it is very possible that the šmꜥ-revenue was received for people not originating from or not resident in Memphis, as the connotations of ‘stranger, vagabond’ of this word would imply. The gyl-revenue, on the other hand, may have been paid for pilgrims who died during their visit to the Memphite area, as the connotations of ‘newcomer, visitor’ conveyed by the noun would indicate. These two types of revenues are somewhat reminiscent of the agreements between two Theban colleagues, Amenothes, son of Horos, and Lolous-Petenephotes, son of Petenephotes. From a petition [P. Turin 2154 (116 BC)] Lolous-Petenephotes presented against his colleague we learn that individuals from Latopolis, Hermonthis, and the Pathyrites who had been transported to the temple of Amun at Thebes, and later died there (or on their way there), fell under the responsibility of the plaintiff. The payments received according to this division may have been similar to the Memphite gyl-revenue. The third type, the hwh.trevenue, was perhaps paid for individuals who died prematurely, and may have been deemed worthy of special veneration, perhaps along the same lines as the blessed ones (ḥsy.w) attested in the Theban documents. From the documents themselves it is not clear why there is a greater variety of revenues attested at Memphis than in other necropolises. It may be that they were specific to the function of the Memphite mortuary priests as lector-priests, and represented a hold-out from earlier times when the two professions were separate, being retained as a way of differentiating between the two sources, although, if this was the case, one would expect to find the same in the Sharuna textual record. As was the case with other professional groups, the choachytes were part of an association attested from the both the Late [P. Louvre E 7840 (542–538 BC)] and the Ptolemaic [P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106BC)] periods, albeit under the patronage of different gods. In fact, rather than seeing P. Berlin P. 3115 as evidence for the choachytes suddenly feeling the need to establish regulations, perhaps because their solidarity was endangered in 109 BC, whereas their pre-

498

chapter 18

decessors had made do without any such things, as has been stated,18 I believe it is simply a question of accidents of preservation that has resulted in the lack of any evidence for choachytal associations at other points in the Ptolemaic Period. Membership in an association clearly offered a number of social benefits, allowing, for example, this non-elite group a more accessible social and civic formal forum, which would further enhance their position within the community.19 Moreover, such associations could also be understood as ‘trust networks.’20 The setting down of the association’s rules (which also included the prescription of fines for antisocial behaviour) transformed informal ethical codes into formal norms, while the joint participation in religious celebrations and social activities strengthened the bond between the trust network’s members. Over time this would also lower the cost of transactions, which would become less risky among members that could be trusted, even though the economic aspect would be secondary to the social one. Naturally, there were also more tangible benefits, such as the ability to rely on the other members’ help in case of economic difficulties, or in relation to the contributions towards the cost of burial.21 It is, therefore, surprising that there is no firm evidence for the existence of associations of other mortuary priests such as god’s sealbearers and lector-priests, apart from indirect references to the specific group’s rules and regulations suggesting the possibility that similar associations existed among them. It is clear that there were no fixed rule or custom as to whether members of professions organised themselves into guilds, associations or collegia, but, given the undeniable benefits, one would imagine the other groups to have also formed associations. Unless accidents of preservation are responsible for this lack of evidence, which is, of course, entirely possible, it may be that the other groups did not feel the need for formal associations both because of their higher social standing, and their profession’s organisation. In fact, textual sources around the country show that lector-priests worked in groups, establishing a type of consortia, which decided collectively on the apportionment of liturgies and the extent of each group’s territorial jurisdiction, and that such divisions were formalised by contracts. The lector-priests already enjoyed a higher standing in terms of temple hierarchy than the choachytes, while the standing of god’s seal-bearers was higher still, as indicated by the Embalming Ritual [P. Boulaq 3 (1st–2nd century AD)] specifying the competence of the mortuary priests involved. If one of the scopes of the associations was that of 18 19 20 21

Pestman 1993. Muhs 2001; Venticinque 2010. Monson 2006. Monson 2006.

discussion and conclusion

499

providing non-elite groups a stronger voice in the social and civic stages, then it is quite possible that a formal association of lector-priests or of god’s sealbearers did not exist, since, in terms of temple hierarchy, they were probably already part of an elite group. Most of the funerary attendants lived in settlements located either within temple complexes in the necropolis, as in the case of the Memphite priests, or in the necropolis itself, as perhaps in the case of the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers. At Thebes the two groups are at first attested both at Thebes and Djeme, and then only at the latter location as their main place of residence. Their main activity naturally revolved around the dead, but they also engaged in other economic activities, mostly money lending and land cultivation, which indirectly attests to the fact that their work as mortuary priests was capable of generating a surplus that could be invested in these extra activities. An interesting parallel is evident between the Theban choachytes and the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers, who were mostly engaged in loan transactions, at least on the basis of the documents analysed, and the lector-priests of Thebes and Siut, who were engaged in land cultivation. The reasons, if any, for this are not immediately apparent, but may be linked with the fact that land represented wealth, so that these lector-priests represented some kind of ‘landed gentry,’ which would be consistent with their higher ranking in terms of temple hierarchy. A desire to limit the fragmentation of these properties through inheritance may have been at the root of the close endogamy of the mortuary priests around the country.

2

Death, Mummification and Burial

Death is undeniably disruptive, even when it comes at the end of a full, complete life. Past and present societies, therefore, have developed mechanisms through which ‘death’s disruptiveness’ could be attenuated. One such way is through the funerary ritual, which function, among others, is to dispose of the dead and to assist the living survivors overcome their pain of loss.22 Naturally, every culture has its own way of dealing with death, which may be more or less codified. While Western society defines a person as either dead or alive, 22

Kearl, n.d. Social Functions of Death, http://www.deathreference.com/Sh‑Sy/Social‑ Functions‑of‑Death.html. Often, in modern societies, the scope of rituals appears to be also that of defining the death, its cause, the dead person, the bereaved and their relationship with one another and others, the meaning of life and even social values (Rosenblatt 1998, 33).

500

chapter 18

there are many small-scale societies in which there are gradations of the state of being dead. Among the Indonesian Toraja people of Sulawesi in Indonesia the deceased is referred to as ‘the sleeping person,’ or the ‘person with a fever,’ he or she is given food and drink, while relatives converse with the deceased telling him or her what other family members are doing. Only when the funeral begins is the deceased finally identified as dead.23 In fact, for most people in these societies death is but a transition to another stage.24 To reach it the dead may necessitate the help of the living. In some cases this transition is envisaged as a long journey, with funerals and rituals helping the dead along the way.25 Death rituals, starting at the time of what our Euro-American society defines as ‘physical death,’ can be very elaborate and extend over a long period of time. Their requirements vary from culture to culture and include the isolation of the bereaved person(s), the use of special mourning dress and/or markings. Some even prescribe actions that to outsiders may appear as being pointlessly harmful, destructive, or at any rate unpleasant. These include the tearing of one’s clothing and/or skin, self-beating, shaving one’s hair, not shaving and not bathing for days. Often death rituals are spread over a period of time that can span weeks, months and even years. Ceremonies and rituals are, for example, held on the anniversary of death, or to mark the passage of the deceased to a more distant, higher or more complete state of death. In some cases rituals involve the wrapping and re-wrapping of the decomposing body, or the unearthing and reburial of the remains months or years after the physical death. Often there is also a final ceremony that marks the end of the mourning period, the transition of the mourners to a new state or role, and even the transition of the deceased to a final state. From an outsider’s point of view it may be difficult to appreciate the enormous religious, social and personal importance of these rituals for the survivors within a specific culture. Nevertheless, they are fundamental in helping the dead and even in protecting the living against harm from the dead, given that in many societies the dead are believed capable of having an impact on the world of the living, and to be able to communicate with them.26 Although the pain of loss may be universal, the individual response, its expression and the ability to cope with it are influenced by the individual’s cultural heritage.27 Grief in particular is both a

23 24 25 26 27

Rosenblatt 1998, 27. In fact, even in modern societies death is seen as a type of rite of passage (Parkes et al. 1998, 5, 8). Rosenblatt 1998, 30–31. Rosenblatt 1998, 31–32, 49. Kastenbaum, n.d. Grief. Overview, www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief.html. In the

discussion and conclusion

501

‘deeply personal experience’ and an ‘interpersonal process’ in that people are part of complex networks of ‘interdependent relationships’ within and without the family nucleus, which is also the context in which death and bereavement occur. Grief, therefore, is to be understood within the context of the family and its social environment.28 The participation in cultural rituals and being able to mourn in a supportive (family) environment, will also facilitate the resolution of grief and the reorganisation of the family following the death of a beloved one. Through this process a shift occurs from the deceased to the survivors and their future. Although the dead remains ‘psychologically present,’ the survivors establish their new sense of identity as widows/widowers, bereaved parents, fatherless/motherless children and so on. This change in identity has repercussions on the social networks, which also need adjustments.29 Thus grief and mourning have an effect on the interactions between people too. Ritual and myth provide, in most cultures throughout history, the intersubjective space in which the meaning of the deceased’s life, death and continued influence over the survivors’ lives can be constructed. From the preceding, it is clear that individuals are influenced by the culture into which they are born, since different societies have come up with their own solutions to the problem of death, enshrining it in a complex web of beliefs and practices that, at first, appear completely different from each other. Yet, there are common ideas that are encountered among all of them, and the differences become less marked and easier to understand when they are understood within their socio-historical context.30 With this in mind, it is possible to understand some of the customs and practices attested among the ancient Egyptians, who also possessed a complex web of beliefs in which the mythological archetypal for the dead and the bereaved was represented by the myth of Isis and Osiris. The latter represented the paradigm for the rebirth of the dead in the afterlife, while Isis embodied the archetype for the mourning and revivification of the deceased. Death itself was also perceived as a transitory stage, as a state of illness from which the dead would be cured by means of the ministration of embalming medicaments and of the rituals performed by the mortuary priests. These rituals were the necessary prerequisites for the resurrection of

28 29 30

words of Rosenblatt (1998, 49) ‘[t]here are no emotions that are universally present at death. What emotions are felt, how they are expressed, and how understood, are matters of culture.’ Schwab, n.d. Grief. Family. http://www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief.html; Doka n.d. Death System, www.deathreference.com/Da‑Em/Death‑System.html. Schwab, n.d. Grief. Family. http://www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief.html; Doka n.d. Death System, www.deathreference.com/Da‑Em/Death‑System.html. Parkes et al. 1998, 4–5.

502

chapter 18

the deceased in the afterlife. Thus, as in other societies across time and space, in Egypt the period between the moment of physical death and the final burial was divided into specific stages, each with its own rituals intended to accompany the deceased and the bereaved through the process of death and rebirth of the dead. Although there is no clear information on the exact length of each of these stages, and of the exact operations that each entailed, by analysing all available sources, it is possible to suggest a reconstruction of this process, which consisted of five different phases that together represented the length of an ideal mummification and burial. A formal mourning period started at the death of a person and ended with the burial, ideally, at the end of a 70-day period. Mourning itself possessed a set of social customs that dictated how the bereaved expressed grief. Although very little direct information can be gathered on this topic from the documentary sources, by comparing Pharaonic funerary pictorial evidence, religious literature and classical accounts, it is possible to recreate the gestures and the expressions of sorrow that were expected by the mourners during this stage. The Egyptians possessed a rich lexicography of grief and mourning, although, being culturally embedded, it is not always possible to determine their exact meaning and any difference that may have existed between them. These terms indicate that there were specific customs relating to the expression of grief, which varied depending on the degree of kinship and the gender of the bereaved. Thus women were probably expected to manifest it with loud wailing and lamenting, as for example suggested by the presence of terms like nḫy ‘lamentation, mourning’31 and tyṱ ‘to cry out, mourn, jubilate.’32 Classical sources too attest to the existence of this custom, adding that the bereaved would also plaster their heads with mud, beat themselves, and also refrain from bathing. Lexical terms likewise indicate it was traditional for the family of the departed to wear special mourning attire called ‘mourning clothing.’33 In particular, a distinction may have been present in the way the pyr-band was worn, around the head by those simply accompanying the funeral cortege, and around the neck by those more closely involved with a person’s embalmment.34 Following the first outcry, which also had the purpose of publicly notifying the death of a person, the family would probably spend much of the formal mourning period in the home withdrawing from all social events. This may be the meaning of the clause found in the regulations of religious associations from the Fayum 31 32 33 34

CDD letter N, 113. CDD letter T, 102. The verb survives into Coptic as ⲧⲟⲉⲓⲧ. pk.t (var. pgy) and ḥbs.w n pky, CDD letter P, 172; and letter Ḥ, 96. Herbin 1994, 61, 208; Collombert 2006, 236–237.

discussion and conclusion

503

where the members agree ‘we will mourn him’ (i҆w=n r ꜣrb r=f ), using the verb ꜣrb with the meaning of ‘enclose,’ and probably meaning that they would withdraw from society in the same way as the deceased’s kin. Another way in which grief was expressed was perhaps through fasting. The worshippers of the Apis Bull observed a strict fasting for the first four days after death followed by a partial fasting for the rest of the mourning period. Linked to this was perhaps the custom of bringing food to the bereaved,35 aptly termed ‘mourning rations’ (ꜥḳ nhpy), and attested again from the regulations of the religious associations. However, the act of mourning was not merely an expression of sorrow at the loss of a beloved one, it was actually believed to aide the deceased’s revival and transfiguration. Because of the Egyptians’ belief in the ‘performative power of speech,’ the recitation of liturgical texts, Lamentations and Glorifications, in the proper ritual setting, was believed to transfigure the dead person into a spirit.36 Thus Isis and Nephthys in their guise as kites, whose screeches were equated with the mourners’ cries, during the hourly vigil conducted over the body of their dead brother Osiris say to one another ‘[c]ome, we will screech for him and transfigure him (scil. into a living spirit) with our wailing’ (mi҆.n ḥꜣ=n n=f sꜣḫ= sw m i҆ꜣkb=n) and ‘[w]eep, weep. We will shed tears for him and transfigure him with our wailing’ (rmy rmy i҆r=n n=f rmy sꜣḫ=n sw m i҆ꜣkb=n).37 It is unclear from the sources for how long after death the deceased would be kept in the home before being removed to the necropolis where, at the end of a four-day period, it would undergo artificial mummification. According to Herodotus’ account, women of status were taken to the embalmers only at the end of a four-day period, and it is, therefore, possible that the dead were indeed kept in the home until it was time for the body to be removed to the necropolis. Yet, in P. Leiden 374 (78BC) it is agreed that any corpse given to the wrong mortuary priests would be returned to the rightful priests within four days, thus indicating that by this time the deceased had already been removed to the necropolis. Indeed, the Memphite textual sources make reference to particular structures, identified as ‘place of weeping (or of lamentation)’ (s.t-rmy) and as ‘places of mourning (and of?) anointings’ (mꜣꜥ.w-nhpy and wlḥ.w), that seemingly denoted places used specifically for the mourning of a dead person. In reality, there probably were no special regulations regarding this aspect, and different customs may have been in place in different areas of the coun35 36 37

To be consumed, for example, by the very elderly and by children, who may not have been expected to fast. Smith 2009, 11–12. Quoted from Smith 2009, 98–99 notes 16 and 17. On this topic see also Smith 2009, General Introduction, sections B and F; Assmann 1972, 65 note 44.

504

chapter 18

try, or even at different times of the year, and among different socioeconomic groups.38 Although the practice of keeping the dead untreated and unburied for a period of time may seem strange, or even distasteful, to us, similar customs are attested among other ancient and modern populations worldwide. As noted above, during the Greek classical period, the deceased would be laid on a kline at his/her home, and then carried in a procession to the tomb on the third day after death.39 A comparable custom was also attested among the Copts, at least until the last century.40 Similarly, it is customary among the Australian Aborigines to display the body of a deceased person on a bed-like structure for a period of three days to allow friends and family to pay their respects.41 Among the Toraja people it is customary to keep the body of the deceased in the house for several weeks before the funeral.42 A formal mourning period begins with the onset of the funeral, which lasts for several days, and during which the body is moved, in stages, from the house to the courtyard, and then to the tomb. During this time, the spouse sleeps next to the deceased, whilst also wearing black garments and abstaining from certain foods.43 Additional examples are found among south Asian populations where strong parallels exist between the production of some foods and mortuary rites. Such parallels are found among the Berawan of Borneo with respect to the production of rice-wine drank at social gatherings. The rice is washed, boiled, sprinkled with yeast and then rolled up into tight balls and stored inside large pottery jars for several days during which time it ferments and releases a watery liquid that collects at the bottom of the containers. This is then gathered to be consumed as a drink while the rice is discarded. Their treatment of the corpse is strikingly similar. The body is first washed, dressed and then stored inside the same pottery jars, which are sealed 38

39 40 41 42

43

This was, for example, the case in some of the smaller towns and villages in southern Italy until 30–40 years ago, where some kept the body in the home for three days after death, while others kept it in the church for the same period of time. In Egypt differences may have been present geographically between the various areas of the country, perhaps also temporally during different times of the year (at the height of summer a body may be removed to the necropolis sooner than in winter, for example), and even among different socioeconomic groups in that the less wealthy may not have had any choice but to keep the dead at home until the day of burial. Kurtz and Boardman 1971, 143–144. Giamberardini 1965, 28–29. Suthrell, C.A. personal communication. It is true that some people may find the smell of decomposition offensive, but the family would not complain. In the meantime, the tomb is prepared, the remains of the other deceased are rewrapped and their coffins repaired, as a way of appeasing the spirits of the deceased and thus get their assistance (Rosenblatt 1997, 27). Rosenblatt 1997, 27–28.

discussion and conclusion

505

except for a bamboo tube inserted in the bottom of the jar to allow the decomposition fluids to drain away. The bones are then removed from the jar and stored in a small container. Thus, in this case it is the liquid that is discarded rather than the ‘sediment’ as was the case with the production of rice-wine.44 Obviously, the existence of apparently strange practices among other peoples does not prove that the same was the case among the Egyptians, but nevertheless serves to stress the fact that our western-centric views and practices are not the only possible ones. Among the Egyptians this custom may have served both a practical purpose and a religious function. In the first instance, leaving the body unburied for a period of time served to confirm death and to give time to friends and family to reach the deceased and say their farewells.45 On a religious level this time lapse may have been linked with the state of dissociation of an individual from his or her ka, following the death of the physical body, before the ritual reawakening. According to pictorial sources and the Apis Bull embalmment ritual [P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Late Ptolemaic)], during this time the deceased underwent purification rites, which meant both the physical washing of the corpse, and the spiritual cleansing of the body. Naturally, in order to enter the pure place, the embalmers themselves would need to undergo purification. This involved washing, shaving and the use of a special ceremonial garment, the ḥbs-cloth, as well as a pair of sandals and a band to be worn around the neck, the pyr-band. One of the first tasks to be carried out at the death of a person was to arrange for the services of a mortuary priest, who would organise the entire proceedings from the removal of the body to the necropolis, to the final burial at the end of the mummification process. However, even this aspect was not as strictly standardised as one may be inclined to believe. Families were in fact free to decide whether to employ a mortuary priest or not, and could hire his or her services for only some of the various tasks to be carried out, rather than for the entire proceedings. Textual sources clearly indicate that in some cases the transport of the dead to the necropolis was organised by the choachytes, other times it was arranged by the lector-priest, while others still show that it was done by the family itself. Where the necropolis was located on the same bank as the town, the overland transport would perhaps involve the use of a donkey pulling the bier with the deceased, while in all those instances where the necropolis was located across the river from the town, the transport would consist of a river 44 45

Metacalf and Huntington 2005, 73. It is perhaps surprising that there are no known condolence letters from the Ptolemaic Period, possibly because this was a custom brought in by the Romans, or one that developed around that time.

506

chapter 18

journey, which had both a symbolical and a practical function. Wealthy citizen would be able to have a boatman towing the ceremonial boat, on which the deceased lay, but a large part of the population would simply hire the services of a ferryman to row the dead across the river. The mummification took place in the necropolis, specifically in the pr-nfr (per-nefer). The term consists of a compound noun denoting both the embalming place and a stage within the actual process, and was, by the Ptolemaic Period, synonymous with the noun wꜥb.t (wabet). The latter by this time perhaps came to denote that part of the tomb, either outside or just inside it, where the mortuary cult would be performed. The mummification could also be carried out in these two areas, either in a room inside the tomb, perhaps in the vestibule area, or in a light-framed temporary structure erected by the tomb of the deceased. Alternatively, it could be performed in a purpose-built ‘public’ structure, belonging perhaps to the ‘necropolis’ itself, which served for the embalmment of individuals lacking the resources for a ‘private,’ or personal, embalming place. Surprisingly, there are no clear, unambiguous examples of embalming places in the archaeological record. A number of structures, identified by the excavators as embalming places, have been found at Saqqara, near the tomb of Horemheb, at Thebes on the Asasif (Grave IX), at Kafr Ammar, and at Dush in the Kharga oasis. In every case, their identification as embalming places rests on the presence of particular features, such as benches, a triangular platform (Saqqara), niches, basins, and in one case a vessel containing eyeamulets (Kafr Ammar), which function was speculatively linked to the process of mummification. Another factor that apparently links all of these structures is the presence of embalming materials buried in the area around the structure itself. In reality, any of these structures could very well have been storehouses belonging to the various mortuary priests, a large number of which are attested in the textual record. Even the presence of embalmers’ caches in the surrounding area is not definite proof that these were actual embalming places, given that, in a vast number of cases, they are found in the vicinity of tombs, as would the actual mummification places. Whether kept in the home, or removed to the necropolis, at the end of the four-day period the dead would be ready to undergo artificial embalmment. The mummification process was divided into specific stages within which days 4, 16, 35 and 70 were of ritual significance. An ideal mummification and burial consisted of five specific phases: an initial 1. purification; 2. the excerebration, evisceration and desiccation of the corpse; 3. its anointing with a variety of substances and the initial wrapping of some body parts; followed by 4. the wrapping of the entire body; and finally 5. the burial in the tomb. The identification of, and distinction between, these stages is not always straightforward

discussion and conclusion

507

because the same nouns could be used interchangeably to denote the same stage in the mummification process, or a specific phase within it. In documentary sources these stages are defined using the nouns ḳs, wꜥb.t and pr-nfr. Their identification as separate phases of the mummification process is based on the word order within the sentences in which they occur.46 Thus the nouns wꜥb.t and pr-nfr are in some sources used to denote the entire process, or the same stage within it, while the terms ḳs.(t) and pr-nfr are used to designate either specific phases of this process, or interchangeably to denote the same extended stage that effectively included these two separate phases. The suggested reconstruction of what happened during each of these stages is based on the lists of materials used, attested from various documentary sources, and on the surviving religious texts, generally termed Embalming Rituals, which describe the various operations that were carried out on the body, albeit couched in metaphors and allusions. The deceased, physically and spiritually cleansed as a result of the purification rites conducted during the four-day period, is now ready to ‘enter’ the operative stage. During the next day or so the deceased, lying on a mat of fresh reeds, would be excerebrated and eviscerated. The first step was to incise the side of the abdomen to allow the removal of the internal organs. This was performed by one of the lector priests, who is identified as a paraschistes by Diodorus Siculus (I.91), and as the ‘enemy of the sound eye (= Osiris) on the first day’ in P. Rhind 1 (9BC). Once the internal organs had been removed, they would be separately treated to prevent decay, while the internal cavity would be washed with water and treated with a variety of herbs and spices that both sterilised and scented the body. The next phase consisted of the dehydration of the corpse by means of natron. The deceased would be laid on a (lion-shaped) table, or bier, with bags of natron placed inside the abdominal and thoracic cavity, and on the outside of the corpse, to absorb the water from the body. This stage of the mummification process is attested in the archaeological record by the discovery of the actual remains of linen and natron, either in bags or in loose form. One of the best examples is the deposit found in association with the tomb of Menekhibnekau at Abusir, which included amphorae inscribed with the label ‘red linen and bags’ (pꜣ ṯms ḥnꜥ nꜣ ꜥrf.w), among others. Modern experiments indicate that, in order to maintain the osmotic movement of moisture through the skin, it would be necessary to refresh the natron at least twice during the desiccation stage. The dehydration of the body would probably be complete within an Egyptian week, thus in about ten days, so that by the 16th

46

See Table 4 infra.

508

chapter 18

day a new stage would begin, one that would also, ideally, last around 16 days. During this time the embalmers would anoint the corpse with a variety of oils, unguents and other aromatic substances, and apply cloths and bandages over parts of it. The lists of items used during this stage, recorded in P. Florence 3667 (111BC), in some of the Abusir embalmers’ vessels, and in the Embalming Ritual (P. Boulaq 3, 1st–2nd century AD) include herb(s) and plants, embalming wine, ointment, unguent, moringa oil, various resinous substances, fat, wax, myrrh, incense, natron, red linen and bags, ḏbꜣ- and mnḫ.t-bandages, bands, cloths and precious stones. The internal organs, by now also desiccated, would probably be cleaned of any residual natron and anointed like the rest of the body. According to the Embalming Ritual (P. Boulaq 3, 1st–2nd century AD), this was also the time when individual body parts—the head, hands, toes and legs—would be wrapped. This was also the stage when the deceased could be adorned with jewellery and gilding could be applied to individual body parts, for example to the fingernails.47 At the conclusion of this third phase of the embalming process, which ended on the 35th day after death, the deceased would come out rejuvenated, and the body ready to be wrapped in its entirety in the protective cocoon that would allow it to safely reach the afterlife. Again, all textual sources are in agreement as to the length of time that this would take, which is about 35 days. From documentary sources we learn that this stage was designated as šty (mummy wrapping48), or, more fully, as the ‘35 (days) of the šty-ceremony’ (35 tꜣ šty).49 Religious sources add further information as to what happened during this phase, since from P. Rhind I (9BC) we learn that another nine ceremonies would be conducted for the benefit of the deceased from the 36th day onwards. From these same sources we also learn that a final ceremony would be performed in the tomb on the night before burial so as to conform the embalming of ordinary individuals to that of Osiris by re-enacting the latter’s mummification which was performed in the course of a single night. On the day of burial the mummified body would be moved from the embalming place to the tomb where further rituals would be performed for the benefit of the deceased before being finally led to rest inside the burial chamber. Probably the most important of these was the Opening of the Mouth Ritual through which the bodily functions essential to life itself were restored to the deceased. Documentary and religious sources identify this final stage as ḥb ḳs, or festival of burial, thus indicating that there would have been some kind of 47 48 49

Amulets, including decorated and/or inscribed linen cloths, could be inserted among the bandages during this stage and/or the next. CDD letter Š, 232. P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC), Text C.

discussion and conclusion

509

formal celebration to honour the deceased, perhaps involving the consumption of food, and the presentation of offerings. In the Egyptians’ understanding a person’s life operated on two spheres, a physical and a social one, and in both it was the principle of connectivity that conferred and maintained life. It follows that, if life is inclusion, integration into society, death is isolation, which is overcome through the inclusion and integration of the deceased into the social sphere of the world beyond. The presentation of offerings, therefore, was not simply an act of providing nourishment for the deceased in the afterlife, it meant his or her inclusion into the realm of the gods. Eating and drinking, the consumption of meals together, are social acts that incorporate the deceased into the community in which he or she lives. Because, symbolically, the offerings presented to the deceased came from the altars and temples of the gods, their offering to the deceased meant the establishment of a relationship between the latter and the gods.50 The divine community, as projection of the earthly one, can be described as a ‘redistributive community.’51 Membership, and social integration, in such a community was a necessary prerequisite for partaking of the sustenance of the gods in the afterlife. Conversely, participation in the divine sustenance, which in itself is the concretisation of the social integration, was a necessary prerequisite for becoming a member of the divine community.52 This particular relationship mirrored the earthly social structure in which officials, for example, were dependent on the ‘table’ of their superior who supplied them with their earthly needs, which act is, in itself, a symbol of social integration. The same structure is thus evident in the description of the deceased as ‘living, together with the gods, from the offering table of the sungod.’53 Ultimately, this was more important than the nourishment itself, since symbolically it represented the social integration of the dead in the realm of the dead.54 Those who could afford it would also acquire funerary accoutrements and tomb fittings. This appears to have been one of the tasks of the family, who would commission these items directly from the craftsmen and artisans who produced them. As to the identity of the latter, an analysis of all the relevant sources indicates that a class of workmen specialising solely in this field did not exist.55 Funerary items, such as coffins, would be crafted by woodworkers

50 51 52 53 54 55

Assmann 2005, chapter 2. Assmann 1989, 145. Assmann 1989, 145–146. CT III quoted in Assmann 1989, 146. Assmann 2005, chapter 2. See also Cannata 2012 for the same conclusion with respect to the Roman Period.

510

chapter 18

who also produced furniture for daily use. They may have been based in the town itself, but given that most of the materials used were organic, we cannot expect to find much evidence for it in the archaeological record. The same is true for cartonnage cases, which were fashioned using an organic inner core that would not be preserved in the record. Many of these items would be decorated by the embalmers themselves directly in the embalming place as indicated by the technical notes in P. Boulaq 3 (1st–2nd century AD) instructing the ritualist to draw, inscribe and paint the linen amulets. Interestingly, the combination of titles held by the Old Kingdom painter Kaiemtjenenit from Meir, who is variously identified as ‘inspector of outline draftsmen,’ ‘scribe of the house of sacred books of the palace,’ and, most importantly, as ‘lector-priest,’56 suggests the existence of such a link between funerary priests and the artists who inscribed and/or decorated some of the mummy bandages already at this time. Some of the embalmers appear to have specialised as anointers, which perhaps also included knowledge of how to prepare the unguents and sacred oils that were used in the embalming place. Others appear to have specialised in the art of bandaging the corpse, perhaps producing the elaborate wrapping known from specimens of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. With respect to the substances and materials used, the sources indicate that they could be procured by the embalmers themselves, or be provided by the family. According to the Theban textual sources, the Egyptians also possessed a varied lexicography for the act of laying the dead to rest in the tomb. The difference between them appears to be in part temporal, perhaps also influenced by a variation in scribal practices, and in part ‘stative’ in that they indicate the state, final or temporal, of the burial. In particular, the verbal constructions ‘to take to’ (ṯ r-r=s) and ‘to appertain to’ (ṯ r), used in different periods, may have been used to refer simply to the deposition of the body in a tomb, while the constructions ‘to be buried in’ (ḳs r) and ‘to rest in it’ (ḥtp ẖn=s), also used at different times, denoted the final entombment. Indeed, both Classical and documentary sources provide clear evidence for the practice of delayed burial. Having examined a range of possible factors, I would exclude economic and/or religious factors as being the determining ones. Rather, the one that appears most likely to have determined it is the typology of the tomb itself, perhaps because the burial chamber was accessed via a shaft backfilled following the burial. Individuals owning this type of structure may have preferred to leave their dead in temporary burial places, rather than excavating the shaft every time a relative died. It is equally possible that people whose tombs had no ground level

56

Kanawati and Woods 2009, 12.

discussion and conclusion

511

chapel, may have needed to put their dead somewhere else so that their mortuary cult could be performed in front of them, or even that mummies were awaiting burial because the family tomb had yet to be built. Naturally, the simple removal of the viscera and of the brain, when performed, the desiccation of the corpse and its bandaging would take much less than 70 days. However, as noted, the timing of each single stage of the mummification process was dictated not only by practical considerations, but also, most importantly, by rituals, and it was the ritual acts and gestures that determined the final length of time the deceased spent in the mummification place. The length and number of rituals performed during the mummification process, both in the day and at night, would naturally affect not only the time it took to complete the mummification, but also the final cost of the entire process. The more elaborate the treatment the dead underwent, the higher the final cost of the embalmment and burial. In fact, it is important to remember that the 70-day embalmment and burial represents the ideal treatment, one that could not be afforded by the population at large. Those cases for which we have a textual attestation of the length of the mummification process are, by virtue of being written down, indicative of the upper echelons of society. Indeed, even these testify to the variation in the length of the process, and show that a body could be mummified and ready for burial in as little as nine days. However, textual sources indicate that there were less expensive mummification methods too. Possible evidence for this is provided by two documents from Middle Egypt, specifically from Sharuna and Asyut. In the first document, P. Leuven (93–92BC), a Greek contract from Apollonos polis,57 a tax of 2700 drachmae is to be paid for each body and ‘for (the person) who will be put in the ground and dug up again before 70 days the same 2700 drachmae’58 This expression is reminiscent of the one found in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC), from Asyut, that lists cloths to be given for ‘the man who will be turned on the ground’ (pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=w pnꜥ=f n pꜣ i҆tn [ḥbs …]) (line 16). If the two refer to the same body treatment, as it appears to be the case, then this practice must have been in use since at least the date of the Demotic agreement, and may have been local to Middle Egypt, or simply unattested from other parts of the country. These two documents indicate that there was another method of mummification beside the elaborate and costly one discussed above, one that combined the drying effects of the hot desert sand (the effects of which can be seen in the prehistoric/predynastic burials) with the anointing of the body with 57 58

Possibly to be identified with ancient Hutnesu (ḥ.t-nsw) attested from the documents from Sharuna (Clarysse 2007, 189). Clarysse 2007, 186.

512

chapter 18

kedria, perhaps as symbolic of the more elaborate ritual gestures, and with the use of pharmakon, presumably similar to the embalming medicaments with which the corpse would be transfigured into a spirit.59 The advantage with this method of mummification was both logistic, in that there would be less space and fewer ‘personnel’ involved, and economic, since the former would result in a lower cost of mummification by dispensing with virtually all of the ritual gestures and recitations. The body would still spend 70 days in the ‘embalming place,’ but at a much reduced rate.60 Yet it was possible to be mummified in just nine days. Would this be performed in the embalming place and perhaps consist of an expedient anal evisceration and the briefest of body preparation? Would this then be more expensive than the in-terra mummification given that it involved the use of an embalming place, perhaps a ‘public one,’ and the hiring of more (specialised) ‘personnel’? If this was the case, it would seem to corroborate Herodotus account (II.86–88) on the existence of three mummification methods, albeit perhaps with some variation on the actual methods used by the Egyptians, from which the family could choose. Here comes to mind the expression in P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) in which the testator stipulates that her son is to provide for her mummification and her entire burial ‘in accordance with the custom for people (of her status)’ (r-ẖ pꜣ smt n rmṯ) (line 10), that is, a choachyte. An idea of what this meant in terms of financial outlay is gathered from P. Florence 3667 (111BC) that, according to my estimates, would be at least as high as that for a house, but very likely higher. In fact, although we are as yet lacking data for the time span between 200 and 170 BC, the data from earlier and later periods confirm that this was the price range of an elaborate mummification and burial for the entire period under analysis.61 This also suggests that there was no substantial price increase during the three centuries of Ptolemaic rule (or if there was, it was in line with that for other commodities). To this may also be linked the fact that, although a wide social spectrum is represented in

59

60

61

Indeed new analyses of bandages from Badarian and predynastic burials indicate the presence of vegetable oils or animal fats, some conifer resin, some extract from an aromatic plant, a small amount of wax and a vegetable gum/sugar, thus indicating that even some of the bodies of this early time were ‘treated’ through the application of ‘resin’-impregnated linen, rather than being simply desiccated through the natural action of the hot, dry sand (Jones et al. 2014). It is to be wondered whether this was the embalmment that the father of the deceased and the embalmer agreed upon with P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC), which stipulated that the embalming materials to be provided were, perhaps significantly, the ‘pure natron, the embalmment wrappings and every matter which concerns the embalmment and burial.’ The embalmer agreed to return the treated body to the choachyte within 72 days. Perhaps also because the data comes from this category of mortuary priests?

discussion and conclusion

513

the data, most of the individuals attested belonged to a restricted sector of society, specifically the middle levels and, in part, the upper levels, which suggests that the practice of employing a funerary priest may not have been widespread. Alternatively, it may be simply the result of accidents of preservation that has left us with only a small fraction of all the documents recording the activities of the mortuary priests studied here,62 which thus distorts the picture, or that, in general, individuals from an upper level, the native elite, would employ the services of priests of the same or even higher standing, hence the limited evidence from the upper social levels. Indeed, it is possible that even at this late stage of Egyptian history these individuals would be able to contract the services of the local temple’s priesthood for the performance of their mortuary cult, as was the case with the provincial governor Djefahapy from Asyut, who set up an endowment to provide funds for the cult of the god Wepwawet in return for maintaining his mortuary cult.63 As always, written sources are mostly representative of the upper levels of society, those who could engage the services of a mortuary priest to (help) organise the entire embalmment and burial, and could afford the elaborate accoutrements with which a mummy was furnished to ensure its rebirth into the afterlife. The role explicated by the mortuary priests, particularly those with choachytal functions, was in reality that of the eldest son, who was expected to provide for his parents’ burial and would in return receive a higher share in their inheritance. The rest of Egyptian society would need to perform these tasks personally.64 The oath recorded in O. Uppsala 611 (117–116 BC),65 concerning property stolen from inside a tomb, provides evidence for this, since Petosiris son of Hewen is to swear that in the tomb where Pete[…] robbed, there was property with which he made offerings(?) (tẖb) for his father (lines 2–5). Similarly, a more direct role of the family is implied by P. Turin Suppl. 6071 (103 BC), a receipt for payment of lease and burial expenses, in which the son of the dead man promises to bury his father without requesting further payment from his sister, who had already contributed her ⅓ share of the burial expenses.

62 63

64 65

See for example P. Louvre 3263 N. (215 BC), published by Muhs (2010 and 2010/11) and belonging to a choachyte as yet unattested from other sources. Taylor 2001, 176; see also Introduction I. However, this does not explain the lack of documentation since contracts were stipulated between Djefahapy and the high priest of the god Wepwawet. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the Deir el-Medina workmen prepared their own dead for burial without resorting to professionals (Cooney 2007, 261–262 note 6). Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 316.

514 3

chapter 18

Necropolises, Tombs and Burials

Today it is difficult for us to visualise what these funerary landscapes looked like in the past given how much they have been irremediably altered by human activities, from the quarrying of monuments to use in new constructions, to the removal of later structures to reach the older, underlying remains. These sites are now dominated by tourists, souvenir stalls, buses, asphalt roads, parking lots, and a general cacophony of voices and noises. In the past these would have been mystical places imbued with religious, mortuary and even political significance.66 Networks of pathways scored on the ground by the constant passage of priests, families and pilgrims going about their lives, gave access to a myriad of funerary and religious monuments of varying age and dimension. Festival processions, and the sum of the ritual and ceremonial activity performed there since time immemorial, all contributed to the creation of funerary landscapes. Landscapes that were continuously used and reused. Both new and old tombs were used during the Ptolemaic Period, with the latter practice being generally identified in academic literature as tomb reuse and explained in terms of lack of economic resources to build a new one. Yet, a number of those instances termed tomb reuse may be, in reality, cases of continued use. It is often too easy for us to forget that what we mark as the end of one period and the beginning of the next would not have been perceived in the same compartmentalised terms by the population of the time. Many people would have lived between two distinct dominations and for them life would have continued, insofar as possible, in the same way as before. The end of political periods would not have meant that tombs used in the 30th dynasty would be closed and new ones sought. Rather, members of the same family would continue to place their dead in the very same tombs as they had before. This is not to deny that older tombs were used in the Ptolemaic Period by individuals unrelated to the original owner of the structure. Indeed, textual sources show that there were regulations in place concerning the use of tombs in the necropolis, both for the newly built ones and for those of preceding periods. In fact, the tombs themselves probably did not belong to private individuals, in the sense that ownership ultimately rested with the temple in which domain the necropolis lay. Their ‘leasehold’ could be bought and sold, and if the family line ended and the tomb remained unused, their leasehold could be acquired by other people from the relevant authority. Temple buildings were likewise the property of the temple institution, consequently they could probably have

66

Montserrat and Meskell 1997, 194.

discussion and conclusion

515

been given for use as burial places to those who could afford to pay for such a privilege—hence perhaps the location of the burials of the priests of Montu at Deir el-Bahari. Technically this leasehold could be acquired only if no one was still buried in them, according to what the Hermopolis legal code established. In practice the existing burials could be moved to a different part of the tomb, and the latter used by another family. A tax was to be paid for the acquisition of an existing tomb, or for the right to build a new one. The tax levied was the same whether one purchased the leasehold for an existing tomb, or for a plot of land on which to build one. This was for the sum of 2½ kite irrespective of the size of tomb or of burial plot. Another tax was to be paid on individual burials in the amount of ½ kite each in the early Ptolemaic Period, rising to 7 obols (= ½ 1/12 kite) per interment, during the reign of Ptolemy III. What is not made explicitly clear in these sources is whether the latter was paid only for burials in the ground (perhaps using simple protective emplacements), or if the same would have to be corresponded for burials inside tombs too, although the discovery of tax receipts (for example O. TT373) inside tombs certainly indicates the latter was the case. There were three main types of tombs, with numerous possible variations, people could choose from: a rock-cut tomb, a brick or stone-built structure, and a pit in the ground. Trying to match this typology with the terminology used in the textual sources is not an easy task. Clearly, as in modern languages, a word might be used, correctly or incorrectly, interchangeably with another to denote a tomb, any tomb, that is, a place where the dead were laid to rest. However, this is not because the latter were used inconsistently, or because they did not refer to a specific structure as has been stated, but because they denoted particular variations of the three main tomb types that are not always evident to us. In the main I would suggest that a s.t-tomb was a brick-built tomb, as clearly indicated by P. Philadelphia V, VI and XXX (302–301BC), that, at least in some cases, included a shaft (šḳ), a term that could be used to identify both the entry passage and the area where the dead were buried. A s.t-tomb could also develop solely aboveground, examples of which were excavated on the Asasif by Winlock and Lansing. This term is attested only at Thebes, while at Memphis the same type of structure may have retained the original (Old Kingdom) nomenclature of ḥ.t-tomb, denoting a free-standing stone- (or even brick) built structure. By contrast at Thebes, Hawara and Sharuna the noun is used to denote a rock-cut tomb. This could be one of the large mausolea of earlier times, or a new room hewn out of the rock inside the tomb itself. The noun shaft (šḳ) could also be used to denote the latter, although differences not immediately clear to us, may have existed between them, and may have rested, for example, on the entrance passageway (whether vertical or via stairs/slope), and/or on the size

516

chapter 18

of the burial place. At Hawara it appears to denote the tombs built over, and in, the remains of the labyrinth, thus clearly an underground tomb hewn out of the fallen masonry and the underlying soil matrix. Its aboveground chapel was termed i҆p, and could be bigger than the tomb itself. It may be that the noun s.t also denoted a brick-built chapel or a chapel-tomb, and could be used pars pro toto to designate the entire burial structure. The specific burial chamber, or rather the specific place where the dead were placed, was identified as resting-place (ꜥ.wy-ḥtp). It is possible that this term also applied to burials placed directly in the ground, with some architectural element as protection, although it is equally possible that these would be identified as either s.t-tomb or ḥ.t-tomb depending on whether they were created using bricks or stone elements. The noun s.t could also be used to identify the tombs created with brick partitions inside existing rock-cut tombs. The latter type of tombs were known at Memphis by the name of ḳꜣ, and would include a range of internal facilities (shrine, storeroom, burial chamber) each known by a specific term. Thus a ḳnḥy (literally ‘dark place’) would be a chapel, a ry.t would be a storeroom for the storage, for example, of ritual items used for the transport and mummification of the dead, and for the performance of burial rites and mortuary cult by the mortuary priests. The individual spaces where the dead rested may have been known by the term of resting-place (ꜥ.wy-ḥtp) as was the case at Thebes. Textual evidence from Memphis, Hawara and Sharuna attests to another type of tomb which nomenclature was formed using the noun ꜥ.wy (with the meaning, among others, of ‘place’), either by itself or compounded with the nouns rmṯ and ḳs. These, I have suggested, referred to pits in the ground—using architectural elements in the case of ꜥ.wy-rmṯ ((burial)-place for people) and simple inhumations in the case of ꜥ.wy-ḳs (burial place). However, even the simple pits on the ground may be marked on the surface with a range of organic materials, such as palm branches and wreaths, and architectural fragments, such as limestone slabs and column disks, or even with bricks and broken vessels, as attested from a number of cemeteries in the Fayum. This is entirely in keeping with the indication given by the textual sources of a clear organisational structure in the way burial plots were acquired. Even the simple task of digging a hole in a cemetery area must have been somehow regulated, since the person would have to know where to excavate. The prevalence of specific orientation also argues for the presence of an overall body regulating this. Similarly, the fact that several bodies, presumably family members, are placed side by side also indicates some knowledge of the location of such burials. The preserved human remains from the Ptolemaic and Roman time show a great degree of variation in terms of evisceration and excerebration, with some bodies being only partially, or not at all, treated in such a way. In academic liter-

discussion and conclusion

517

ature, these are unfavourably compared with those of the heyday of Pharaonic culture, and taken as evidence for the carelessness of the Graeco-Roman Period embalmers. However, most of the extant Pharaonic and Late Period human remains are those of pharaohs, royal family members and officials, while, by contrast, a greater social spectrum is probably represented in the burial record of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. In fact, when the latter are compared with those of the Deir el-Medina workmen, who represent a privileged, but not elite portion of society, it is clear that the differences in body treatment and preservation are not as great as when compared to royal and elite mummies. An important factor that also needs to be taken into account is the fact that the variation in body treatment depended on the mummification method chosen by the families, which, in turn, could have an affect on the degree and state of preservation of the body in the archaeological record.67 The existence of different mummification ‘prices’ from which the family could choose was already mentioned in Herodotus’ account (Histories II.86–88), according to which there were three different methods of embalming, hence costs. The existence of diverse mummification methods, and thus of relative pricing, is also consistent with the lack of direct correlation attested in the archaeological record in terms of body treatment and burial typology. Indeed, the wrappings appear to have been the most important element in terms of burial outfit, since they were believed to represent a protective shell that ensured the safety of the corpse during the journey to the afterlife. Finally, a most important aspect that emerges quite clearly from the foregoing analysis is the resilience of the Egyptians’ beliefs in the afterlife, and the great degree of continuity in the funerary sphere in general. As Smith remarked with respect to the funerary literature of the Greek and Roman periods by comparison to that of earlier times,68 the documentary sources also show a great resilience of funerary and religious beliefs—particularly in relation to the different death stages and rites—in the same way as the funerary literature of this period does. True, changes did take place. Funerary beliefs, for example, could be expressed in new ways, while funerary workers adopted new professional titles. The relocation of some burial grounds linked, for example, with the increased importance of sacred animals cults may have meant that those of higher status chose to be buried in closer proximity to such temple complexes, or the extreme crowding that all necropolises must, at some point, reach, may 67

68

Another factor to take into account is the presence of foreign ethnics in the burial record, people for whom the mummification of the body held no importance in terms of attaining an afterlife. Smith 2009, 10.

518

chapter 18

have forced communities to seek new areas for burial, but the core belief system remained the same. Even when real changes are attested in this sphere, they are the result of developments internal to the native funerary industry, not the result of foreign, particularly Greek, influence. The traditional elite aspiration to have a large tomb that served both as a repository for the body and as a very obvious locus for public display, which characterised the first two millennia of dynastic history waned during the Third Intermediate Period.69 As Snape notes, ‘[t]his was not so much a question of the availability of resources with which to undertake tomb building—although this must have been a contributory factor in some instances—but was primarily due to a series of underlying reasons which were as much social, economic and political as they were religious.’70 One of the most important and determining factors in this changed view of the tomb was the vulnerability of monumental funerary structures, that, if on one hand made a clear and public statement about their owners, on the other represented a beacon for nefarious activities.71 In fact, already from the end of the Ramesside age, there is a shift of emphasis away from the tomb and inwardly towards the body and the burial equipment.72 Economic factors may well have played a part in this, but more determinant still would have been the political instability of this time and the need to ensure the security of the tomb.73 From the Third Intermediate Period onward coffins and cartonnage become the primary loci for the sacred iconography and the inscriptions deemed fundamental to the rebirth of the deceased in the afterlife. This is part of a religious development which saw the progressive reduction, and then disappearance, of burial goods and tomb decoration, and the synthesis of iconographical and textual elements onto coffins and cartonnage. The tomb became a mere repository for the coffin and the body inside, and the coffin itself a kind of ‘self-sufficient mobile tomb’ inscribed with the religious iconography necessary to ensure the safe rebirth of the dead in the afterlife.74

69 70 71 72 73

74

Snape 2011, 245. Snape 2011, 245–246. Snape 2011, 246–247. Snape 2011, 247–248. Snape 2011, 248. Already from the end of the Ramesside age the construction of royal tombs comes to an end. Instead temples became the location of choice for kings’ burials. This was in part due to the particular topography of the Nile Delta, where the royal residence had been moved, which did not allow for the construction of much monumental architecture. However, the location of burials inside temples meant also an increased security of the tomb itself, whilst also obviating the need for the construction of the socalled mortuary temples (Snape 249–250). Snape 2011, 248.

discussion and conclusion

519

Funerary papyri would serve the same function. Even less expensive copies,75 whose owners would have belonged to a ‘middle class’ or a ‘sub-elite’ level, rather than the highest ranks of society, would serve the same function in that they satisfied the ‘basic funerary needs’ of the deceased, simultaneously serving as a replacement for the religious iconography inscribed on funerary equipment, as a collections of ritual spells, and as a traditional Book of the Dead.76 Ultimately, the funerary practices of the Ptolemaic Period, including the phenomenon of tomb reuse, need to be understood within the context of the changes in burial practices that started during the Third Intermediate Period, and that are part of a natural development that took place over time within this sphere. In fact, the great degree of continuity between the funerary practices and beliefs of the Ptolemaic Period and the preceding times clearly shows that political events did not have an impact on how the funerary industry was organised. Rather than seeing the changes as the result of a cultural transformation brought about by the foreign dominations that characterised much of the last millennium BC, and which had an impact on the beliefs in the afterlife and the tomb as the vehicle for these views, I see it as evidence for the sophistication that the funerary industry of this time had reached. The possibility of choosing from different mummification methods, and thus their relative pricing, together with the resulting possibility for a wider spectrum of the population to afford the ‘mummification’ of their deceased; the presence of a great variety of burial typologies; the redaction of less expensive funerary papyri; the inscription and depiction of spells, vignettes, and even images of amulets on mummy bandages, all of which satisfied the basic ‘funerary need’ of the deceased, but at a reduced rate, are clear examples of how people tried to strike a balance between tradition and personalised solutions, by using multiple possible permutations aimed at providing the dead with as much protection as one’s economic means allowed. When a coffin could not be afforded, cartonnage cases, or even the separate elements, provided the loci for the necessary iconography. Failing this, less expensive funerary papyri and even decorated linen amulets would serve the same function. And if none of this could be afforded by the deceased and his family? Then the beneficent beings attested in the Book of Thoth would act as mortuary priests and arrange for the mummification and burial of individuals who did not have funerary books, thus ensuring everybody their safe transfiguration into a spirit and their translation into the afterlife. 75 76

Such as P. Berlin P. 3158, P. Berlin P. 3159, and P. Aberdeen ABDUA 84023 discussed by Backes 2010. Backes 2010, 2, 13–14.

appendix 1

Palaeographical and Orthographical Analysis of the Root ḳs1 Any study of the Ptolemaic funerary industry would not be complete without an analysis of the meaning of the root qs (ḳs) and its derivatives, given how central it is to many of the concepts examined in the foregoing chapters. Already from the Pharaonic Period the root ḳrst, from which the Demotic ḳs derives, possessed a range of meaning including the act of ‘burying’ or ‘laying somebody to rest,’ of ‘wrapping somebody up,’ the ‘condition of being buried,’ as well as the ‘burial or funeral,’ a ‘place of burial,’ the ‘tomb equipment’ and ‘coffin.’2 The root is still attested in Coptic where ⲕⲱⲱⲥ, ⲕⲁⲓⲥⲉ and their variants are used, either as a noun or as a verb, with the following meanings: ‘to prepare a corpse for burial, to bury, to be a corpse, to be dead, burial, funeral, preparation for burial, embalming, embalmer, place of burial and grave-clothes.’3 As in earlier and later stages of the language, in Demotic the derivatives of this root also have a range of different connotations depending on the context in which they are used. In the sources analysed both nouns and verbs constructed from the root ḳs are attested: 1. A state or condition: deceased 2. The mummification 3. The individuals who performed the mummification 4. Stages in the mummification process 5. The entire mummification and burial 6. A state or condition: mummified 7. The mummy covering (bandages and decoration) 8. The entombment and burial rites 9. A state or condition: buried 10. Ambiguous examples

1 The following is an updated version of the first study I undertook of the root ḳs, for which see Cannata 2007. I have revised some of my previous conclusions and have modified the following classification accordingly. 2 Wb V 63–66. 3 Crum 1939, 120–121.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_021

522 1

appendix 1

A State or Condition: Deceased

The verbal noun ḳs is used in a small number of texts to denote a deceased person. In P. Rylands XI (284BC), a marriage document in which a lector-priest pledges his share of the deceased persons belonging to him in the necropolis of Djeme, and a share of the deceased persons who belonged to his father. In this instance the noun ḳs cannot refer to the condition of being mummified, nor to the state of being buried, given that in both cases the involvement of the lector-priests would have already ended, and thus it has to refer to those deceased people who are going to be mummified and then buried (as opposed to being already interred) in the necropolis of Djeme, the right to perform whose mummification fell within his competence. In addition, there are a number of examples from Lower Egypt in which the meaning of the word ḳs is also that of deceased person, although here understood as the right to perform the mortuary cult for the deceased buried in a specific tomb.4 Three of these are found in documents originating from Memphis. In P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC) the funerary endowments ceded include a share of ‘the deceased persons which were given by Pawe son of [Pa]apis, the father of Petosiris son of Pawe’ (nꜣ ḳs.w r-ty pa-w sꜣ [pa]-ḥp pꜣ i҆t n pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r sꜣ pa-w) (line 3). Similarly in P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) recording a division of a number of endowments including ‘the deceased persons which Pawia son of Paapis acquired’ (nꜣ ḳs.w r-ty pa-wi҆ꜣ sꜣ pa-ḥp ḫpr=w) (line 4). Party A further confirms that he will not be able to take any deceased person, any revenue, any endowment or anything else (r bn i҆w=y rḫ mḥṱ n ḳs šty sꜥnḫ nt nb n pꜣ tꜣ n rn=y) (line 6). Additional examples are found in P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) which mentions: ‘that which is paid for a deceased person (ḳs) and a young deceased person (ḫm-ẖl) belonging to the revenue-villages aforesaid together with the (burial-)places of the people whose names are written above’ (pꜣ nt mḥ […] ḳs ḳs.t ḫm-ẖl i҆w=s nꜣ tmy.w n šty nt ḥry ḥnꜥ ꜥ.wy.w n nꜣ rmṯ.w nt i҆w pꜣy=w rn sẖ ḥry) (line 11 C–D). One further example is found in a document originating from Hawara, P. Rendell (232BC), in which is recorded a donation of a number of properties and funerary endowments including a share of ‘the revenues (from) the ḥ.wt-tombs (and) the deceased persons of the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Pasis’ (nꜣ št.w (n) nꜣ ḥ.wt nꜣ ḳs.w n ḫtmw-nṯr wyt psy) (line 6)

4 I had originally included these instances among the ambiguous examples, since it would be possible to translate the noun as either embalmment (or the right to perform it) or deceased person, particularly in view of the fact that in the necropolises of Memphis and Hawara the same person appears to have worked as both embalmer and choachyte. However, the mortuary priests are acquiring the right to perform their services for deceased person, whatever those services may be.

palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs

2

523

The Mummification

There is only one document amongst those analysed where the feminine noun formed from the root ḳs clearly refers to the mummification performed on the body of the deceased. The example occurs in P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) where party A declares: ‘I entrusted (…) Pasis son of Pnepheros (…), my husband, to you, he being dead and mummified with the mummification which I caused the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Paesis son of Pasis to perform’ (i҆r=y gyl (…) p-si҆y sꜣ pꜣ-nfr-ḥr (…) pꜣy=y hy r-r=k i҆w=f mwṱ i҆w=f ḳs n tꜣ ḳs.t r-ty=y i҆r ⟨s⟩ n=f ḫtmw-nṯr wyt p-n-i҆s.t sꜣ p-si҆y) (lines 4–5). Given that the individual is clearly not interred yet, since his burial is to be performed by party B, the qualitative of the verb ḳs here has the meaning of mummified, thus showing that the following noun ḳs.t denotes the mummification performed on the corpse.

3

The Individuals Who Performed the Embalming

The noun ḳs is also used to denote the individuals who performed the embalming. The clearest examples of this are found in P. Florence 3667 (111BC), a list of embalming and burial expenses, in which are recorded ‘the reckoning of the corn for the hand˹s˺ of ˹the people˺ embalmers [10 (measures of) corn]’ (pꜣ i҆p sw pꜣ ꜥ.wy.˹w˺ [˹nꜣ rmṯ˺].w ḳs [sw 10]) (column II line 1), and ‘the expenses for the embalmers’ (pꜣ hy nꜣ ḳs.w) (column III line 10). Although the noun ḳs here could also be understood as referring to individuals in charge of the burial of the deceased, the fact that these accounts also list the expenses for the choachyte of the dead man indicates that the individuals identified by the title ḳs had to be in charge of the mummification process of the deceased rather than the burial. Three additional examples are found in the list of liturgies recorded in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) (column II) that include: ‘the embalmers of the district of Pathyris’ (nꜣ ḳs.w n pꜣ tš n pr-ḥ.t-ḥr) (line 17), ‘the father of Pouoris together with Psenthotes, the embalmers, their women (and) their children’ (pꜣ i҆ṱ pꜣ–whr ḥnꜥ pꜣ–šr-ḏḥwṱ pꜣ(sic) ḳs.w nꜣy=w sḥm.t nꜣy=w ẖrṱ.w) (line 19), and ‘Tasatmis the (female) embalmer’ (ta-ḏtm tꜣ ḳs.t) (line 20). Similar examples are found in P. BM EA 10390 (136BC) and P. Amherst 48+52 (113BC), where the word is used as a title to identify the parties in the heading of the contracts. From Middle Egypt, P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) provides and example for the use of the verb ḳs as part of a title which employs the construction rmṯ (person/man), a noun, followed by a circumstantial verbal form: rmṯ-i҆w=f-ḳs. The parties stipulate: ‘We will not be able to give a bed, a gnrṱ-cloth, a cushion, (or) a funerary bed to a man who embalms’ (n-mtw=n tm rḫ ty glg gnrṱ šty s.t-sḏr n rmṯ-i҆w=f-ḳs) (line 19). The title here

524

appendix 1

means either ‘a man who mummifies’ or ‘a man who buries,’ although, contextually, the former translation is the more accurate of the two, since the agreement is stipulated between lector-priests.

4

Stages in the Mummification Process

In a small number of documents, P. Berlin P. 3115 (108BC), P. BM EA 10561 (157BC), P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) and P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC), the noun ḳs, with its variants ḳs.t and ḳs.w, denote a stage within the mummification process.5 In particular, P. Cairo 30606 (157BC), P. Cairo 31179 (147BC) and in one of the texts in P. Berlin P. 3115 (108BC), the noun refers to phase 2 of the entire process of mummification and burial, one prior to that termed pr-nfr (wꜥb in the latter document). In P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) and P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC), the members stipulate: ‘we are to give for him (scil. a deceased member) our dues which those of the house will agree to give for his ḳs.t and his pr-nfr’ (mtw=n ty n=f pꜣ ḥḏ ꜥl [nt i҆.i҆r nꜣy=w pꜣ ꜥ.wy mt r=f ty st wbꜣ tꜣy=f ḳs.t ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f pr-nfr] [line 13]; [mtw]=n ty n=f pꜣ ḥḏ rmṯ ꜥl nt i҆.i҆r [tꜣ 6-nt m]t r=f ty st wbꜣ tꜣy=f ḳs.t [ḥnꜥ pꜣy=f ] pr-nfr [line 14]). In P. Berlin P. 3115 (108 BC), the members agree that ‘no man at all within the association will bring doctors (scil. embalmers) to the association of Amenope besides the choachyte who goes to (the) ḳs, (the) wꜥb (and the) 35 (days ceremony) to give cloth (and a) bed (for) his šty-ceremony’ (i҆w bn.w rmṯ pꜣ tꜣ ẖn tꜣ 6-nt i҆n swnw r tꜣ 6-nt I҆mn-i҆py mtw [scil. ˹m-sꜣ˺] bnr wꜣḥ-mw mtw=f šm r ḳs wꜥb 35 r ty ḥbs glg pꜣy= f šty) (Text C lines 10– 12). On the other hand, the same document also provides evidence for the use of the same noun to indicate a longer stage than in the previous two documents, one lasting up to the 35th day, and thus including also the pr-nfr (stage 2 and 3), since the members agree not to go to ‘the ḳs.w and (the) 35 (days) (of) the šty-ceremony’ (ḳs.w ḥnꜥ 35 tꜣ šty) (Text C line 2). Another example is found in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) in which the parties stipulate: ‘(as for) the [˹priest˺] of Wepwawet who will die and whom they will ḳs, together with his 35-(days ceremonies), [˹X will be given˺] to the lector-priest in whose charge he is’ (pꜣ [˹wꜥb˺] wp-wꜣwt nt i҆w=f mwt ḥnꜥ pꜣ nt i҆w=w ḳs=f s ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f 35 [˹i҆w=w ty X˺] r pꜣ ẖr-ḥb nt i҆w=f n-ḏr.ṱ=f ) (lines 21–22). Again the fact that ḳs precedes the reference to the 35-days ceremonies indicates that here the verb refers to specific stages within the entire mummification process, specifically phase 2 and 3.

5 See Table 4 infra. The understanding of the word ḳs as referring to a stage of the mummification process is based on the word order since the noun ḳs precedes the reference to the 35-days ceremonies and the compound noun pr-nfr, the last two being different stages within the entire process of mummification.

palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs

5

525

The Entire Mummification and Burial

The noun ḳs appears to have been used, in some cases, to refer to the mummification and burial processes together. This seems to be the case in P. Strasbourg 1 (324 BC), P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC), P. Turin Suppl. 6083 (105BC), P. Cairo 30960 (104BC), P. Cairo 30619 (137BC) and P. Prague (137BC). P. Strasbourg 1 (324 BC), for example, a donation deed of properties from a father to his eldest son, includes a clause in which is specified the amount to be contributed by each of the three sons at the death of their father for his burial expenses: ‘they (scil. the two younger sons) are to give to you the amount in silver which devolves upon them for my mummification and burial, (while) Paibis and Petechons, being two persons, my children, your younger brothers, are to give to you the ⅔ (for) the mummification and burial, ⟨you⟩ are to pay its ⅓’ (mtw=w ty n=k pꜣ wn n ḥḏ nt i҆w=f pḥ r-r=w r/n tꜣy=y ḳs.t mtw pꜣ-hb ḥnꜥ pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw r s 2 nꜣy=y ẖrṱ.w nꜣy=k sn.w ḫm.w ty n=k pꜣ ⅔ tꜣ ḳs.t mtw⟨=k⟩ ty pꜣy=s ⅓) (line 4). Similarly, in P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC), a will styled as a sale between a mother and her son, where party A stipulates: ‘you are to give 5 silver (deben) (…) for my mummification and burial from the day in which I die until the completion of three years’ (mtw=k ty ḥḏ 5 (…) r tꜣy=y ḳs ṯ pꜣ hrw n mwt nt i҆w=y i҆r=f šꜥ pꜣ mnḳ rnp.t 3.t) (line 5). In P. Turin Suppl. 6083 (105BC) a brother acknowledges his sister’s payment of her share of the expenses for the mummification and burial of their father, stating: ‘I have been paid for your ⅓ share in the mummification and burial of Psemminis son of Zmanres, your father, our father’ (tw=y mḥ n tꜣy=y (sic. =t) tny.t ⅓ n tꜣ ḳs n pꜣ-šr-mn sꜣ wsr-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ pꜣy=t i҆ṱ pꜣy=n i҆ṱ) (lines 2–5), specifying: ‘If I return to you for other property concerning the mummification and burial of your father I will pay 5 talents for the holocausts of the Pharaohs’ (i҆w=y sṯꜣ.ṱ r-r=t n gr nkt ẖr tꜣ ḳs n pꜣ-šr-mn sꜣ wsr-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ pꜣy=t i҆ṱ i҆w=y ty.t krkr 5 r nꜣ kll.w n nꜣ pr-ꜥꜣ.⟨w⟩) (lines 7–8). Further examples are found in P. Cairo 30960 (104BC) (line 7), a petition to a temple requesting financial assistance with the payment of burial expenses, and in the lists of regulations of religious associations from the Fayum recorded in P. Cairo 30619 (137BC) and P. Prague (137BC). In P. Cairo 30619 (137BC) the members agree: ‘(as for) the man among us who dies with ˹us˺ we will give [˹dues˺] for his mummification and burial’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆w=f mwt i҆rm=˹n˺ i҆w=n ty [˹ḥḏ ꜥl˺] wbꜣ tꜣy=f ḳs.t) (line 7), while in P. Prague (137BC) they stipulate: ‘we will give 5 deben each one of us for his mummification and burial, we will take 10 rations (for his) mourning’ (i҆w=n ty ḥḏ 5 r wꜥ rmṯ n-i҆m=n wbꜣ tꜣy=f ḳs.t i҆w=n ṯ ꜥḳ nhpy 10) (line 24). In these examples it seems possible that the noun ḳs refers not only to the entombment and burial rites but also to the mummification, since the cost of both was generally paid by the same persons, normally the heirs or, in the case of religious associations by the other members (in full or in part).

526 6

appendix 1

A State or Condition: Mummified

There are only two associated documents, P. Carlsberg 37a and b (220BC), from Hawara, which provide evidence for the use of the qualitative ḳs to denote the state of being mummified. In the first document party A agrees to appear before Tesenouphis the god, on account of the mummification of ‘Pasis son of Pnepheros, his mother being Tasos, who is dead, (and) whom you caused (the) god’s seal-bearer and embalmer Paesis son of Pasis aforesaid to mummify’ (p-si҆y sꜣ pꜣ-nfr-ḥr mw.t=f ta-swr nt mwṱ r-ty=t ḳs ⟨s⟩ ḫtmw-nṯr wyt p-n-i҆s.t sꜣ p-si҆y nt ḥry) (line 6). Party A undertakes to take him to the tomb ‘he being mummified, he having been placed in my care (lit. hand) mummified’ (i҆w=f ḳs i҆w=w ty s r ḏr.ṱ=y i҆w=f ḳs) (line 8). In the second document, P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC), the withdrawal of complaint, party A gives details of her accusations against party B saying ‘I entrusted (…) Pasis son of Pnepheros (…), my husband, to you, he being dead and mummified with the mummification which I caused the god’s sealer and embalmer Paesis son of Pasis to perform’ (i҆r=y gyl (…) p-si҆y sꜣ pꜣ-nfr-ḥr (…) pꜣy=y hy r-r=k i҆w=f mwṱ i҆w=f ḳs n tꜣ ḳs.t r-ty=y i҆r ⟨s⟩ n=f ḫtmw-nṯr wyt p-n-i҆s.t sꜣ p-si҆y) (lines 4–5). Party A then specifies: ‘I will bring him to you for (the burial in) the ḥ.t-tomb of (…) my father, which is in the necropolis of Hawara, he being mummified’ (i҆w=y i҆n.ṱ=f n=k r tꜣ ḥ.t n (…) pꜣy=y i҆ṱ nt n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḥ.t-wr i҆w=f ḳs) (lines 5–6). Given that both documents clearly state that the individual is dead and that he is yet to be taken to his final resting place in the necropolis, ḳs here cannot refer to the condition of being deceased, which would be superfluous to specify, nor to that of being buried, and, therefore, it has to denote the state of being mummified.

7

The Mummy Covering (Bandages and Decoration)

There are only two documents among those analysed in which the noun ḳs denotes the mummy-covering, that is, the ensemble of bandages and decoration applied to the treated corpse: P. Carlsberg 37a and b (220BC). In P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) party A declares ‘I entrusted (…) Pasis son of Pnepheros (…), my husband, to you, he being dead and mummified’ (i҆r=y gyl (…) p-si҆y sꜣ pꜣ-nfr-ḥr (…) pꜣy=y hy r-r=k i҆w=f mwṱ i҆w=f ḳs) (lines 4–5), further specifying ‘you were accused saying you have done wrong to his mummy-covering, I will cause that you make for me a deed-of-call before Tesenouphis, the god, saying “I did not do wrong to the said mummy-covering, (nor) did I cause wrong to be done to the said mummy-covering”’ (i҆w=w ꜥš m-sꜣ=k ḏ i҆r=k mt-ꜥḏ n tꜣy=f ḳs.t i҆w=y ty i҆r=k n=y wꜥ sẖ n ꜥš m-bꜣḥ tš-nfr pꜣ nṯr n tꜣ ḳs.t n rn=s ḏ bn-pw=y i҆r mt-ꜥḏ n tꜣ ḳs.t n rn=s bn-pw=y ty i҆r=w mt ꜥḏ n tꜣ ḳs.t n rn=s) (lines 6–7). In P. Carlsberg 37a (220BC) the accused declares: ‘If it happens that I refuse to call about it in accordance with what is written above saying “I have not caused that wrong

palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs

527

be done to the said mummy-covering in my name, nor have I (myself) done any wrong to the said mummy-covering”, or if it happens that I call before Tesenouphis without him having come to me concerning the said mummy-covering (…) I will give to you 10 silver (deben)’ (i҆w=f ḫpr r sṯꜣ.ṱ=y r tm ꜥš r-r=s r ẖ pꜣ nt sẖ r ḥry ḏ bn-pw=y ty i҆r=w mt-ꜥḏ n tꜣ ḳs.t n rn=y bn-pw=y i҆r mt-ꜥḏ n tꜣ ḳs.t n rn=s gr gr i҆w=f ḫpr r ꜥš=y ḥꜣ.t tš-nfr r bn-pw=f i҆y n=y ẖr tꜣ ḳs.t n rn=s (…) i҆w=y r ty n=t ḥḏ 10) (lines 11–13). In P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) the ḳs.t is identified as belonging to the deceased, tꜣy=f ḳs.t, as opposed to being the deceased, i҆w=f ḳs, thus indicating that in these two instances the noun denotes the ensemble of bandages and decoration that were applied during the mummification process. In addition, the use of the past relative construction, tꜣ ḳs.t r-ty=y i҆r ⟨s⟩ n=f ḫtmw-nṯr wyt p-n-i҆s.t (line 5), in P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC), shows that the mummification process had already been completed at the time the deceased was entrusted to the defendant, and that any damage suffered could only have been caused after the mummification process and only to the mummy-covering.

8

The Entombment and Burial Rites

The noun ḳs is also used to refer to the entombment, that is, the act of laying deceased to rest in a tomb, examples of which are found in a range of documents. In P. Philadelphia V (302BC), a donation deed for two tombs in the necropolis of Djeme, party A declares: ‘I have given to you this s.t-tomb which is in the necropolis of Djeme (…) in order to place in it your persons awaiting burial’ (tw=y n=k tꜣy s.t nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ (…) r ḫꜣꜥ nꜣy=k rmṯ.w ḥr pꜣ ḥrr n ḳs n-i҆m=s) (line 7). Given that a corpse would not be deposited in a tomb without having first been treated (even if limited to a simple washing, anointing and wrapping), in this instance the noun denotes the entombment rather than the mummification. In P. Strasbourg 1 (324BC) the testator stipulates: ‘you are to pay its ⅓ on the day (of) burial which you shall appoint’ (mtw ⟨=k⟩ ty pꜣy=s ⅓ n pꜣ sw ḳs.t nt i҆w=k r-i҆r=f ) (line 4). The fact that the eldest son will be able to appoint a day for it indicates that here the noun ḳs.t denotes the entombment of the deceased which, unlike the mummification, could take place even years after death. In addition, there is a group of documents in which the noun ḳs is used in conjunction with the compound noun ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ, which it either follows or precedes. The expression was used to refer to the entire embalmment and burial. Examples are found in P. Louvre E 2439 (330BC), P. Philadelphia II (314BC), P. Louvre E 2429bis (292BC), P. Rylands XI (284BC), P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC), P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC), and in P. Berlin P. 3099–3100–5508 (124 BC). The clause in which the expression is used normally includes the statement ‘[You are the one] who has a responsibility over my burial and my mummification’ ([mtw=t] nt i҆r syh̭ n pꜣy=y ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ ḥnꜥ tꜣy=y ḳs.t) (line 4) [P. Louvre E 2429bis (292BC)].

528

appendix 1

Another example is found in P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) where the parties stipulate that ‘(as for) the man among us who is approached, concerning a dead man from Siut, together with his associates from today onwards, forever, he will give (…) 10 cloths (for) the 35th day (ceremony), (and) 10 cloths (for) the day of ḳs’ (pꜣ rmṯ n-i҆m=n nt i҆w=w i҆y n=f r-ḏbꜣ rmṯ i҆w=f mwt n sywṱ i҆rm nꜣy=f sn.w ṯ pꜣ hrw r ḥry šꜥ ḏt i҆w=f ty (…) pꜣ hrw mḥ35 ḥbs 10 pꜣ hrw n ḳs ḥbs 10) (lines 12–16); and that ‘[˹No one at all shall˺] perform the ceremonies on the 35th day and on the day of ḳs beside these (men)’ ([˹bn i҆w rmṯ nb pꜣ tꜣ˺] i҆r ḥb n pꜣ hrw mḥ-35 pꜣ hrw n ḳs pꜣ bnr nꜣy) (lines 16–17). The specific reference to the day of ḳs, and the fact that a distinction is made between the latter and the 35th day, indicates that the former is to be understood as separate from the embalming process, of which the 35th-day ceremonies were part, and thus as a reference to the day of entombment and related burial rites. Another example for this usage is found in P. Lille 29 (223BC), a list of the regulations of a priests’ association in the Fayum, where the members stipulate: ‘We will cause the representative to give […] 100 rations for the mourning, 50 rations (for) the price of h[is ˹pr-nfr˺], 25 ⟨rations⟩ (for) his 35-(days ceremonies), (and) 25 rations (for) his burial ceremony’ (i҆w=n ty ṯ n=f pꜣ rt […] ꜥḳ nhpy 100 pꜣ swn pꜣ[ y=f ˹pr-nfr˺] ꜥḳ 50 nꜣy=f 35 ⟨ꜥḳ⟩ 25 pꜣy=f ḥb ḳs ꜥḳ 25) (line 18). The noun ḳs is also used compounded with the noun ꜥ.wy to denote, literally, a place for burial (ꜥ.wy-ḳs). Such a usage is attested only in documents from the Memphite necropolis, specifically in P. Louvre E 2412-P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305–304BC), P. Leiden I 379 (256BC), P. Brussels E 6033 (276–275BC), P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC), P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC), P. BM EA 10398 (119BC), P. Leiden I 380a (64BC) and P. BM EA 10384 (132BC). For example, in P. Louvre E 2412—P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305–304BC), a contract of sale of funerary endowments, the list of properties alienated includes a ‘share of every ḥ.ttomb, every ꜥ.wy-ḳs-tomb (and) ⟨every⟩ kꜣ-structure (…) belonging to Imouthes son of Pchoilis (…) (and) which are on the necropolis of Memphis’ (tni҆.t nb ḥ.t nb [ꜥ.w]y-ḳs nb kꜣ.w ⟨nb⟩ (…) nt n i҆y-m-ḥtp sꜣ pꜣ-gyr (…) nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t mn-nfr) (lines 2–3). In P. BM EA 10384 (132BC), a lease of funerary endowments, there are examples for the use of the word ḳs.t, both with and without the preceding noun ꜥ.wy, to denote a burial place. Among the endowments leased there are listed: a share of the ‘ḳs.t-tomb of the Greeks in the courtyard of the Great Ones on the new land of the Greeks’ (ḳs.t nꜣ wyn[n].w pꜣ i҆nḥ nꜣ wr.w tꜣ mꜣy nꜣ wynn.w) (lines 8–9); a share of ‘the ḳs.t-tomb of the Sechmes(?)’ (tꜣ ḳs.[t] n pꜣ sẖms) (line 9); and a share of the ‘upper ḳs.t-tomb and the lower ḳs.t-tomb’ (tꜣ ḳs.t ḥry.t tꜣ ḳs.t ẖrꜣ.t) (line 9). In particular, the latter example indicates that ḳs.t refers here to a funerary structure, rather than to an entombment or even a deceased person, and that the noun ꜥ.wy was simply omitted by the scribe. The noun ḳs is also used in a number of burial-tax receipts from Edfu which record payment of the tax due for each interment and give permission to proceed with the

palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs

529

burial.6 The documents are O. IFAO 882 (144BC), O. IFAO 883 (144BC), O. IFAO 884 (c. 144BC), and O. IFAO 81 (Ptolemaic), which use the formula i҆-i҆ry ḳs PN (sꜣ/ta PN) tw=n (var. tw=y) mḥ pꜣ r-10 n tꜣy=f ḳs, as in O. IFAO 883 (144 BC) which reads: ‘Perform (the) entombment of Pashermeneru son of Tjaiharpchypsis, we are paid the 1/10 for his burial’ (i҆-i҆ry ḳs pꜣ-šr-mnrw sꜣ ṯ-ḥr-pꜣ-ḫpš tw=n mḥ pꜣ r-10 n tꜣy=f ḳs) (lines 2–3). Similarly in the burial-tax receipts O. IFAO 205 (120BC) and O. IFAO 130 (117BC), also from Edfu, which use the formula: my i҆r=w ḳs PN (sꜣ/ta PN) (tw=y mḥ pꜣ r-10 n tꜣy=f ḳs) as in the case of O. IFAO 205 (120 BC) which reads: ‘Let them perform (the) entombment (of) Patous the younger, I am paid the 1/10 for his burial’ (my i҆r=w ḳs pa-tꜣ.wy pꜣ ḫm tw=y mḥ.ṱ=k pꜣ r-10 n tꜣy=f ḳs) (lines 2–4). Similar burial-tax receipts are VOK 1 (152 or 141BC) and VOK 2 (151 or 140BC), as well as O. BM EA 25886 and O. Wångstedt 69 dating from the late Ptolemaic Period. Given that these funerary taxes were paid at the time of the interment, the noun ḳs here has to refer to the entombment. Another example for the use of the verb ḳs to refer to the act of burying the deceased is found in P. Turin Suppl. 6071 (103BC), a receipt for payment of lease and burial expenses, in which party A declares: ‘Psemminis, son of Zmanres, my father, your father, whom I have yet to bury. I will bury him without being able to have a claim on you concerning your ⅓ share’ (pꜣ-šr-mn sꜣ wsr-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ pꜣy=y i҆ṱ pꜣy=t i҆ṱ nt i҆w bw-i҆r-rꜥ-tw=y ḳs=f i҆w=y ḳs=f i҆w bn-i҆w=y rḫ ḫpr m-sꜣ=t n nkt ẖr tꜣy=t tny.t ⅓) (lines 7–8). In this instance the verb ḳs refers to the burying of the deceased in his final resting place, rather than to his mummification, given that Psemminis was already dead in 105BC and that the body would have had to be mummified at the time of death.

9

A State or Condition: Buried

The qualitative ḳs is also used to refer to the state of being buried, as is the case in P. Philadelphia XXIV (227BC), P. Louvre E 3440A–B—P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC), P. Naples 8414 (126 BC), P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC), and possibly in P. Hamburg 13 (84BC) and P. Ashmolean D.3 (116–115BC) as well. A clear example for this use is found in P. Philadelphia XXIV (227BC), a contract for the hire of a choachyte’s services, in which Party A stipulates ‘you (scil. the choachyte) will not be able to take any man at all in it (scil. the tomb) (either) being interred (or) being on the head-rest besides the man whom I will lease to you’ (bn-i҆w=k ṯ rmṯ nb n pꜣ tꜣ n-i҆m=w i҆w=f ḳs i҆w=f ḥr tꜣ wrs m-sꜣ pꜣ rmṯ nt i҆w=y sḥn=f n=k) (line 4). In this case, both the fact that the text refers to the taking of a deceased person into the tomb, and 6 Originally I had included these ostraca among the ambiguous examples, but, on second analysis, it is quite clear that they refer to the entombment, on which burial taxes were paid, not on the performance of the burial rites before sealing the tomb.

530

appendix 1

the contrast between the two states, that of being ḳs and that of being on the head rest, indicates that the verb denotes here the condition of having received the final burial, as opposed to being placed inside a temporary tomb, rather than that of being deceased or mummified. A further example for this use of the verb is found in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) which lists, among others, the ‘ḥ.t-tomb of Sosichrates the husband of Lolous, together with those buried in it’ (tꜣ ḥ.t n swsygrts pꜣ hy n lwl ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḳs.w r-r=s) (lines 21–22). In P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC), a contract of sale for a number of houses, tombs and revenues, Party A transfers to party B ‘the šty.w-revenues from the s.t-tomb of the divine father Pinuris son of Teephthaphonichos and those who are buried in it, together with the šty.w-revenues from the s.t-tomb of Harwa and those who are buried in it’ (nꜣ šty.w tꜣ s.t n i҆t-nṯr pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr sꜣ ḏ-ptḥ-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=s ḥnꜥ nꜣ šty.w tꜣ s.t ḥlw i҆rm nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=s) (line 3). Following a list of tombs the texts add: ‘the šty.w-revenues and the i҆ḫy.wprofits of those who are buried in them and those who rest in them’ (nꜣ šty.w nꜣ i҆ḫy.w nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=w ḥnꜥ nꜣ nt ḥtp ẖn=w) (P. Louvre E 3440 B line 5; P. Louvre E 3440 A line 5; P. Berlin P. 3112 lines 10–11). Similarly in P. Naples 8414 (126 BC), a contract of sale of liturgies and emoluments, party A sells a share of the liturgies in the tombs he owns in the necropolis of Djeme together with his share of ‘those who are buried in them’ (nꜣ nt ḳs r-r=w) (line 3). In the preceding examples the use of the preposition r-r=s following the verb indicates a relationship between the deceased and the tomb that would not be logical if the word was to be translated as deceased or mummified person. An example for this use of the verb ḳs is also found in a text from Hawara, P. Hamburg 13 (84BC), a loan document with oath concerning some mummies, which reads: ‘(As for) those who are buried in the ḥ.t-tomb of Kephalon the son of Ptolemy (…)’ (nꜣ nt i҆w=w ḳs ⟨n⟩ tꜣ ḥ.t kpln pꜣ šr ptlwmys) (lines 10–11). Although the text uses a construction different from that employed in the previous examples, the same type of relationship between deceased and tomb is shown. In P. BM EA 10615 (175BC), a cession deed for a number of tombs and lands in the necropolis, party A transfers to party B ‘the half of the ḥ.t-tomb of Taishur and the people of your father who are buried and rest with her’ (tꜣ pš.t tꜣ ḥ.t tꜣ-i҆šwr i҆rm nꜣ rmṯ.w pꜣy=k i҆ṱ nt ḳs nt ḥtp i҆rm=s) (line 6). Although in this instance the verb ḳs could also be translated as either deceased or mummified persons, its parallels to the previous examples suggest that it also denotes the condition of being buried. Finally, another instance for this use of the verb is perhaps to be found in P. Ashmolean D. 3 (116–115BC), a cession of a funerary endowment, where party A states: ‘[I am far from you with respect to] your endowment (sꜥnḫ) of seal-bearer and embalmer that is in the necropolis ˹which is written˺ above, together with the people who are without ḳs.˹t˺ and the people who are ḳs’ ([tw=y wy r-r=k] pꜣy=k sꜥnḫ ḫtmw wyt nt ḥr tꜣ ḫꜣs.t ˹nt sẖ˺ ḥry ḥnꜥ nꜣ rmṯ.w nt wš ḳs.˹t˺ ḥnꜥ nꜣ rmṯ.w nt ḳs) (lines 8–11). Reymond under-

palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs

531

stood this as a reference to bodies with and without coffins. However, among the documents analysed, the root ḳs and its derivatives never refer to a coffin or even to the coffining, and on the basis of the evidence of P. Philadelphia V (302BC), it is possible to suggest that the passage refers to people awaiting final burial, described in the Theban necropolis as ‘people in waiting,’ and to those who have already been buried. In the first instance ḳs.t is a noun and refers to the entombment, while in the second instance ḳs is a verb and refers to the state of being buried inside a funerary structure.7

10

Ambiguous Examples

However, there are also a number of examples that are slightly too ambiguous to determine with certainty the meaning of the root ḳs and its derivatives. In the case of P. Brussels 8255d (306 BC), for instance, the writer of the letter states: ‘may one be informed that I have taken care of the ḳs.t’ (st i҆r-rḫ s ḏ ty=y ḥr r ḳs.t) (lines 7–8), where the noun could refer either to the mummification, the entombment or both, although the fact that this letter was found among the documents of a choachyte strongly indicates that it refers to the burial of a deceased person rather than to any of the other categories. In the list of liturgies recorded in P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC) one of the entries includes: ‘the s.t-tomb of Thotortaios the blessed one (ḥsy) together with his ḳs.w’ (tꜣ s.t n ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s pꜣ ḥsy ḥnꜥ nꜣy=f ḳs.w) (lines 7–8). In this case the word could be read as either deceased or buried persons. Similarly in P. Berlin P. 3139 (98BC), a contract of sale of liturgies and emoluments, where party A states: ‘you have caused my heart to agree to ˹the money˺ for my share of the (religious) services, the purificatory offerings, the revenues of the pure ones, the ˹gods,˺ the people (rmṯ.w) ˹[ḳs.wt] their women (and) their children˺’ (tw=k mtr ḥꜣ.ṱ=y n ˹pꜣ ḥḏ˺ n tꜣy=y tny.t pš n nꜣ šms.w nꜣ ꜥrš.w nꜣ šty.w n nꜣ wꜥb.w nꜣ ˹nṯr.w˺ nꜣ rmṯ.w ˹[ḳs.wt] nꜣy=w sḥm.wt nꜣy=w ẖrṱ.w˺) (line 4). Again, the word could be understood as either deceased or buried persons. In P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) (column III line 19) where ˹i҆rp˺ ḳs could be translated either as wine ( for) embalming or wine ( for the) embalmer. Another uncertain example is found in O. Cairo 12469–12476 (256–255BC), a burialtax receipt, where, following the acknowledgment of receipt of payment, the text reads: ‘the burial belongs to you’ (mtw=t tꜣ ḳs) (line 5), although it is unclear to me why such a statement should be included here. This tax was paid for each of the deceased brought into the necropolis probably at the time of the entombment and a receipt issued by the

7 Beside, according to the reading proposed by Reymond, one would have to understand that different fees were paid according to whether a body was in a coffin or not.

532

appendix 1

temple authorities. There are no other examples of this type of receipts giving authority over a burial since this was part of the agreements between the family and the choachyte. In two of the burial tax receipts [Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 114 (247 BC) and Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 120 (247BC)] the tax recipient, in both cases Harsiesis son of Esminis, acknowledges receipt of the dues further specifying that the deceased was brought to the necropolis ‘when s/he was buried’ (i҆w=s/f ḳs).8 In this case ḳs could also be translated as deceased, although it would seem an unnecessary detail to add in a burial tax receipt.9

The Palaeography and Orthography of ḳs Having established the range of meanings that the root ḳs and its derivatives can have, it is important to examine their palaeography, to determine what variant spellings existed; and its orthography, to establish the significance, if any, of the choice of determinatives used. The orthography of the root ḳs and its derivatives consists of the phonetic signs ḳ and s, plus a group resembling the verbal auxiliary i҆w=s, which writing could be reduced to two strokes, although there are very few examples in which the latter is to be understood as being either absent or written in a rather abbreviated form. The phonetic signs ḳ and s are mostly written separately, although there are a few cases where they are ligatured. Lastly follow one of the determinatives—cloth, evil, divine or flesh determinatives—or some combination of them. The palaeographical data presented in Table 1 show that a variety of different determinatives could be used in the writing of the root ḳs and its derivatives, with the evil determinative being the most common one in all parts of the country. In particular, these data show that there is a clear temporal change in the choice of determinatives employed at Thebes, with the use of the divine determinative becoming more widespread, and replacing the evil determinative which had been more common until then, although it did not entirely supplant it. However, the same temporal change is not immediately apparent in documents from the rest of the country. No obvious temporal change is apparent in the use of the cloth and the flesh determinatives, although the former is certainly much more frequently attested than the latter throughout the period under analysis. Most importantly, though, a comparative analysis of the range of meanings of ḳs and its orthography, particularly with respect to the determinatives used, indicates that there is no direct correlation between the two, which is consistent with my previous findings

8 Muhs 2011, 168–170. 9 A translation as mummified would also be possible, but equally, or even more, unnecessary.

palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs

533

on the basis of the Theban data alone. In the following table the various examples of the root ḳs and its derivatives have been grouped according to their suggested meaning in the sources analysed.

1. A state or condition: deceased P. Rylands XI (284BC) line 4a

P. Rylands XI (284BC) line 4b

P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC) line 3

P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) line 4

P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) line 6

P. Rendell (232BC) line 6

P. Rendell (232BC) line 8

P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) line 11 C–D […]

P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC) line 11 C–D […] 2. The mummification P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) line 5

3. The individuals who performed the embalming P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) line 19

P. BM EA 10390 (136BC) line 3

P. BM EA 10390 (136BC) line 4

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) column II line 17

534 P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) column II line 19

appendix 1 P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) column II line 20

P. Amherst 48+52 (113BC) line 2

P. Florence 3667 (111BC) column II line 1

P. Florence 3667 (111BC) column III line 10

4. Stages in the mummification process P. Cairo 30606 (157BC) line 14

P. Cairo 31179 (147BC) line 14

P. Berlin P. 3115 (108BC) Text C line 11

P. Berlin P. 3115 (108BC) Text C line 2

[…] P. BM 10561 (157BC) line 21

5. The entire mummification and burial P. Strasbourg 1 (324BC) line 4a

P. Strasbourg 1 (324BC) line 4b

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) line 5b

P. Cairo 30619 (137BC) line 7

P. Prague (137BC) line 24

P. Turin Suppl. 6083 P. Turin Suppl. 6083 (105BC) line 4 (105BC) line 7

P. Cairo 30960 (104BC) line 7

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) line 5a

palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs

535

6. A state or condition: mummified P. Carlsberg 37a (220BC) line 8a

P. Carlsberg 37a (220BC) line 8b

P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) line 5a

P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) line 6a

7. The mummy covering (bandages and decoration) P. Carlsberg 37a (220BC) line 11

P. Carlsberg 37a (220BC) line 12a

P. Carlsberg 37a (220BC) line 12b

P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) line 7a

P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) line 7b

P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) line 7c

P. Carlsberg 37b (220BC) line 6

8. The entombment and burial rites P. Strasbourg 1 (324BC) line 4c

P. Philadelphia V (302BC) line 7

P. Brussels E 6032P. BM EA fragments (301BC) line 3

P. Brussels E 6032P. BM EA fragments (301BC) line 3a

P. Louvre E 2439 (330BC)

P. Philadelphia IIa (314BC) line 6

P. Philadelphia IIb (314BC) line 6

P. Louvre E 2429bis (292BC)

P. Rylands XIa (284BC) line 7

P. Rylands XIb (284BC) line 4

P. Rylands XIc (284BC) line 4

P. Rylands XId (284BC) line 4

536

appendix 1

P. Rylands XIe (284BC) line 4

P. BM EA 10026b (265–264BC) line 7

P. BM EA 10026c P. BM EA 10026d (265–264BC) line 10 (265–264BC) line 9

P. BM EA 10026e (265–264BC) line 8

P. Marseilles 298 (235BC) line 12

P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) line 15

P. Berlin P. 3099 (124BC) line 17

P. Berlin P. 3099 (124BC) line 18

P. Berlin P. 3100 (124BC) line 15

P. Berlin P. 3100 (124BC) line 16

P. Berlin P. 5508 (124BC) line 16

P. Berlin P. 5508 (124BC) line 17

P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) line 15

P. BM EA 10561 (157BC) line 17

P. Lille 29 (223BC) line 18

P. Louvre E 2412P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305–304BC) line 2

P. Louvre E 2412P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305–304BC) line 3a

P. Louvre E 2412P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305–304BC) line 3b

P. Louvre E 2412P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305–304BC) line 4

P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) line 2

P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) line 3

P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) line 5

P. Leiden I 379 (256BC) line 8

P. Brussels E 6033 (276–275BC) line 3

P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC) […]

P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC) line 4

P. BM EA 10398 (119BC) line 3

P. Leiden I 380a (64BC) line 5

P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) line 6

P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) line 8

palaeographical and orthographical analysis of the root ḳs P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) line 9a

P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) line 9b

VOK 1 (152 or 141BC) VOK 2 (151 or line 1 140BC) line 2

P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) line 9c

537

P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) line 15 […]

O. IFAO 882 (144BC) O. IFAO 883 (144BC) line 3 line 3

O. IFAO 884 (c. 144BC) line 2

O. IFAO 205 (120BC) O. IFAO 130 (117BC) line 4 line 3

O. IFAO 81 (Ptolemaic) line 3

O. BM EA 25886 (Ptolemaic) line 2

P. Turin Suppl. 6071 (103BC) line 7

O. Wångstedt 69 (Ptolemaic) line 4

9. A state or condition: buried P. Philadelphia XXIV (227BC) line 4

P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) line 3a

P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) line 3b

P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) line 5c

P. Louvre E 3440 A (175BC) line 5e

P. Berlin 3112 (175BC) line 10

P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) line 6

P. Naples 8414 (126BC) line 3

P. Ashmolean D. 3 (116–115BC) line 8a

P. Ashmolean D. 3 (116–115BC) line 8b

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) column V line 22

P. Hamburg 13 (84BC) line 10

538

appendix 1

10. Ambiguous examples P. Brussels E 8255d (306BC) line 8

P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC) line 8

P. Berlin P. 3139 (98BC) line 4

P. Florence 3667 (111BC) column III line 19

[…]

O. Cairo 12469– 12476 (256–255BC) line 5

O. Cairo 12469– 12479 (248–247BC) line 3

Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 114 (247BC) line 3

Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 120 (247BC) line 3

appendix 2

P. Florence 3667 (111BC)

Translation Col. I 1. ˹south˺ the house which is in Thebes: 30 deben ([…]˹rs˺ pꜣ ꜥ.wy nt n nw.t · 30); 2. Thebes: 1 talent and 9 (deben) ([…] nw.t krkr 1 i҆rm (ḥḏ) 9); 3. [… the son of Pa]-tꜣ.wy and /the? […] 100 deben from (lit. under) the house in Djeme ([… pꜣ šr n pa]-tꜣ.wy i҆rm/pꜣ? […] ḥḏ 100 ẖr pꜣ ꜥ.wy ḏmꜣ); 4. […] house: 2 deben ([…] ꜥ.wy ḥḏ 2); 5. hin of mtḥ-unguent: 7 [deben] and 1/5 kite1 (from?) the son of Pa-ḏmꜣ ([…] hn mtḥ [·] 7 ḳ.t 1/5 pꜣ šr n pa-ḏmꜣ);

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. A

Individual costs

Totals

30 deben 1 talent 9 deben 100 deben

2 deben 7 deben 1/5 kite

= Contributions from colleagues towards cost 448 deben 1/5 kite quail: 7 deben and 1/5 kite ([…] pꜥr · 7 ḳ.t 1/5); 7 1/5 kite […] […] [20? hins of] mtḥ-unguent: 140 deben ([…] mtḥ · 140); 140 deben [… I҆w]=f-ꜥnḫ one i҆nw-cloth 290 deben ([… i҆w]=f-ꜥnḫ wꜥ i҆nw · 290); 290 deben [… another cloth] 60 (deben) ([… gnrṱ/šty ?] 60); 60 deben [… funerary]-bed 400 deben ([…˹s.t˺]-sḏr ḥḏ 400); 400 deben […] funerary-bed 80 deben ([…]˹s.t˺-sḏr · 80); 80 deben […] 10? deben ([…] · 10); 10 deben Sub Total 987 deben 1/5 = Additional contributions from colleagues towards cost? kite

B 15. […] 400 deben (vacat?) death of Ḥr ([…] · 400 (vacat?) mwt i҆.i҆r 400 deben Ḥr); = Additional contributions from colleagues towards cost? 16. […] 225 deben ([…] ḥḏ 225); 17. […] 100 silver (deben) on account of his purification ([…] ḥḏ 100 ẖr tꜣy=f wꜥb.t3);

225 deben2 100 deben

1 Given that the document dates from the second century BC, the fact that the account is clearly in copper money with large sums of debens and even talents, the reading ḳt 1/5 looks doubtful, though it is difficult to offer an alternative reading. I thank Prof. Willy Clarysse for his comments on this point. 2 Taking this sum as the total of what is then specified below. 3 On the facsimile of the text shown on page 210 (Pestman 1992) there appear to be signs, resem-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_022

540

appendix 2

(cont.) Translation 18. [… Nḫṱ-mnṱ] Ta-wꜣ Wsi҆r-wr and Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r ([… nḫṱ-mnṱ] ta-wꜣ wsi҆rwr ḥnꜥ pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r); 19. […] specification ([…] wp-st): 20. […] 40 (silver deben) for (the) price of honey (and?) his gtn-robe ([…] 40 n swn i҆by tꜣy=f gtn); 21. […] 30 silver (deben): price of the ring of Wsi҆r-wr ([…] · 30 swn tꜣ glṱ n wsi҆r-wr); 22. […] 23. […] ˹man˺ together with 3 (measures of) salt (for the?) last day ([…] ˹rmṯ˺ ḥnꜥ ḥmꜣ 3 sw ꜥrḳ); 24. [… Ta-wꜣ] 2 silver (deben) ([… ta-wꜣ] · 2); C Sub Total Col. II 1. The reckoning of wheat for the hand˹s˺ of ˹the people˺ who embalm ⟦10 measures of corn⟧ (pꜣ i҆p sw pꜣ ꜥ.wy˹.w˺ [˹nꜣ rmṯ˺].w ḳs ⟦sw 10⟧5); 2. Wsi҆r-wr one artaba of wheat which makes 70 silver (deben), (and) 1 hin (of wine?) (wsi҆r-wr rtb sw 1 nt i҆w i҆r ḥḏ 70 hn [1]); 3. Nḫṱ-mnṱ one artaba of wheat, 1 (measure of) wine (nḫṱ-mnṱ rtb sw (1) i҆rp 1); 4. Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r one artaba of wheat, 1 (measure of) wine (pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r rtb sw (1) i҆rp 1); 5. Ta-wꜣ one artaba of wheat, 1 (measure of) wine (ta-wꜣ rtb sw (1) i҆rp 1); Four artabas of wheat (4 × 70) = 6. (total): 4 hin of wine (hn i҆rp 4) 7. from Wsi҆r-wr Nḫṱ-mnṱ Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r (n-ḏr.t wsi҆r-wr nḫṱ-mnṱ pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r) 8. Nḫṱ-mnṱ Wsi҆r-wr Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r Ta-wꜣ (nḫṱ-mnṱ wsi҆r-wr pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r ta-wꜣ) 9. 4 hin of syf-resin: 30 silver (deben) for (each) hin of resin (hn syf 4 ḥḏ 30 [r] hn syf ); 10. ⟦…⟧

Individual costs

Totals

40 deben 30 deben

6 deben4 2 deben 178 deben + […] 225 deben

280 deben 30.8 deben6

120 deben

bling the writing n ḥꜣ.t, that are just barely visible on the photograph of the papyrus and may actually be part of the washed-out text. 4 Price from Column II line 12. 5 Pestman suggests that this amount may be part of the original text now washed out (Pestman 1992, 218 note 11). 6 Calculated on the basis of a 3-chous keramion of wine (of 9.72 litres) at an average 3000 dr. each hin = 0.5 = 154.3 dr. = 7.7 deben per hin. This figure is an approximate reconstruction for a wine price. However, since wine prices can vary from one bottle to another, the sum should be a simple deben sum, no fraction and no kite. I thank Prof. Clarysse for his comments on this point.

541

p. florence 3667 (111 bc) (cont.)

D 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Translation

Individual costs

Totals

Sub Total The expense which came out (pꜣ hy i҆.i҆r šm r bnr): salt: 2 deben (ḥmꜣ · 2); the gilding: 2 deben (tꜣ hḏ ˹nb˺ · 2); unguent: 1 deben (sgn · 1); price of fat: 135 deben (swn ꜥt ḥḏ 135); which makes a cost of 66 [each measure of fat?] (nt i҆w i҆r swn 66 […])7

430.8 deben

430.8 deben

2 deben 2 deben 1 deben 135 deben

E Sub Total 140 deben 17. the cost from Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r and Nḫṱ-mnṱ (pꜣ ꜣsy8 i҆.i҆r pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r ˹ḥnꜥ/i҆rm¬ nḫṱ-mnṱ) 18. (to) the son of Pa-tꜣ.wy: 1 talent and 75 (deben) ((n) pꜣ šr pa-tꜣ.wy krkr (1) (ḥḏ) 75); 19. 1 talent and 55 (deben) on account (krkr 1 i҆rm (ḥḏ) ˹55˺ ẖr […]) 1 talent 55 deben 20. 20 deben for the cost concerning the transport (ḥḏ 20 n ꜣsy ẖr pꜣ 20 deben fꜣy)9

140 deben

F

375 deben

Sub total 1 talent 75 deben two mina(s) of mrḥ-resin: which make 30 silver (deben) (mrḥ mnꜣ 30 deben 2 nt i҆w i҆r [ḥḏ] 30); 1 mina of flowers: which makes 25 silver (deben) (ḥrr mnꜣ 1 nt i҆w 25 deben i҆r [ḥḏ] 25); dates of […] 20: which make 8 silver (deben) and 1/5 kite (bnn n 8 deben 1/5 kite […] 20.t nt i҆w i҆r ḥḏ 8 ḳ.t 1/5); quail: 8 silver (deben) (pꜥr ḥḏ 8); 8 deben dove: 19 silver (deben) (grpꜥ ḥḏ 19); 19 deben […] 76 silver (deben) and 1/5 kite […] for him ([…] · 76 ḳt 1/5 […] 76 deben 1/5 kite wꜣḥ n=f );10

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

7 8

9 10

Taking this as the cost of a single measure of fat (66+66 = 132), though the resulting amount is not exactly the same. The meaning of the noun ꜣsy is ‘loss, damage, penalty, fine’ (CDD letter ꜣ, 80–82), none of which would make sense here. Pestman suggested understanding it as ‘costs,’ which is the translation I have adopted here. Taking these last two items as specification of what 1 talent 75 deben include. Taking 76 deben 1/5 kite as being a specification of what was listed before.

542

appendix 2

(cont.) Translation G

Individual costs Sub total 166 deben 2/5 kite

Col. III 1. [The expense] which came out for Ḥr in regnal year 6 fourth month of the ꜣḫ.t season day 19, the day in which he died ([pꜣ hy] i҆.i҆r šm ˹r˺ bnr wbꜣ ḥr (n) ḥꜣ.t-sp 6 i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw 19 pꜣ hrw mwt ˹i҆.i҆r˺=f […]) 2. The list of the properties (that came) out for his pr-nfr (in) his places of ˹embalming.˺ The first day: (pꜣ wn nꜣ nkt.w r bnr wbꜣ pꜣy=f pr-nfr nꜣy=f ꜥ.wy.w ˹ḳs.(t)˺ pꜣ hrw tp) 3. ˹½˺ hin of resin and one ḥbs-cloth for the lector priest; one mnḫcloth; another mnḫ-cloth […] ([hn] syf ˹½˺ ḥbs 1 pꜣ ẖr-ḥb wꜥ mnḫ ky mnḫ […]) 4. 5 ˹hin˺ of syf-resin (˹hn˺ syf 5) 5. […] day 16: three hin of wine, 1 […], 29 sbn-bandage(s) ([…] sw 16 hn i҆rp 3 1.t sbn 29) 6. cup […] 40, (and) one hin of syf-resin (rg […] 40 syf 1) 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

[…] Ibis chapel, one hin of syf-resin ([…]ꜥḫy.t syf 1) day 28: 2 hin (of resin?) (sw 28 hn 2) […] lector priest half hin of syf-resin (and) 1 ⟨cloth⟩, the children one hin more ([…] ẖr-ḥb gs hn syf ⟨ḥbs⟩ 1 nꜣ ẖrṱ.w ḥw hn 1)13 The expenses for the embalmers (pꜣ hy nꜣ ḳs.w) […]1/4 […]1/12 (for?) the hand of Pa-ḏmꜣ: which makes 80 deben ([…] pꜣ ꜥ.wy n pa-ḏmꜣ nt i҆w i҆r ḥḏ 80) the overseer of the necropolis: 15 deben ([pꜣ] mr-ẖꜣs.t ḥḏ 15) herbs: 8 deben and 2½ kite (sm · 8 ḳt 2½) […] 7 deben […] ([…] 7 ḥḏ […]) unguent: 10 deben (sgn · 10) ⟦…⟧ embalming ˹wine:˺ 10 deben (˹i҆rp˺ ḳs · 10) another ˹wine˺ […] day one, which makes 45 deben (ky ˹i҆rp˺ […] hrw 1 nt i҆w i҆r ḥḏ 45)

11 12 13

Totals 166 deben 2/5 kite

15 deben (resin) 290 deben11 150 deben 23.1 deben (wine)12 40 deben? 30 deben 30 deben 60 deben 45 deben + 290 deben

(30 deben)

80 deben 15 deben 8 deben 2½ kite 7 deben 10 deben 10 deben 45 deben

I have considered for the ḥbs-cloth the same price as that listed in col. 1 line 10, but from the totals is missing the cost of two mnḫ-cloths for which I have no price. To this total needs to be added the cost of 29 sbn-bandages, for which I have no price. Part of this entry appears to be a repetition of what was listed in line 3 and thus I have not considered it in the final total.

543

p. florence 3667 (111 bc) (cont.) Translation

Individual costs

21. another wine […] which ˹makes˺ 45 deben (ky i҆rp […] nt i҆w ˹i҆r˺ ḥḏ 45) 22. another ˹wine˺ (and) natron: 2 deben (ky ˹i҆rp˺ ḥsmn · 2) 23. Mw.t-mḥyt: 50 deben for the choachyte of Ḥr (mw.t-mḥyt · 50 pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw n ḥr) H

Totals

45 deben 2 deben 50 deben

Sub total 940.1 deben 2½ kite

940.1 deben 2½ kite

Total expenses (C+D+E+F+G+H) excluding possible colleagues’ contributions (A+B) 2276.9 deben 2.9 kite C D E F G H

225 deben + 430.8 deben + 140 deben + 375 deben + 166 deben 2/5 kite + 940.1 deben 2½ kite = 2276.9 deben 2.9 kite = c. 45543.8 drachmae : 480 = 94.8 silver drachmae = c. 4.75 silver deben

appendix 3

Tables table a.1

List of published burial-tax receipts

Regnal year

Date BC

Document

Taxpayer

Alexander IV 1. ˹7˺ i҆bt 4 pr.t sw 6

310

P. Brussels 8255c

Ḏ-ḥr son of I҆w=f-ꜥw

Ptolemy II 2. x i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 27 3. 7 i҆bt 2 šmw sw 28 4. 13 i҆bt 3 pr.t sw 14 5. 14 i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw 2 6. 15 i҆bt 4 pr.t (sw) 6 7. 15 i҆bt 2 šmw sw 20 8. 18 i҆bt 4 šmw (sw) 14

299–250 277–276 272 271 270 270 267

O. BM EA 5782 O. BM EA 5779 O. BM EA 5749 O. Brooklyn E 37.1862 O. Brooklyn E 37.1860 O. BM EA 5725 O. Brooklyn E 37.1859

Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-[…]-mn Pa-nyꜣ son of Pa-[…] I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pa-rt Ḥry=w son of Grwr Pa-nfr son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Ḏ-ḥr son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Pa-nfr son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

9.

˹18˺ i҆bt × pr.t sw 27

267

OIM 19348

Ḏ-ḥr

10. 19 i҆bt 3 pr.t (sw) 12

266

O. Brooklyn E 37.1865

11. 19 tp šmw sw 20

266

OIM 19312

12. 20 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 20 13. 21 tp šmw sw 5 14. 21 i҆bt 3 šmw (sw) 29

265 264 264

OIM 19319 O. BM EA 5781 O. Brooklyn E 37.1858

Pa-nfr son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp the choachyte I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pa-rt the choachyte I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pa-rt Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w son of Pa-nfr

15. 22 tp ꜣḫ.t sw ꜥrḳ (30)

264

TT 32

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 263 262 262 262

O. BM EA 5686 Wilkinson MS e61a Wilkinson MS e61b O. BM EA 5709 + 17 + 31 O. Berlin 19976 O. BM EA 5783 O. BM EA 5685 O. BM EA 5780 O. BM EA 5785 O. BM EA 5788 O. Brooklyn E 37.1856 OIM 19382

261

O. Smithsonian Institute

22 i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t sw 15 22 i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw 10 22 i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw ˹22˺ 22 tp pr.t sw 10 22 tp pr.t sw 28 22 i҆bt 3 pr.t sw 20 22 i҆bt 4 pr.t sw 12 22 i҆bt 4 pr.t sw 20 22 i҆bt 4 pr.t sw 20 23 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 23 23 i҆bt 3 šmw ꜥrḳy (30) 23 i҆bt 4 šmw sw 20

28. ˹24 i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t sw 18˺

Ḫnsw-mꜣꜥ son of Wpy-mn (and?) Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w son of Pa-nfr Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Ns-nꜣy=w-ḫmn-i҆w son of I҆mn-ḥtp Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w son of Pa-nfr Pa-i҆mn-˹i҆mnt˺ son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mnnsw-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w son of Pa-nfr

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004406803_023

545

tables

Tax recipient

Necropolis overseer

№ of dead

Amount

1

½ kite

1 1 1 1 2 1 1

½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite 1 kite ½ kite ½ kite

[1]

½ kite

1

½ kite

1

½ kite

2 1 1

1 kite ½ kite ½ kite

1

½ kite

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm

˹2˺ 2 (1) 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

˹1˺ kite 1 kite (½ kite) ½ kite ½ kite [½ kite] 1 kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm

1

½ kite

Twtw son of Ns-mn

Hry=w son of Pꜣ-ty-mn Hry=w son of Pꜣ-ty-mn Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Ḏ-ḥr son of Pa-ḫj Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ ˹Pa-ḥr˺ Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty-mn Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ

Pa-rt son of Ḥr-m-ḥb

at the command of I҆mn-rwš son of Twt at the command of I҆mn-rwš son of Twt

at the command of I҆mn-rwš son of Twt the representative of the steward at the command of I҆mn-rwš [son of Twt] at the command of I҆mn-rwš son of Twt the representative of the steward at the command of I҆mn-rwš son of Twt the overseer of the necropolis

at the command of I҆mn-rwš the overseer of the necropolis, the representative of the lesonis at the command of I҆mn-rwš the representative of Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ son of Ns-mn

546

appendix 3

Regnal year

Date BC

Document

Taxpayer

24 i҆bt 3 ˹ꜣḫ.t˺ sw 21 24 tp pr.t sw 16 24 tp pr.t sw 22 24 tp pr.t ꜥrḳy (30) 24 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw ˹13˺ 24 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 15 24 i҆bt 4 pr.t ꜥrḳy (30) 24 tp šmw ꜥrḳy (30) 25 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 18

261 261 261 261 261 261 261 261 260

O. BM EA 5703 + 5710 + 5716 O. BM EA 5775 O. BM EA 5776 O. Brooklyn E 37.1861 O. Wilkinson MS e61c O. BM EA 5784 O. BM EA 5766 O. Louvre 74 O. BM EA 5787

Pa-˹i҆tm˺ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w son of Pa-nfr Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pa-rt Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw

38. 25 i҆bt 3 pr.t sw 12

260

O. BM EA 5730

Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

260 260 260 260 260 259

O. Brooklyn E 37.1864 O. Brooklyn E 37.1882–37.1857 OIM 19296 O. BM EA 5718 O. BM EA 5772 O. Bod. Eg. Inscr. 371

Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w son of Pa-nfr Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w son of Pa-nfr I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pa-rt [˹H̱ r˺]-bs Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Ns-mn son of Ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrt

45. ˹26˺ i҆bt 2 ˹ pr.t ˺ sw 10 46. 26 i҆bt 2 pr.t (sw) 11 47. 26 tp pr.t sw ꜥrḳy (30)

259 259 259

O. BM EA 5684 O. Brooklyn E 37.1863 O. BM EA 5744

Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w son of Pa-nfr Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

48. ˹27˺ i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw 21 49. 28 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 22 50. 28 i҆bt 3 pr.t sw 12

258 257 257

O. BM EA 5687 O. Botti 2 O. BM EA 5734

Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Ns-mn son of Ṯꜣ Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

51. ˹28˺ tp 1 šmw sw ˹23˺ 52. 30 i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t sw 19

257 255

O. BM EA 5697 O. BM EA 5778

Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw

53. 30 tp pr.t sw 7 54. 30 tp šmw sw 9

255 255

O. Cairo 12469–12476 O. BM EA 5732

Tꜣ-gyr daughter of Pꜣ-s-n-mtk Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

55. 30 i҆bt 2 šmw sw 22

255

O. BM EA 5773

Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw

56. 30 i҆bt 2 šmw sw ˹25˺

255

O. BM EA 5742

˹H̱ r-bs˺

57. 30 i҆bt 3 šmw sw 18 58. 31 tp pr.t sw 21 59. 31 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 8

255 254 254

Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w son of Pa-nfr Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw

60. 31 i҆bt 4 šmw sw 9 61. 32 i҆bt × sw 17

254 254–253

O. Louvre 303 O. BM EA 5737 O. BM EA 5700–5704–5706– 5733–5746–5750–5758 O. Berlin 9474 O. BM EA 5755

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

25 tp šmw (sw) 1 25 tp šmw (sw) 10 25 tp šmw sw 10 25 tp šmw sw 20 26 i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t sw 25 26 i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t sw 26

˹Pꜣ˺-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

547

tables

Tax recipient

№ of dead

Amount

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite

1

½ kite

1 1 1 1 1 1

½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite

1 1 2

½ kite ½ kite 1 kite

˹Pꜣ˺-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of ˹Ḥr˺ Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py son of Nḫt-ḥr-m-ḥb the god’s father Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py son of Nḫt-ḥr-m-ḥb and Pa-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy son of Panꜣ-ḫt.w the lesonis of Amun Hry=w son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-˹nsw-tꜣ.wy˺ the god’s father Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py son of Nḫtḥr-m-ḥb Hry=w son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy the god’s father Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-˹i҆py˺ son of Nḫt-˹ḥr-m-ḥb˺ the god’s father Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py son of Nḫtḥr-m-ḥb the god’s father Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-˹i҆py son of Nḫt-ḥr-m-ḥb˺ [˹Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn˺]-i҆py [˹son of Nḫt-ḥr-m-ḥb˺] Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Ḳp=f-ḥꜣ-mnṱ Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Ḳp=f-ḥꜣ-mnṱ

2 1 1

1 kite ½ kite ½ kite

1 1

½ kite ½ kite

1 1

½ kite ½ kite

1

½ kite

1

½ kite

1 1 1

½ kite ½ kite ½ kite

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Ḳp=f-ḥ(ꜣ)-mnṱ Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Ḳp=f-ḥꜣ-mnt

1 1

½ kite ½ kite

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-wrm Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t

Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t Pꜣ-wr-5 son of Ḏḥwṱ-i҆ir҆ -tj-s ˹I҆mn-rwš˺ […] Twtw son of ˹Pꜣ-ty˺-mn Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t

I҆mn-rwš son of Twt Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty-mn

Necropolis overseer

at the command of I҆mn-rwš the overseer of the necropolis at the command of I҆mn-rwš the representative of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy the steward, the lesonis of Amun at the command of I҆mn-rwš at the command of I҆mn-rwš son of Twt at the command of I҆mn-rwš at the command of I҆mn-rwš the representative of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy the lesonis of Amun Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy the lesonis at the command of I҆mn-rwš at the command of I҆mn-rwš son of Twt the overseer of the necropolis

548

Regnal year

appendix 3

Date BC

Document

Taxpayer

62. 32 tp pr.t sw 5 63. 32 i҆bt 2 šmw sw 17

253 253

O. BM EA 5677 O. BM EA 5727

Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-˹nfr-ḥtp˺ Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

64. 32 i҆bt 3 šmw sw 1

253

O. Berlin 9699 (DO Mattha 89)

Ta-i҆s.t the (fem.) choachyte

65. 32 i҆bt 3 šmw sw 4 66. 33 tp ꜣḫ.t sw 22

253 253

O. Cairo 12470–12477 T. Wångstedt 49 recto

Pa-ḫy son of Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw-ḏḥwṱ Ḏ-ḥr son of ˹Pa-ḏmꜥ˺

67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

33 i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t ꜥrḳy (30) 33 tp […] sw 20+ 34 i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t ꜥrḳy (30) 35 i҆bt 3 pr.t sw 9 36 i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t sw ˹4˺

253 253–252 252 251 250

O. Cairo 12470–12478 O. BM EA 14083 + 17949 O. BM EA 5729 O. BM EA 5738 O. Birbeh 2

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-rṱ H̱ lbs son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Ns-mn son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp ˹Pa-tm˺ son of Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw

72. 73. 74. 75.

38 i҆bt 2 pr.t ꜥrḳy (30) 38 i҆bt 4 pr.t sw 14 38 tp šmw sw 20 Ptolemy II

247 247 247 285–246

O. Cairo 12469–12479 Ḏḥwṱ-stm son of Pa-mnṱ Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 114 Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 120 ˹Ta-byꜣ˺ the woman of ˹H̱ rbs˺ O. BM EA 5723 I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-rṱ

76. Ptolemy II 77. Ptolemy II or III

285–246 285–222

O. Cairo 12469–12480 I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-rṱ Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 112 Ns-mn son of Pa-ḥr

Ptolemy III 78. 2 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 9 79. 2 i҆bt 4 pr.t sw 12 80. 2 i҆bt 4 pr.t sw 16 81. 2 i҆bt 2 šmw sw 27 82. 3 i҆bt 3 ꜣḫ.t sw 17 83. 3 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 2 84. 5 i҆bt 2 pr.t sw 19 85. 5 i҆bt 3 pr.t sw 14 86. 5 tp šmw sw x 87. 6 i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw ˹2˺ 88. 8 i҆bt 4 pr.t sw ˹9˺ 89. 13 i҆bt 4 […] ˹ꜥrḳy˺ 90. 16 i҆bt 4 ˹pr.t˺ sw 2 91. 20 i҆bt 2 ꜣḫ.t sw 24 92. 22 i҆bt 2 ˹pr.t˺ sw x 93. x i҆bt 3 ˹pr.t˺ sw x 94. 2[˹3˺] tp ˹pr.t˺ sw 19 95. (24) i҆bt 4 šmw sw 21 24 i҆bt 4 šmw sw 21 96. x i҆bt 4 [ꜣḫ.t] sw 4 x i҆bt 4 ꜣḫ.t sw 4 97. x i҆bt 4 šmw (sw) 25

245 245 245 245 244 244 242 242 242 241 239 234 231 227 225 225? 225 224 224 – – –

O. Geneva Privée O. BM EA 5753 O. BM EA 5740 O. BM EA 5767 O. Cairo 12469–12481 O. BM EA 5756 O. Bod. Eg. Inscr. 920 O. Cairo 12536–12582 Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 111 O. BM EA 25285 OIM 19336 (unclear if burial tax) OIM 19349 O. BM EA 20244 O. Birbeh 4 Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 113 OIM 19298 OIM 19316 O. Birbeh 3 recto O. Birbeh 3 verso OIM 19333 recto OIM 19333 verso O. TT373 doc. 2367

Pꜣ-˹grꜣ˺ son of Pꜣ-mn-n=s Ta-bꜣ daughter of Pa-rṱ Ta-bꜣ daughter of Pa-rṱ Ta-bꜣ the wife of [H̱ rbs] Ḏḥwṱ-stm son of Pa-[mnṱ] Ta-bꜣ the wife of H̱ rbs Tꜣ-šr.t-mn wife of Pꜣ-i҆gš Krys son of Pꜣ-šr-mn Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr daughter of I҆mn-[…] Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of I҆mn-ḥtp Pꜣ-šr-˹ḫnsw˺ son of Pꜣ-šr-[…] […] ˹Pꜣ˺-ẖr-ḫnsw son of Pa-nyꜣ Ns-pꜣ-mty son of ˹Pa-ꜣny˺ Ḏḥwty-sḏm son of Pa-nfr ˹Ḏḥwty-sḏm son of Pa-nfr˺ Pꜣ-ꜥl the choachyte Ns-pꜣ-mty son of [˹Pa-nꜣ˺] [˹Ns-pꜣ-mty˺] son of Pa-nꜣ Pꜣ-ꜥly […] Pꜣ-ꜥꜥn son of I҆mn-ḥtp

549

tables

Tax recipient

№ of dead

Amount

1 1

½ kite ½ kite

1

½ kite

1 1

½ kite ½ kite

1 2 1 1 1

½ kite 1 kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite

1 1 1 1

½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite

1 1

½ kite ½ kite

Tny.t-ḫnsw son of Ḥr-m-ḥb Tny.t-ḫnsw son of Ḥr-m-ḥb Tny.t-ḫnsw son of Ḥr-m-ḥb Tny.t-ḫnsw ˹Hry.w˺ Tny.t-ḫnsw Pꜣ-hb ˹Tny.t˺-ḫnsw son of Ḥr-m-ḥb Ns-pꜣ-mtr […] ˹Pꜣ-hb˺

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [1] 1

½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite ½ kite [½ kite] ½ kite

[…]-i҆r-rḫ=s son of Ns-ḥr and Ḏ-ḥr Ns-pꜣ-˹mtr˺ Ns-pꜣ-mty son of Pꜣ-šr-tꜣ-i҆ḥ.t

1 1 2

½ kite 1 obol ½ kite 1 obol 1 kite

Mꜣy-rs son of Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r Mꜣy-rs son of Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r Mꜣy-rs [son of Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r] Mꜣy-rs son of Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r Mꜣy-rs son of Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

1? 1 1 1 1 1 2

[?] 7 obols ½ kite 1 obol ½ kite 1 obol ½ kite 1 obol ½ kite 1 obol 1 1/6 kite

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy ˹son of˺ Ḳp=f-ḥ(ꜣ)mnṱ Ḥr son of Ḥr-m-ḥb Ḏḥwṱ-[…] son of Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw the god’s father Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Ḳp=f-ḥꜣ-mnt the god’s father Hry=w son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Ḳp=f-ḥ(ꜣ)-mnṱ Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py son of […] Hry=w son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Ns-mn Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Ns-mn the god’s father I҆r.t-=w-rḏ son of Nḫt˹ḥr-m-ḥb˺ Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy [wrote PN] Hry[=w …]

Necropolis overseer

at the command of Hry=w son of Pꜣ-tyi҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy at the command of Ns-[…]

at the command of Hry=w son of Pꜣ-tyi҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy

at the command of I҆mn-rwš son of Twt

550 table a.2

N

appendix 3 Titles used in the heading of the choachytes’ legal deeds1

Name

Title

Document and date

I҆w=f-ꜥw son of Ḏ-ḥr

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes ⊗

P. Philadelphia X (282BC)

N

P. Philadelphia XVII (241BC)

E

I҆mn-i҆w son of I҆r.t-rḏ 2

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Louvre E 2425 (228–227BC)

N

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn

⊗

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC)

N

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes the choachyte

P. Louvre E 2425 (228–227BC)

S S

Wsi҆r-wr son of Ḏ-ḥr

S S N

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py son of Ns-mn

N N N N N E=N

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-mrr

W S S S S S

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes the choachyte door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. BM EA 10073 (217BC) P. Louvre E 2434 (276BC) P. Louvre E 2437 (275BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Rylands 11 (284BC) P. Rylands 12 (281–280BC) P. Rylands 13 (281–280BC)

choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC)

Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

the choachyte

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC)

Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of I҆r.t-rḏ3

the choachyte door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes ⊗ door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. BM EA 10523 (295–294BC) P. Moscow 115 (293BC)

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-mrl

P. Moscow 116 (293BC) P. BM EA 10524 (290–289BC) P. BM EA 10526 (288BC)

1 In the tables the following symbols have been used: N (North), S (South), E (East), and W (West) to indicate the position of the house in relation to the property transferred. The symbol ⊗ indicates that no title was used in the identification of the person. 2 For this name see Depauw 2000, 32 note 106. 3 For this name see Depauw 2000, 37 note 108.

551

tables Table A.2

Titles used in the heading of the choachytes’ legal deeds (cont.)

Name S S S S S S S

Title

Document and date

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes choachyte door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. BM EA 10527 (288BC) P. BM EA 10525 (284BC) P. Rylands 11 (284BC) P. Philadelphia X (282BC) P. Rylands 12 (281–280BC) P. Rylands 13 (281–280BC) P. Rylands 14 (281–280BC)

E

Pa-ḥyꜣ son of Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Marseilles 298/9 (235– 234BC)

W W W E E E E E

Ns-pꜣy=w-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣylwsy

⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ the choachyte the choachyte

P. BM EA 10721 (182BC) P. BM EA 10727 (182BC) P. BM EA 10679A (182BC) P. BM EA 10722 (181BC) P. BM EA 10723 (181BC) P. BM EA 10679B (181BC) P. CtYBR 3598 (181–180 BC) P. BM EA 10678 (170BC)

S

Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t

choachyte

P. BM EA 10828 (212BC)

S N S S N E E

Tꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp daughter of Ḏ-ḥr

woman woman woman woman woman (female) choachyte woman woman

P. Brussels 8252 (327–326BC) P. Strasbourg 1 (324 BC) P. Brussels 8253 (313BC) P. Brussels 8254 (311 BC) P. BM EA 10524 (290–289BC) P. Louvre E 2434 (276BC) P. Louvre E 2437 (275BC)

N

Ta-ꜥw

the (female) choachyte

P. Brussels 6032 + BM EA frag. (301BC)

W

Ta-hb

the (female) choachyte

P. Louvre E 2425 (228–227BC)

N

Ḏ-ḥr son of Pa-ḥr

choachyte

P. BM EA 10523 (295–294BC)

552

appendix 3

table a.3

Use of the title choachyte to identify properties’ neighbours

Name

Title

Document and date

the choachyte the choachyte the choachyte

P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Turin Suppl. 6074 (143 BC) P. Turin 2135 (118 BC)

Landed properties in the Theban area N Wsi҆r-wr the choachyte

P. Turin Suppl. 6087 (101 BC)

Tomb owners in the Theban necropolis N ˹Pꜣ˺-šr-mn the choachyte S Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of I҆mn-ḥtp the choachyte

O. Louvre 92 (241 BC) P. BM EA 10240 (228–227BC)

The southern quarter of Djeme E Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of I҆r.t-rḏ N Hry=w son of Wsr-ptḥ E PN son of PN

553

tables table a.4

Use of the title choachyte within the body of contracts in Demotic

Document and date

Title

Context

P. Louvre E 2410 (120 BC) P. Louvre E 2418 (120 BC) P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113 BC) P. Amherst 48 + 52 (113 BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC)

‘to the choachytes belongs the rest of the aforesaid house’ (wn mtw nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw.w pꜣ sp n pꜣ ꜥ.wy rn=f ) ‘Pꜣ-ḫṱ the choachyte’ ‘the children of Pꜣ-ḫṱ the choachyte’ choachyte

sale and cession deeds for one of the rooms and 1/35 of the Theban house neighbours of the property sold

P. Philadelphia XXX (302 BC)

choachyte

P. Florence 3667 (111 BC)

payment ‘for the choachytes of Ḥr’ (col. 3 line 23) ‘rations for Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t due from the choachytes’ (col. 4 line 2) ‘five silver (deben) (…) concerning my mummification and burial from the day in which I will die, until the completion of three years, while the choachyte Pa-nꜣ (…), your brother, is your auditor’ (mtw=k ty ḥḏ 5 (…) r tꜣy=y ḳs ṯ pꜣ hrw n mwt nt i҆w=y i҆r=f šꜥ pꜣ mnḳ rnp.t 3.t i҆w wꜣḥ-mw pa-nꜣ (…) pꜣy=k sn i҆w=f ˹mtw=k˺ i҆r.ṱ.w) (line 5) ‘work as (a) choachyte’ (wp.t wꜣḥmw)

P. Florence 3667 (111 BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267 BC)

P. Louvre E 2429bis (292 BC) P. Louvre E 2428 (277 BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267 BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264 BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC) P. Berlin P. 3106 (98 BC) P. Berlin P. 3139 (98 BC) P. Turin 2132 (98 BC) P. Philadelphia XXIV (227 BC)

P. Turin 2130 (99 BC) P. Berlin P. 3106 (98 BC) P. Turin 2132 (98 BC)

‘act as their choachyte’ (= of the families listed) (mtw=k i҆r pꜣy=w bꜣk wꜣḥ-mw) ‘its choachyte’ (i҆w=k mtw=s wꜣḥ-mw)

‘the revenues for (the work as) choachyte’ (nꜣ šty.w n wꜣḥ-mw)

deceased person in the care of the mortuary priests entry concerning the fee paid to a choachyte for his services (col. 2 line 12)

will styled as a sale—party A stipulates what her son, party B, is to give with regard to her mummification and burial

party A sells, or pledges as in the case of P. Louvre E 2429bis, to party B the right to work as a choachyte in the tombs and localities listed

party A sells to party B the right to act as a choachyte for the families listed in the contracts contract for the hire of a choachyte’s services lists the tomb’s northern and eastern neighbours specifying that party B is already working as choachyte there contracts specify that the buyer is entitled to revenues for his work as choachyte for the families listed

554 table a.5

appendix 3 Use of the title choachyte in other Demotic documents

Document and date

Title

Context

O. Brooklyn 37.1865 E (266 BC) OIM 19312 (266 BC) O. Berlin P. 9699 (254–253 BC) OIM 19316 (225? BC) T. BN 1892 (315–314 BC) P. E. Adler 31 (178–177? BC) P. Brussels 8255d (306 BC)

Tax payer Tax payer Tax payer Tax payer Tax payer Tax payer Person lodging a complaint

P. Amherst 60a (125 BC)

choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte ‘the choachyte’ (pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw) (l. 3) ‘the choachyte of the important persons’ (pꜣ wꜣḥ-mw n nꜣ rmṯ.w ꜥꜣy.w) (l. 4) ‘The matters agreed upon by the choachytes of the necropolis of Djeme to execute them in order to establish the association of I҆mni҆py’ (nꜣ mt.wt r-mtr nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw.(w) n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n ḏmꜣ r-r=w r-i҆r=w r smn tꜣ 6-nt n i҆mn-i҆py) (Text A line 1). ‘lector-priests and choachyte(s)’ (nꜣ ẖr-ḥb.w i҆rm nꜣ wꜣḥ-mw.(w)) choachyte

P. Amherst 62c (124 BC)

choachyte

P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC)

P. Amherst 62f+g (121 BC)

document’s opening paragraph

council before whom the hnagreement was made Title used to identify one of six persons comprising the council before whom the public agreement was made Title used to identify one of the witnesses before whom the public agreement was made

555

tables table a.6

Use of title choachyte in both headings and body of contracts in Greek

Document and date

Title

P. Turin Gr. 2148 (119 BC) (l. 8) P. Louvre Gr. 2338 (119 BC) (l. 6)

defendants first listed by name and then identified as ‘choachytes’

Context

title used in the opening paragraph of a group of Greek documents produced during a lawsuit between Hermias son of Ptolemaios, a troop commander from Ombos, and the choachytes concerning a dispute over the ownership of a house in Thebes P. Turin Gr. 2147 (117 BC) ‘(and) their brothers who perform another legal decision of the episthe services in the necropolis and tates following another petition are called choachytes’ by the previous man against the choachytes P. Bibl. Nat. 218 (146 BC) choachyte Title used in the Greek docket of this contract of sale of liturgies to identify Party B, Ḥr-sꜣ son of Ḥr P. Louvre Gr. 2330 (127–126 BC) ‘choachyte from the Memnoneia’ title used in a complaint of tomb robbery lodged with Diophantos to identify Wsi҆r-wr son of Ḥr the plaintiff P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113 BC) ‘Horos son of Horos, one of the title used to identify Party A P. Leiden Gr. 416 (113 BC) (partial choachytes from the Memnoneia’ copy)

556 table a.7

appendix 3 Late period choachytes’ documents in abnormal hieratic and early Demotic4

Pharaoh

Reign Document, date year and script

Document type

Party Name

Title

Pianki

21

P. Leiden F1942/5.15 (727 BC) (ah)

Sale of a slave

B

I҆t-˹šri҆˺ son of […]

choachyte

Shabaka

10

P. Louvre E 3228e Sale of a slave (705 BC) (ah)

B

Pꜣ-ty-bst.t son of Pꜣ-tyi҆mn-i҆p

choachyte

13

P. Louvre E 3228b Wheat loan (703 BC) (ah)

A/D

Pꜣ-ty-bst.t son of Pꜣ-tyi҆mn-i҆p

choachyte

5

P. Louvre E 3228f Receipt of payment B (676–675 BC) (ah) concerning shared funerary services

Pꜣ-ty-bst.t son of Pꜣ-tyi҆mn-i҆p

choachyte

6

P. Louvre E 3228c Withdrawal after (685 BC) (ah) judgment

Sister of party A Ḥtp=s daughter of ꜥnḫ-ḥr (choachyte of the woman Mry-s-i҆mn daughter of Ḏ-kꜣ-rꜥ) Pꜣ-ty-bst.t son of Pꜣ-tyi҆mn-i҆p

choachyte

Taharka

B

choachyte

13

P. Cairo 30907/9 (676 BC) (ah)

Marriage document A B

NN son of NN Ḳbḥ-i҆b-i҆s.t son of NN

choachyte choachyte

16

P. Louvre N 3168 (675 BC) (ah)

Sale of weaving materials

I҆t-šri son of Nebsta(?)

choachyte

P. Wien D12004 (660 BC) (ah)

Division of inheritance

Pꜣy=s-ty son of I҆w=f-tꜣy choachyte of the god’s father of Amun Ḏ-ḥri҆w=f-ꜥnḫ son of Ḥr Ta-ẖnm daughter of I҆w=f-tꜣy

choachyte

Psamtek I 4

A

A B

Pꜣ-ꜥnḫ-m-ty.t-i҆s.t son of I҆w=f-tꜣy, choachyte of the 4th prophet of Amun Ns-ptḥ

woman choachyte choachyte

4 The table includes only dated documents mentioning choachytes. The following symbols have been used: N (North), S (South), E (East), and W (West) to indicate the position of the neighbouring properties in relation to that transferred; A (Party A), B (Party B), D (debtor), a cypher by these abbreviations refers to the total number of people constituting one of the parties; d (Demotic), h (hieratic), ah (abnormal hieratic) and st (stela). The transliteration of the names is that given by the texts’ editor(s) (some may need to be revised).

557

tables Table A.7 Pharaoh

Late period choachytes’ documents (cont.)

Reign Document, date year and script

Document type

Party Name

Title

B

Ns-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ daughter of I҆w=f-tꜣy Ḫꜣꜥ.w-pꜣ-wꜥb daughter of I҆w=f-tꜣy

woman choachyte woman choachyte

B 8

St Louvre C 101 (656 BC) (h)

Sale of tomb (Mem- S phis)

I҆py

choachyte

17

P. Wien D12003 (647 BC) (ah)

Withdrawal after judgment

Pꜣy=s-ty son of I҆w=f-tꜣy choachyte of the god’s father of Amun Ḏ-ḥri҆w=f-ꜥnḫ son of Ḥr Ta-ẖnm daughter of I҆w=f-tꜣy

choachyte

A

A B

B B

choachyte

woman choachyte woman choachyte

29

P. Louvre E 2432 (636 BC) (ah)

Hire of choachyte’s B services

Ṯ-ḥr-pꜣ-tꜣ son of Pꜣ-šr-nptḥ

47

P. Turin 2121 (618 BC) (ah)

Foundation mortu- ~ ary cult

Pꜣy=f-ḥry-ḥsy son of I҆r.t- choachyte ḥr-r-r=w

P. Louvre E 7849 (590 BC) (h)

Marriage agreement

Ḫꜣꜥ=w-s-i҆s.t son of I҆s.ttnw-[…] Pꜣ-wr-[…] son of Nymnḫ-i҆mn

choachyte

Pꜣ-ty-tꜣ-i҆hy.t son of I҆-p(ꜣ)-ty-sw(?) and Pꜥy=s-ty-i҆r.t Tomb of Pꜣ-ty-nwb.t

choachyte

choachyte

Ḏ-ḫy son of Ty-s-mnṱ and Ḫꜣꜥ=w-s-i҆s.t

choachyte of the valley

Psamtek II 5

A B

Apries

Pꜣ-ꜥnḫ-m-ty.t-i҆s.t son of I҆w=f-tꜣy, choachyte of the 4th prophet of Amun Ns-ptḥ Ns-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ daughter of I҆w=f-tꜣy Ḫꜣꜥ.w-pꜣ-wꜥb daughter of I҆w=f-tꜣy

woman choachyte

4

20

St Florence Sale of tomb 1639 (585 BC) (hieroglyphic transcription of Demotic original) (Memphis)

A

P. BM EA 10113 (570 BC) (ah)

B

Loan of money

E

choachyte

choachyte

558 Table A.7

appendix 3 Late period choachytes’ documents (cont.)

Pharaoh

Reign Document, date year and script

Document type

Party Name

Title

Amasis

3

P. Louvre E 7861 (568 BC) (ah)

Oath on a deposit of objects

B

Ḏ-ḫy son of Ty-s-mnṱ and Ḫꜣꜥ=w-s-i҆s.t

choachyte

12

P. Louvre E 7855 (559 BC) (d)

Letter

B2

Ḏ-ḫy son of Ty-s-mnṱ

choachyte

12

P. Louvre E 7848 (559 BC) (ah)

Settlement of dispute about a tomb

A

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r son of I҆r.t.w- choachyte rṯ son of I҆r.t-ḥr-r=w and I҆r.t.w-r=w Pꜣ-ty-ḏḥwṱ son of I҆r.t-ḥr- choachyte r=w and Rwrw Ns-i҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty- choachyte i҆mn-i҆p and […]

A A B B B 15

P. BM EA 10432 (556 BC) (ah)

Land lease Party A: 1 general (mr-mšꜥ), 7 untitled persons, 7 choachytes

A A A A A A A

Ḏ-ḥr son of I҆mn-i҆.i҆r-ty-s choachyte Ḫꜣꜥ=w-s-n-ḏḥwṱ son of choachyte Ḏ-ḥr and Tꜣ-ḫrw Ḏ-ḫy son of Ty-s-mnṱ choachyte Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r son of I҆r.t.w-rṯ Ṯ=w-tꜣy=w-tny.t son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆p Rry son of Pꜣy=w-i҆wi҆w Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-n-ḥr son of Pꜣty-ḏḥwṱ I҆hw-ḏḥwṱ son of I҆r.t-ḥrr=w Ḏ-ḫy son of Ty-s-mnṱ Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆p son of I҆r.t.w-r=w

choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte

15

P. Louvre E 10935 (556 BC) (d)

Land endowment for mortuary cult

B

Ns-mn son of Ḫꜣw-s-wsr choachyte and Šp-bꜣst.t in the west of Thebes

16

P. Louvre E 7844 (555 BC) (d)

Land lease

B

Ns-i҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty- choachyte i҆mn-i҆p Ḏ-ḫy son of Ty-s-mnṱ choachyte

B 17

P. Louvre E 7845A Land lease (554 BC) (d)

B

Ṯ=w-tꜣy=w-tny.t son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆p and Ḥms

choachyte of the valley

19

P. Louvre E 7847 (552 BC) (ah)

Acknowledgment of payment

B

Ḏ-ḫy son of Ty-s-mnṱ

choachyte

22

P. Louvre E 7846 (549 BC) (ah)

Marriage-related A property settlement B

I҆r.t.w-rṯ son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆s.t choachyte Ḏ-ḥr son of I҆mn-i҆.i҆r-ty-s choachyte

559

tables Table A.7 Pharaoh

Late period choachytes’ documents (cont.)

Reign Document, date year and script

Document type

Party Name

24

Oath concerning a deposit of objects

A

28

P. Cairo 30657 (546 BC) (ah) P. Cairo 30665 (543 BC)

Divorce document (fragment)

B

Pꜣ-ty-ḏḥwṱ son of I҆r.t-ḥr- choachyte r-r=w Rry son of Ty-s-mnṱ choachyte

A B

Rry son of Ty-s-mnṱ Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp(?)

choachyte choachyte

29–33 P. Louvre E 7840 (538 BC) (d)

Accounts of choachytes’ association

choachyte

31

P. Louvre E 7842 (540 BC) (d)

Harvest-tax receipt B

I҆r.t.w-rṯ son of Ḏ-ḫy

32

P. Louvre E 7832 (539 BC) (d)

Self-sale as a son

I҆r.t.w-rṯ son of Ḏ-ḫy and choachyte I҆r.t.w-r=w(?) of the valley

34

P. Louvre E 7835 (537 BC) (d)

Harvest-tax receipt B

I҆r.t.w-rṯ

choachyte

35

P. Louvre E 7838 (536 BC) (d)

Harvest-tax receipt B

I҆r.t.w-rṯ son of Ḏ-ḫy

choachyte

35

P. Louvre E 7834 (536 BC) (d)

Harvest-tax receipt B3 (3 men)

I҆r.t.w-rṯ son of Ḏ-ḫy

choachyte

35

P. Louvre E 7836 (536 BC) (d)

Land lease/funerary B endowment

I҆r.t.w-rṯ son of Ḏ-ḫy

choachyte

35

P. Louvre E 7843 (536 BC) (d)

Agreement about two tombs

Ḫꜣꜥ=w-s-n-mw.t son of Ḏ-ḥr and Rwrw I҆r.t.w-rṯ son of Ḏ-ḫy and I҆r.t.w-r=w

choachyte of the valley choachyte of the valley

B

A B

37

P. Louvre E 7839 (534 BC) (d)

40+ X P. Wien ÄS 3853 (536–526 BC) (d)

Darius I

Title

5

P. BM EA 10120A (517BC) (d)

choachyte

Land lease

B

I҆r.t.w-rṯ son of Ḏ-ḫy

choachyte of the valley

Division of inheritance of the wꜣḥmw n tꜣ i҆n.t Hryrm

A

Rry son of Hryrm and Bn-i҆w=w-th.ṱ=s Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t son of Hryrm and Bn-i҆w=w-th.ṱ=s

choachyte of the valley choachyte of the valley

Marriage agreement

A

B

B

Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t son of Hryrm choachyte and Bn-i҆w=w-th.ṱ=s of the valley Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr daughter woman of the choachyte of the valley Ns-mn and Rwrw

560 Table A.7 Pharaoh

appendix 3 Late period choachytes’ documents (cont.)

Reign Document, date year and script

Document type

Party Name

5

P. BM EA 10120B (517 BC) (d)

Appointment of an A heir B

Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t son of Hryrm choachyte and Bn-i҆w=w-th.ṱ=s of the valley Rwrw daughter of the woman choachyte of the valley Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t, son of Hryrm, and Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr

5

P. Bibl. Nat. 216 (517 BC) (d)

Appointment of an A heir

Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr daughter of the choachyte of the valley Ns-mn and Rwrw Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-ḥtp son of I҆r.tḥr-r=w and Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr

B 5

P. Bibl. Nat. 217 (517 BC) (d)

Appointment of an A heir B

Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr daughter of the choachyte of the valley Ns-mn and Rwrw Rwrw daughter of the choachyte of the valley Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t and Tꜣ-sn.t-nḥr

Title

woman choachyte choachyte of the valley woman choachyte woman choachyte

6

P. Bibl. Nat. 223 (516 BC) (d)

Sale of a slave

B

Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr daughter of the choachyte of the valley Ns-mn and Rwrw

9

P. Berlin P. 3076 (513 BC) (d)

Marriage agreement

A

Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-rsn(?) son of Ns- choachyte i҆mn-ḥtp and Sṯꜣ.ṱ-i҆r.t-bn

10

P. Turin 2123 (512 BC) (d)

Donation of a building plot in the necropolis

A

Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t son of Hryrm and Bn-i҆w=w-th.ṱ=s Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr daughter of the choachyte of the valley Ns-mn and Rwrw Rwrw daughter of Nꜣmnḫ-i҆s.t Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-rsn son of Nsi҆mn-ḥtp

B

N W

woman

choachyte of the valley woman

woman choachyte choachyte

12

P. Louvre E 7128 (510 BC) (d)

Sale of a building B plot in the necropolis W

Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t son of Hryrm and Bn-i҆w=w-th.ṱ=s Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-rsn son of Nsi҆mn-ḥtp

choachyte of the valley choachyte of the valley

15

P. Turin 2124 (507 BC) (d)

Barter of a cow

Bw-rḫ=f son of Ns-mn

choachyte of the valley

B

561

tables Table A.7 Pharaoh

Late period choachytes’ documents (cont.)

Reign Document, date year and script

Document type

Party Name

16

Division of buildings between brother and sister

A

24

P. Turin 2125 (506 BC) (d)

P. Turin 2126 (498 BC) (d)

B

Appointment of A an heir (the son is mentioned in the B contract as co-heir)

B

B

Title

Ns-i҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty- choachyte mn and Tꜣy(s) of the valley Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr daughter of woman Ns-mn and Rwrw Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t son of Hryrm and Bn-i҆w=w-th.ṱ=s Rwrw daughter of the choachyte of the valley Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t, son of Hryrm, and Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr I҆r.t-w-r=w son of Pꜣ-šri҆s.t, son of Hryrm, and Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr

choachyte of the valley woman

choachyte of the valley

25

P. Louvre E 3231a (497 BC) (d)

Donation of a plot of land for mortuary cult

25

P. Louvre E 3231c (497 BC) (d)

Letter urging a man to let choachyte work in some fields

Pꜣ-šr-i҆s.t

choachyte

25

P. Louvre E 3231b (497 BC) (d)

Letter urging a man to let choachyte work in some fields

Pꜣ-šr-i҆s.t son of Hrr⟨m⟩

choachyte

28

P. Louvre AF9761 (494 BC) (d)

Discharge ofobliga- A tion

Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr daughter of Ns-mn and Rwrw

woman

30

P. Berlin P. 3078 (493–492 BC) (d)

Marriage document A

sḥm.t I҆s.t-ḫb daughter of Daughꜥnḫ-pꜣ-ẖrṱ and Tꜣ-ty-i҆mn- ter of the nb-wꜣs.t choachyte of the valley I҆r.t=w-r-r=w son of Pꜣ- choachyte šw-tꜣy=f-nḫṱ and […] of the valley

B 31

P. Louvre E 9294 (491 BC) (d) P. BM EA 10450 (491 BC) (d)

Division of funerary A revenues

Rwrw daughter of Pꜣ-šr- woman n-i҆s.t and Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr choachyte

Ta-i҆mn-ẖnm-wꜣs.t daughter of the porter H̱ ꜣꜥ=w-s-n-mn and Rwrw (daughter of the choachyte of the valley in the west of Thebes H̱ ꜣꜥ=w-s-n-mw.t)

woman

562 Table A.7 Pharaoh

appendix 3 Late period choachytes’ documents (cont.)

Reign Document, date year and script

Document type

Party Name

Title

B

choachyte of the valley in the west of Thebes

Pꜣ-ḥr-bs son of Ns-i҆mnḥtp and I҆r.t.w-r-r=w

31

P. Turin 2127 (491 BC) (d)

Division of A choachyte’s income B

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty-mn choachyte and Tꜣy(s) of the valley Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr daughter of woman Ns-mn and I҆r=w-r=w

34

P. Berlin P. 3077 (488 BC) (d)

Marriage document A

Wsi҆r-[…] son of Ns-i҆mn- choachyte ḥtp Rwrw(?) daughter of woman Ns-[…]

B 35

P. Berlin P. 3079 (487 BC) (d)

Marriage document A

B

Pꜣ-ty-[…] son of Ns-i҆mn- choachyte ḥtp and I҆r.t-ḥr-r=w of the valley in the west of Thebes Ta-hy(?) daughter of DaughWn-nfr and H̱ ꜣꜥ=w-s-n- ter of the i҆s.t choachyte of the valley in the west of Thebes

35

P. Berlin P. 3110 (487 BC) (d)

Agreement conA cerning repayment of cow slaughtered by mistake B

Ḏ-ḥr son of Rry and H̱ ꜣꜥ=w-s-n-i҆s.t

35

P. Turin 2128 (487 BC) (d)

Exchange of cows

I҆r.t.w-r=w son of Pꜣ-šri҆s.t and Tꜣ-sn.t-ḥr

B

herdsman of the district Pateshresy Ns-ḥr son of Pꜣ-ty-ḥr prophet of Ḥr-wn-n=f Ḏ-ḥr son of Ns-i҆mn-ḥtp, choachyte your choachyte (scil. party B’s) choachyte in the necropolis of Djeme

563

tables table a.8

A

Lector-priests’ titles in the heading of Demotic contracts5

Name

Title

Document and date

Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ son of Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s and Tꜣwꜥ.t-n-3.t

lector-priest of the Baboon

P. BM EA 10523 (295– 294BC) P. Moscow 115 (293BC) P. Moscow 116 (293BC) P. BM EA 10528 (291BC) P. BM EA 10524 (290– 289BC) P. BM EA 10526 (288BC) P. BM EA 10525 (284BC) P. Rylands 11 (284BC)

B B B B

lector-priest of the Baboon

A A A

lector-priest of the Baboon

A

Pꜣ-šr-pꜣ-mwt son of Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn and Ta-hb lector-priest of the place of truth in the necropolis of Djeme

P. BM EA 10395 (227BC)

A

Pꜣy-[b]ẖ son of Hkr and Ta-wꜣ-[…]

lector-priest in the necropolis of Hermonthis

P. BM EA 10410 (224BC)

B

Ns-pꜣ-mtr son of Wꜣḥ-i҆b-rꜥ and Ta-i҆y-mḥtp(?)

lector-priest in the necropolis of Hermonthis

P. BM EA 10380a (225– 224BC)

B

Ḥr son of Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-kꜣ.w and Tꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. BM EA 10526 (288BC)

B

Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pa-nꜣ and Ta-hb

lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme lector-priest of the Baboon Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py and Ta-hb lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. Brussels 6032 + BM EA fragments (301BC) P. BM EA 10528 (291BC) P. Rylands 14 (281– 280BC)

A

Ṯꜣw-ꜥḫy son of I҆mn-ḥtp and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. BM EA 10446 (230BC)

A

NN son of Hkr and Ta-wꜣ

P. BM EA 10410 (224BC)

B A

lector-priest in the necropolis of Hermonthis

5 In the table the following symbols have been used: A (Party A) and B (Party B).

564 table a.9

appendix 3 Lector-priests’ titles in the body of Demotic contracts6

Name

Title

Document and date

I҆mn-ḥtp (son of Ḥr and Tꜣ-šbwrꜣ)

⊗ ⊗ ⊗

P. Turin 2142 (after 129 BC) P. Turin 2141 (131BC) P. Turin 2134 (118 BC)

lector-priest of the Baboon

P. BM EA 10524 (290–289BC)

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr E W S

Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ son of Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s and Tꜣ-wꜥ.t-n-3.t Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ son of Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ son of Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s

S

Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-kꜣ.w son of Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t

lector-priest (previous owner) P. BM EA 10527 (288BC) lector-priest in the necropolis P. Philadelphia X (282BC) of Djeme

N

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw son of Mꜣy-ḥs

the lector-priest in the place of truth

P. BM EA 10407 (224BC)

S

Pa-mn-s son of Ns-mn

lector-priest of the west of Thebes

P. Brussels 8252 (327–326BC)

lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

S S

P. BM EA 10527 (288BC) P. Philadelphia X (282BC)

P. Brussels 8253 (313BC) P. Brussels 8254 (311BC)

A

Pꜣy-[b]ẖ son of Hkr and Ta-wꜣ[…]

lector-priest in the necropolis of Hermonthis

P. BM EA 10410 (224BC)

S S S S S S S

Hry=w son of Ḫnsw-mꜣꜥ-ḫrw

Hry=w

⊗ ⊗ ⊗ the lector-priest

P. BM EA 10721 (182BC) P. BM EA 10727 (182BC) P. BM EA 10679A (182BC) P. BM EA 10722 (181BC) P. BM EA 10723 (181BC) P. BM EA 10679B (181BC) P. CtYBR 3598 (181–180BC)

E E E E E

Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pa-nꜣ

lector-priest of the Baboon

P. BM EA 10523 (295–294BC) P. Moscow 115 (293BC) P. Moscow 116 (293BC) P. BM EA 10526 (288BC) P. BM EA 10525 (284BC)

lector-priest

6 In the table the following symbols have been used: A (Party A), B (Party B) and C (Party giving consent to contract); N (North), S (South), E (East), and W (West) to indicate the position of the house in relation to the property transferred. The symbol ⊗ indicates that no title was used in the identification of the person.

565

tables Table A.9

Lector-priests’ titles in the body of Demotic contracts (cont.)

Name

Title

Document and date

Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py

lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. Rylands 11 (284BC)

Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pa-nꜣ Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t son of Pa-nꜣ

the lector-priest the lector-priest

Ḏ-ḥr son of Wꜣḥ-i҆b-rꜥ

the lector-priest (tomb owner/ occupant)

No name given

his lector-priest

P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270BC)

No name given

lector-priest (2 entries for payment)

P. Florence 3667 (111BC)

No name given (members of council)

the lector-priests and the choachytes

P. Amherst 62 f + g (121BC)

B

No name given (members of council)

the lector-priests of Thebes

O. BM EA 25669 (2nd cent. BC)

B

No name given (members of council)

the collectivity of the lectorpriests of Thebes

O. BM EA 25775 (158–157BC)

B

No name given (members of council)

the lector-priests of Thebes

O. BM EA 26206 (153–142BC)

Listed as tomb owners/occupants

the lector-priests of Coptos

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC)

the lector-priests

O. BM EA 25477 (101BC)

E E E E E E

A–B

P. Rylands 12 (281–280BC) P. Rylands 13 (281–280 BC) P. Rylands 14 (281–280 BC) P. Philadelphia XII (277BC) P. Philadelphia V–VI (302–301BC)

566

appendix 3

table a.10 Additional lector-priests’ titles in the heading of Demotic contracts

A B B

Name

Title

Document and date

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr and Tꜣšbwrꜣ I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr and Tꜣšbwrꜣ

chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme (ẖr-ḥb tp n tꜣ ḫꜣs.t n Ḏmꜣ)7 chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Thebes, Djeme chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme ⊗ chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. Turin 2131 (145BC)

B A A A

P. Turin 2136 (126 BC) P. Turin 2146 (125BC) P. Turin 2135 (118BC) P. Turin 2138 (117BC) P. Turin 2139 (118BC) P. Turin 2133 (118BC)

A

Ḥr son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp andTꜣ-šr.t-hry=w

chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. Turin 2129 (171BC)

A

Lwlw called Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp and Mw.t-i҆.i҆rty-s

chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. Turin 2136 (126 BC)

lector-priest in the necropolis of Thebes, Djeme

P. Amherst 47+56 (114BC)

A

table a.11 Additional lector-priests’ titles in the body of Demotic contracts Name C

Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of Ḥr and Tꜣ-wrṱ-mn Lwlw (called Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp and Mw.t-i҆.i҆r-ty-s) (A) Ḥr son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp and Tꜣ-šr.t-hry=w

Title

Document and date

chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. Turin 2129 (171BC)

⊗

P. Turin 2141 (c. 131BC)

chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. Turin 2129 (171BC)

7 This is the literal translation of the title, but see Chapter 1 §6 for the suggestion that this was probably an equivalent of the title overseer of the necropolis.

567

tables table a.12 Embalmers in Demotic documents Name The father of Pꜣ-whr together with Pꜣ-šrḏḥwṱ (tomb owners/ occupants) B Pa-brwꜣ son of Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw together with Pꜣ-ty-bꜣst.t son of Pꜣ-šr-i҆npw and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr A Pꜣy-nꜣ-ḫt.ṱ son of Pꜣy-bẖ and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ

Title

Document and date

the embalmers

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

embalmer and servant of Montu lord of Heliopolis-in-south-Egypt embalmer and servant of Montu lord of Heliopolis-in-south-Egypt B Ḳlwḏ son of Si҆y-pꜣ-mw.t and Ta-nwꜣ embalmer and servant of Montu lord of Heliopolis-in-south-Egypt Ta-ḏtm (tomb owner/occupant) the (female) embalmer No name given (tomb owners/occupants) the embalmers of the district of Pathyris No name given (two entries for payment) The account of the embalmers The reckoning of the corn for the hand˹s˺ of ˹the people˺ who embalm

P. Amherst 48+52 (113BC) P. BM EA 10390 (136BC) P. BM EA 10390 (136BC) P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC) P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) P. Florence 3667 (111BC)

table a.13 Doctors in Demotic documents Name

Title

Document and date

Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn (tomb owner/occupant) Pa-mnṱ (deceased) The sister of Pa-mnṱ (deceased) Hgr (2 entries for same individual or 2 different people?) Ḫnsw-ḏḥwṱ (and) his brother Ḏ-ḥr (tomb owners/occupants) Ḫnsw-ḏḥwṱ (tomb owners/occupants)

the doctor the doctor the sister of Pa-mnṱ the doctor the doctor

P. Berlin P. 5507+3098 (136BC) O. BM EA 5780 (264–263BC) O. BM EA 5785 (264–263BC) P. BM EA 10556 (Ptolemaic)

the doctor the doctor the doctor the ḥ.t-tomb of the doctors of the people of Hermonthis the (female) ˹doctor˺ the (female) doctor doctor

P. Amherst 50 (150BC)

Ta-wꜣ (tomb owner/occupant) Ta-ḫnsw No name given

P. Amherst 46+55 (150BC) P. Amherst 53+54 (150BC) P. Amherst 2, no. 52 (Greek) P. BM EA 10074 (230BC) P. BM EA 10556 (Ptolemaic) P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106BC)

568

appendix 3

table a.14 Embalmers’ titles in Greek contracts from the Theban area Party

Name

Demotic title

Title

Document and date

Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn (tomb owner)

the doctor

τ]αριχεύτες

P. Berlin P. 5507+ 3098 (136BC)

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr

chief lector-priest

παρασχίστης

A

chief lector-priest

B

chief lector-priest

παρασχίστης τῶν ἀπὸ Διὸς πόλεως τῆς Μεγάλης παρασχίστης

P. Turin Gr. 2155 (119BC) P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–117BC) P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116BC)

chief lector-priest

παρασχίστης

A

B

Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-tynfr-ḥtp

B

chief lector-priest

A

chief lector-priest

No name given

A

P. Turin Gr. 2155 (119BC) of the same (profession) (τῶν P. Turin Gr. 2160 αὺ̣τῶν) (scil. παρασχίστης) (119–117BC) παρασχίστης τῶν ἀπὸ Διὸς P. Turin Gr. 2154 πόλεως τῆς Μεγάλης (116BC) ταριχευταί

P. Turin Gr. 2147 (117BC)

No name given

the embalmers

Σκυτέων

P. Berlin P. 3116 + UPZ 180a (114BC)

No name given

the lector-priests

⟦Σκυτέων⟧ ταριχευτῶν

P. Berlin P. 3116 + UPZ 180a (114BC)

Πιμώνθης (Pꜣy-mnṱ) Σεμμοῦθις (Tꜣ-šr.t-mw.t) Σναχομνεῦς (Ns-nꜣ.wḫmn.i҆w) Ταθαύτ (Ta-ḏḥwṱ) (The children of Πετεψάις)

No title given

οἱ ἐκ τῶν Μεμνονέων σκυτεῖς

P. Leiden Gr. 414 (UPZ 181) (105BC)

569

tables

table a.15 Titles borne by contracting parties and by endowments’ original owners at Memphis8 Party A

Party B

Endowments owner Document and date

daughter of a choachyte

daughter of a choachyte

[choachyte]

[choachyte]

prophet of Amun, protector of the mummy bandage9 choachyte

choachyte woman choachyte

god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer

woman god’s seal-bearer woman woman

god’s seal-bearer

woman

choachyte woman choachyte woman choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte woman choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte woman choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte woman choachyte woman choachyte ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte woman choachyte choachyte god’s seal-bearer ⊗

P. Louvre E 2412+P. Bibl. Nat. 226 (305–304BC) P. Brussels E 6033 (276–275BC)

P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC) P. Leiden I 379 (256BC)

P. Leiden 381 (226BC) P. Leiden I 373b–c (204–203BC) P. Louvre E 2408 (197BC) P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC)

P. Sallier 3 (186–185 BC)

8 In the table the following symbols have been adopted: ⊗ (no endowments mentioned), ? (the document is unpublished and no information is available on the mention of endowments), [title] (the title borne by the individual is not preserved on the contract, but is known from other sources), • choachyte/woman choachyte/god’s seal-bearer (title borne by the original owner of an endowment. Each entry corresponds to a different endowment, only one entry is included for the same individual even if s/he is listed several times in the contract. No entry is included for owners of endowments not identified by titles). 9 For this reading see Andrews 2004, 29 note 10. The reason for a person with this title owning choachytes’ liturgies is not immediately apparent. It might be surmised that the person used his highest titles in the present document and that he was also a choachyte, or that he married a woman choachyte, the mother of party B perhaps, and that this was the way in which he acquired a right to these liturgies.

570

appendix 3

Table A.15 Titles borne by contracting parties and by endowments’ original owners (cont.) Party A

Party B

Endowments owner Document and date

god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer

god’s seal-bearer woman woman

god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer

god’s seal-bearer woman

god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer

woman woman god’s seal-bearer

god’s seal-bearers god’s seal-bearer [god’s seal-bearer?] woman

god’s seal-bearers woman [god’s seal-bearer?] woman

woman

god’s seal-bearer

[god’s seal-bearer?] god’s seal-bearer [god’s seal-bearer?] god’s seal-bearer

[god’s seal-bearer?] woman [god’s seal-bearer?] god’s seal-bearer

god’s seal-bearer ⊗ same as in P. BM EA 10398 (119 BC) god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer choachyte choachyte ⊗ god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer? ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer daughter of god’s seal-bearer god’s seal-bearer? ⊗ god’s seal-bearer? god’s seal-bearer

P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC) P. Leiden I 378 (160BC) P. Wien ÄS 3874 (149–148BC) P. Hermitage 1122 (135BC) P. BM EA 10384 (132BC)

P. Leiden 373a (129 BC) P. BM EA 10398 (119BC) P. Pavia 1120 (118 BC) P. Louvre E 3265+2419 (102BC) P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78BC) P. BM EA 10229 (78BC) P. Florence 8698 (77–76BC) P. Wien ÄS 9479 (75BC)

P. Louvre E 3268 (73BC) P. Louvre E 3264ter (73BC) P. Bibl. Nat. 224–225 (68 BC) P. Louvre E 3264+2411 (65 BC) P. Leiden I 380a–b (65BC)

571

tables table a.16 Theban women in legal documents Name

Title

Party

Document and date

Mw.t-i҆ir҆ -ty-s daughter of Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ Nḫṱ=s daughter of Ḥsꜣ and Ta-ywꜣ Ns-ḫnsw daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-bꜣ Ns-ḫnsw daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-bꜣ (Sṯꜣ.ṱ-i҆r.t-bn) Ns-ḫnsw daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Sṯꜣ.ṱ-i҆r.t-bn Ns-ḫnsw daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-bꜣ Šꜥ-ḫpry daughter of I҆mn-ḥtp and Tꜣ-ḥꜣḏ

woman woman woman woman woman woman woman

A A B B A A B

Šꜥ-ḫpry daughter of Wsi҆r-wr and Nꜣ-nḫṱ=s

woman B

P. Amherst 61 (114BC) P. Amherst 62e (124BC) P. Louvre E 2429 bis (292BC) P. Louvre E 2428 (277BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Berlin P. 5507+3098 (136BC) + P. Leiden Gr. 413 (136BC) P. Louvre E 2410+2418 (120BC) P. Leiden 377 (102BC) P. Turin Gr. 2157 (after 112BC) P. Amherst 60a (125BC) P. Berlin P. 3107 (99BC) P. BM EA 10226 (185BC) P. Kölner 7676 (114BC) P. Amherst 60a (125BC) P. BM EA 10402 (123BC) P. Berlin P. 3096 (226BC) P. BM EA 10073 (217BC) P. Amherst 51 (140BC) P. Louvre E 3440 a–b (175BC) + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Berlin P. 3114 (182BC) P. Berlin P. 3114+3140 (182BC) P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) P. Amherst 46+55 (150BC) P. Amherst 53+54 (150BC) P. Philadelphia II (314BC) P. Louvre N. 3262 (215BC) P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC) P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC) P. Amherst 58a (153BC) P. Berlin P. 5507+3098 (136BC) + P. Leiden Gr. 413 (136BC) P. Berlin P. 3118 (116BC) P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113BC) P. Leiden Gr. 416 (113BC) P. Philadelphia XIII (273BC) P. Amherst 51 (140BC) P. BM EA 10827 (273–272BC) P. Philadelphia XVIII (241BC) P. BM EA 10377 (214BC) P. Philadelphia II (314BC)

Tꜣ-ḥm-nṯr-i҆s.t second wife of Selois Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆y-m-ḥtp wife of Pꜣ-ḫṱ Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆y-m-ḥtp daughter of Pa-nꜣ and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn daughter of Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t and Tꜣ-h̭ y-bꜣ Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn daughter of Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn daughter of Pꜣ-ḫṱ and Tꜣ-šr.t-yi҆-m-ḥtp Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆tm daughter of Ns-nꜣ.w-ẖmn.i҆w and Ta-nfr Tꜣ-šr.t-pꜣ-wr daughter of Wn-nfr and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr Tꜣ-šr.t-ḫnsw daughter of I҆mn-ḥtp and Tꜣ-šr.t-stm Tꜣ-šr.t-mw.t daughter of Ḏḥwṱ-stm and Tꜣ-bꜣst.t Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ tꜣ ꜥꜣ daughter of Hrmyꜣs and Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆y-m-ḥtp Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ tꜣ h̭ m daughter of Hrmyꜣs and Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆y-m-ḥtp Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ daughter of Pa-nꜣ and Ta-ḏḥwṱ Tꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-ty Ta-i҆w=y-i҆y daughter of I҆mn-ḥtp and Ta-nfr Ta-i҆mn daughter of I҆mn-ḥtp and Tꜣy-ḫꜣ Ta-i҆mn daughter of Pa-nꜣ and Ta-ḏḥwṱ Ta-i҆s.t daughter of Ḥr Ta-i҆s.t daughter of Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn and Ta-i҆s.t Ta-wꜣ daughter of Ḥr

Ta-bꜣ daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-mn Ta-pꜣ-šy daughter of Ḏḥwṱ-nḫṱ and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr Ta-bꜣ daughter of Pa-mn and Šꜥ-ḫpry Ta-bꜣ daughter of I҆w=f-i҆w and Ta-rṱ Ta-bꜣst.t daughter of Pꜣ-ty-nṯr.wy and Tꜣ-ḥtr Ta-mn daughter of Ḥḥ and Tꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ

woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman

B B A B B B B B B A B

woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman

A A A B A A A B A B B A

woman B B B woman B woman A woman B woman B woman A woman B

572

appendix 3

Table A.16 Theban women in legal documents (cont.) Name

Title

Party

Document and date

Ta-mn daughter of Ḥḥ her mother being Ta-rṱ10 Ta-mn daughter of Ḥḥ and Ns-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ Ta-mn daughter of Pꜣ-i҆.i҆r-gꜣ and Tꜣy-mn Ta-ktm daughter of Rlw and Tꜣy-ntm Ta-ktm daughter of Rlwꜣ and Tꜣy-ntm Ta-ktm daughter of Rlwꜣ and Tꜣy-ntm Ta-nfr daughter of I҆mn-ḥtp and Tꜣy-ḫꜣ

woman woman woman woman woman woman

A A B B B A B B A A A A A C B A A A B A

P. Philadelphia VI (301BC) P. Philadelphia X (282BC) P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC) P. BM EA 10074 (230BC) P. BM EA 10079 b–c (230BC) P. Berlin P. 3096 (226BC) P. BM EA 10073 (217BC) P. Turin Gr. 2157 (after 112BC) P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) P. Kölner 7676 (114BC) P. BM EA 10073 (217BC) P. BM EA 10829 (209BC) P. Philadelphia XVI (251BC) P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC) P. Turin 2132 (98BC) P. Philadelphia XX (237BC) P. BM EA 10532 a–b (2nd cent. BC) P. BM EA 10532 a–b (2nd cent. BC)

woman woman Ta-ḏmꜣ daughter of Selois Ta-ḏḥwṱ Ta-ḏḥwṱ daughter of Pa-nfr Tꜣy-ꜥw-˹ḫnsw˺ daughter of Ta-nfr Tꜣy-i҆mn daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-bꜣ Tꜣy-bꜣ daughter of I҆w=f-ꜥw and Ta-rṱ Tꜣy-ḥꜣ daughter of Pa-nfr and Ta-wꜣ Tꜣy-tfn.t daughter of Pꜣ-ḥm-nṯr-tp and I҆s.t-wry Tfny daughter of Pa-hb and Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn Name lost (gender determined by feminine suffix pronoun) Name lost (gender determined by feminine suffix pronoun)

woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman woman

woman B

table a.17 Theban Women identified as choachytes

Name

Title

Tꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp daughter of Ḏ-ḥr the (female) choachyte Tꜣ-nṯr.w daughter of Ḏ-ḥr the (female) choachyte the (female) choachyte Tꜣ-ꜥw the (female) choachyte Ta-i҆s.t(?) Ta-hb Tasemis daughter of Selois

10

the (female) choachyte the (female) choachyte χοαχύτις

Document and date P. BM EA 10524 (290–289BC) P. BM EA 10530 (281BC) P. BM EA 10535 (277BC) P. Brussels 6032 + BM EA fragments (301BC) O. Berlin 9699 (254–253BC) P. Louvre E 2425 (228–227BC) P. Turin Gr. 2157 (112–111BC)

This woman seems to have been known also as Tꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ and as Ns-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ, see PP III 6847b.

573

tables table a.18 Women in the Memphite legal documents11 Name

Title

Party

Tꜣy-ꜥw, called Hry.w-bꜣst.t, daughter of choachyte I҆y-m-ḥtp and Nhy-wr.t Ḥḏ.t-n-pꜣ-wny daughter of choachyte Pꜣ-gyr and Nꜣ-nfr-sḥm.t Ḥḏ.t-n-pꜣ-wny daughter of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nswtꜣ.wy and Ṯ-n-i҆m=w Nhy-wr.t daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Sṯꜣ.ṱ-i҆r.t-bn.t Nhy-wr.t daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Sṯꜣ.ṱ-i҆r.t-bn.t

woman

A

woman

B

woman choachyte

Document and date

P. Louvre E 2412 + P. Bibl. Nat. 226 endowment owner (305–304BC)

woman choachyte woman

endowment owner endowment owner

woman choachyte

B

woman choachyte woman choachyte

endowment owner P. Leiden I 379 endowment owner (256BC)

woman choachyte woman choachyte

endowment owner endowment owner

I҆s.t-rš.ṱ daughter of Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ

woman choachyte

endowment owner P. Brussels E 6033 (276–275BC)

Ta-ḥs daughter of Pꜣ-kp and I҆s.t-i҆.i҆r-ty-s

woman

endowment owner P. BM EA 10381 (276–256BC)

Ta-wꜣ daughter of Pꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp and Šmty

woman

C

Šmṱy daughter of Ṯ-n-i҆m=w and Ta-wꜣ Ta-wꜣ daughter of Pꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp and Šmṱy Ta-wꜣ daughter of Pꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp and Šmṱy

woman woman woman

B P. Louvre E 2408 C (197BC) endowment owner

Šmṱy daughter of Ṯ-n-i҆m=w and Ta-wꜣ

woman

B

P. Louvre E 3266 (197BC)

Tꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp daughter of Pꜣ-gyl and Tꜣy-rr=w

woman choachyte

C

P. Louvre E 2409 (184BC)

Ta-i҆y-m-ḥtp daughter of Ḥr-ḫb and Ta-mnḫ Ns-nꜣy=w-ḫmnw daughter of Pa-h̭ e ꜥnḫ.(t) daughter of Ṯ-ḥkꜣ-n.i҆m=w

woman woman woman ˹lectorpriest˺ woman woman

B endowment owner endowment owner P. BM EA 10384 (132BC) endowment owner endowment owner

Tꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp daughter of I҆y-m-ḥtp and Ḏ-ḥr-bꜣst.t Tꜣ-ty-mꜣy-ḥs daughter of Pꜣ-kp Nhy-wr.t daughter of ꜥnḫ-ḥp and [Sṯꜣ.ṱ]-i҆r.tbn.t I҆s.t-rš.ṱ daughter of Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ Ta-ḥs daughter of Pꜣ-kp and I҆s.t-i҆.i҆r-ty-s

Rnp.t-nfr.t daughter of Ṯ-n.i҆m=w Stꜣ.ṱ-tꜣ-i҆r.t-bn.t daughter of Ḥr,

11

P. Leiden I 373b–c (204–203BC)

In the table the following symbols have been used: A (Party A), B (Party B) and C (person who gives her consent to the contract).

574

appendix 3

Table A.18 Women in the Memphite legal documents (cont.) Name

Title

Party

Ta-wꜣ daughter of the god’s sealer Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-i҆y-m-ḥtp Ta-i҆y-m-ḥtp daughter of the god’s sealer Ḥrḫb and Ta-mnḫ Šmṱy, daughter of the god’s sealer Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-i҆y-m-ḥtp

woman

B

woman

C

woman

endowment owner

Ta-ꜥnḫ daughter of god’s sealer Pꜣ-ty-i҆y-mwoman ḥtp and Ta-nꜣ-ꜥ.wy.w(?) Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn daughter of god’s sealer Pꜣ-tywoman wsi҆r and Ta-ꜥnḫ Nb-tḫy and NN, daughters of the god’s sealer woman Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r and Ta-ꜥnḫ Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn daughter of god’s sealer Pꜣ-tywsi҆r and Ta-ꜥnḫ

Document and date

P. BM EA 10398 (119BC)

A B

P. Wien ÄS 9479 (75BC)

C

woman

A

P. Louvre E 3268 (73BC)

table a.19 Women embalmers in Demotic documents from Thebes and Memphis Name

Title

Document and date

Provenance

Ta-ḏtm (tomb owner/occupant) Ta-wꜣ (tomb owner/occupant) Ta-ḫnsw ꜥnḫ.t

the (female) embalmer the (female) ˹doctor˺ the (female) doctor the (female) lector-priest

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) P. BM EA 10074 (230BC) P. BM EA 10556 (Ptolemaic) P. BM EA 10384 (132BC)

Thebes Thebes Thebes Memphis

table a.20 Choachytes’ landed properties in the Theban area

B O N

Name

Title

Locality

Document and date

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw son of I҆mnḥtp and Ta-nfr Ḥr son of Ḥr Wsi҆r-wr (son of Ḥr)

door-keeper of Amenope

ḥr pꜣ ḥtp-nṯr I҆mn

P. Berlin P. 3146 (194BC)

door-keeper of Amenope the choachyte

Pestenemenophis Pestenemenophis

P. Berlin P. 3102 (119BC) P. Turin Suppl. 6087 (101 BC)

575

tables table a.21 Loan documents in the choachytes’ archives Creditor

Title

Pꜣ-ty-mn son of Ḏḥwṱ-stm and Tabꜣst.t

Debt

Document and date

door-keeper I҆mn-ḥtp called door-keeper of of Amenope Rbwbw son of Ḏḥwṱ- Amenope stm and Tꜣy-i҆mn

wheat 1½ artabas, barley 3⅓ artabas

P. BM EA 10831 (194BC)

Pa-nꜣ son of Ns-pꜣmtr and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr

door-keeper Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of of Amenope Krkrw and Ta-wsi҆r

herdsman and servant of Montu lord of Hermonthis

690 deben

P. BL 1201 = P. BM EA 10823 (162BC)

Pa-nꜣ son of Ns-pꜣmtr and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr

door-keeper Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of of Amenope Krkrw and Ta-wsi҆r

herdsman and servant of Montu lord of Hermonthis

444 deben

P. BM EA 10613 (160BC)

Pa-nꜣ son of Ns-pꜣmtr and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr

door-keeper Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of of Amenope Krkrw and Ta-wsi҆r

herdsman and servant of Montu lord of Hermonthis

592 deben

P. BL 1202 = P. BM EA 10824 (160BC)

Šꜥ-ḫpry daughter of I҆mn-ḥtp and Tꜣ-ḥḏꜣ

woman

carrier of the wheat 4½ P. Leiden 376 milk-jar of artabas, (127BC) Amun in Djeme 200 copper deben

Wsi҆r-wr son of Ḥr and Šꜥ-ḫpry

door-keeper Pꜣ-šr-mnṱ son of Paof Amenope ḏḥwṱ and Ta-nfr

Greek born in Egypt

wheat 3 artabas

P. Berlin P. 3103 (114BC)

Nḫṱ-mnṱ son of Ḥr and Šꜥ-ḫpry

door-keeper Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s son of of Amenope I҆mn-ḥtp and Tꜣyẖnm

man who receives pay

wheat 9 artabas

P. Louvre E 2436b (103BC)

Nḫṱ-mnṱ son of Ḥr and Šꜥ-ḫpry

door-keeper Ḫnsw-ḏḥwṱ son of of Amenope Ns-nꜣ.w-ẖmn.i҆w (?) and Si҆y-pꜣ-mwt (?)

door-keeper of wheat 40 Amun in Djeme artabas

originally Ḥr son of door-keeper Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t and now of Amenope his son Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Ḥr identified as a choachyte

Debtor

Pa-tm son of Nsnꜣ.w-ẖmn.i҆w and Stꜣ.ṱ=w-tꜣ-wt

Title

originally Pa-nꜣ son door-keeper of of Pꜣ-ḫṱ and now his Amenope daughter AsklepiasTꜣ-šr.t-i҆y-m-ḥtp, daughter of Tꜣ-šr.tḥr and Pa-nꜣ

wheat 14 artabas

P. Louvre E 2436a (102BC) P. Louvre Gr. 2331 (98BC)

576

appendix 3

table a.22 Lector-priests’ economic activities relating to immovable properties in the Theban area Name

Title

Property

Document and date

A

Pꜣ-šr-pꜣ-mwt son of Pꜣšr-i҆mn and Ta-hb

lector-priest of the place of truth in the necropolis of Djeme

Purchase of lands in Hermonthis(?)

P. BM EA 10395 (227BC)

B

Ns-pꜣ-mtr son of Wꜣḥi҆b-rꜥ and ˹Ta-i҆y-m-ḥtp˺

lector-priest in the necropolis of Hermonthis

Sale of lands in Hermonthis

P. BM EA 10380a (225– 224BC)

A

Pꜣy-[b]ẖ son of Hkr and lector-priest in the Ta-wꜣ-[…] necropolis of Hermonthis

Sale of lands in Hermonthis

P. BM EA 10410 (224BC)

B

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr and Tꜣ-šbwrꜣ

chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

Lets land in Djeme to another person

P. Turin 2135 (118BC)

A

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr and Tꜣ-šbwrꜣ

chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

Rents land in Thebes from a katoikos12

P. Turin 2133 (118BC)

A

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr

⊗

Oath on purchase of house and lands in Pamenis

P. Turin 2138 (117BC)

B

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr and Tꜣ-šbwrꜣ

chief lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

lets land to another person

P. Turin 2135 (118BC)

A

Pꜣy-nꜣ-ḫt.ṱ son of Pꜣy-bẖ embalmer and servant of and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ Montu lord of Heliopolisin-south-Egypt Ḳlwḏ son of Si҆y-pꜣ-mw.t embalmer and servant of and Ta-nwꜣ Montu lord of Heliopolisin-south-Egypt

B

12

sells a room to party B P. BM EA 10390 (136BC)

It is interesting that a similar case is also found in the Siut archive where the two brothers, both lector-priests like I҆mn-ḥtp, let to kleruchs arable plots of lands as well as cultivating them themselves.

577

tables table a.23 Loan documents in the Theban lector-priests’ archives Creditor

Title

Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ son of Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s and Tꜣ-wꜥ.t-n-3.t

Debtor

Title

Debt

Document and date

lector-priest of Ta-i҆s.t daughter of woman the Baboon Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py and Ta-[…]

3 silver (deben) and 6 kite

P. BM EA 10523 (295–294BC)

Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp ~ Lwlw son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp and Mw.t-i҆.i҆r-ty-s

chief lectorpriest in the necropolis of Djeme

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr chief lectorand Tꜣ-šbwrꜣ priest in the necropolis of Djeme

1440 deben

P. Turin 2136 (126BC)

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr and Tꜣ-šbwrꜣ

chief lectorpriest in the necropolis of Djeme

PN son of Ḥr-mꜣꜥḫrw and Ta-[…]

X artabas of wheat

P. Turin 2143a (124BC)

[…]

578

appendix 3

table a.24 List of loans recorded in the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers’ archives Creditor

Title

Debtor

Sbk-ḥtp son of Pa-wꜣ and Ḥr-ꜥnḫ

God’s seal-bearer Pa-tr son of and embalmer ꜥnḫ-mr-wr and ꜥnḫ.t

Title

Debt

God’s seal-bearer 1 deben 6 kite (2 and embalmer deben 8 kite with interest) Payment of 2% sale tax on house mortgaged

Ḥr-ꜥnḫ daughter of Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ and ˹Nb.t-tꜣ-ḥy˺

woman

ꜥnḫ-mr-wr son of Pꜣ-tynꜣ-nṯr.w and Ta-rnn.t

God’s seal-bearer 60 drachmas? and embalmer Payment of c. 2% sale tax on house mortgaged

Document and date P. O.I. 25255a–b (245BC) P. O.I. 25260 (245BC) P. O.I. 25263 (239BC) P. Carlsberg 46 (239BC)

60 drachmas + 40 P. Carlsberg 47 drachmas inter(237BC) ests for year 9 and 10 Payment of 5% P. Carlsberg 48 tax on foreclosure (236BC) of mortgage13 Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ son of Nḫṱ-pꜣ-rꜥ and Tꜣ-rmṯ.t-[…]

Choachyte of Pharaoh Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ

ꜥnḫ-mr-wr son of Pa-se and Ḥr-ꜥnḫ

God’s seal-bearer Repayment of P. O.I. 25261 and embalmer loan for 1deben (221BC) (half of original loan contracted together with Nḫṱ son of Pꜣ-[ty]-sbk)

Nꜣ-nḫṱ-ḥr

Agent (and) prophet of Sobek who stands for Pꜣlwꜣ the priest of the necropolis of Hawara

Ḳll son of Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-sꜣ-sbk, Pꜣ-msḥ, his son (and) Ḥr-m-ḥb his brother

(Ḳll = Sealbearer and embalmer, Pꜣ-msḥ and Ḥrm-ḥb = Overseer seal-bearer and embalmer)

13

Loan of 171 silver deben

P. Hamburg 13 (84BC)

The cession deed is recorded in P. Carlsberg 36 (233BC), for which see Hughes et al. 1997, 56.

579

tables Table A.24 List of loans recorded in the seal-bearers and embalmers’ archives (cont.) Creditor

Title

Debtor

Title

Debt

Document and date

Mrn son of Nḫṱ-sbk

(Overseer sealbearer and embalmer)

Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-pꜣ-i҆ꜣw son of Nḫṱsbk

(Prophet of Sobek (and) Overseer god’s seal-bearer and embalmer)

Loan of 1 artaba of wheat

P. Cairo 50120 (66–65BC?)

Mrn son of Nḫṱ-sbk

(Overseer sealbearer and embalmer)

Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-pꜣ-i҆ꜣw son of Nḫṱsbk

(Prophet of Sobek (and) Overseer god’s seal-bearer and embalmer)

Loan of 1 artaba of wheat

P. Cairo 50122 (64BC?)

Mrn son of Nḫṱ-sbk

(Overseer sealbearer and embalmer)

Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-pꜣ-i҆ꜣw son of Nḫṱsbk

(Prophet of Sobek (and) Overseer god’s seal-bearer and embalmer)

Loan of 200 staters

P. Cairo 50123 (51BC?)

Mrn son of Nḫṱ-sbk

(Overseer sealbearer and embalmer)

Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-pꜣ-i҆ꜣw son of Nḫṱsbk

(Prophet of Sobek (and) Overseer god’s seal-bearer and embalmer)

Loan of 4 talents (to repay 6 with interest)

P. Cairo 50119 (Late Ptolemaic)

580

appendix 3

table a.25 List of sales recorded in the Hawara god’s seal-bearers and embalmers’ archives Party A

Title

Party B

Title

Transaction

Document and date

I҆mn-m-ḥꜣ.t son of Pꜣ-ty-nꜣ-nṯr.w and ꜥnḫ.t

god’s sealbearer and embalmer

ꜥnḫ.t daughter of the god’s seal-bearer and embalmer S-nwsr and Ta-rnn.t

woman

Sale of share of a house

P. O.I. 25258 (285–246BC)

[PN] son of Mꜣꜥrꜥ

overseer god’s Sale of a snṱ P. Hamburg seal-bearer with courtyard 10—P. Cairo and embalmer 50132 (198BC)

Tꜣy-r-r=w daugh- woman ter of the overseer god’s seal-bearer and embalmer P-sy and Ta-ḥs

Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ son of Pa-ḥr overseer god’s Pꜣ-ty-i҆s.t son of and Ta-swr seal-bearer Sbk-ḥꜥpy and Taand embalmer swr Ḥr-m-ḥb, Wn-nfr sons of like-titled ˹Pa-ḥw˺ and Pꜣḥtr, their brother, whose mother is ˹Ta-ꜣw˺

dancer (and) Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ son of man of Anubis Ḥr-ḏḥwṱ and ˹Tꜣy-[?-bꜣ]st.t˺

overseer god’s Sale of house, seal-bearer courtyard and embalmer

P. Ashmolean 1947.2+4 (72– 71BC)

seal-bearer Sale of 6 liturand embalmer gical days in a shrine of Anubis

P. Ashmolean 1968.12 (69– 68BC)

581

tables table a.26 Choachytes in the House of the Cow in the northern district of Thebes14

N

Name

Title

Document and date

I҆w=f-ꜥw son of Ḏ-ḥr

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes ⊗

P. Philadelphia X (282BC)

N

P. Philadelphia XVII (241BC)

E

I҆mn-i҆w son of I҆r.t-rḏ 15

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Louvre E 2425 (228–227BC)

A

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn

P. Marseilles 298/9 (235–234BC)

N A

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes ⊗ door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

A

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes the choachyte

P. Philadelphia XVII (241BC)

N S

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A (175BC) + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

P. Louvre E 2425 (228–227BC) P. BM EA 10073 (217BC)

A

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pa-rṱ

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Philadelphia XIII (273BC)

B

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. BM EA 10721 (182BC)

B B B W B B E E E W

P. BM EA 10727 (182BC) P. BM EA 10679 (182BC) P. CtYBR 3598 (181–180 BC) P. CtYBR 3598 (181–180 BC) P. BM EA 10722 (181BC) P. BM EA 10723 (181BC) P. BM EA 10722 (181BC) P. BM EA 10723 (181BC) P. BM EA 10679B (181BC) P. BM EA 10678 (170BC)

B

Wsi҆r-wr son of Ḏ-ḥr

B

14

15

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Philadelphia VII–VIII (287BC) P. Philadelphia X (282BC)

In the table the following symbols have been used: N (North), S (South), E (East), and W (West) to indicate the position of the house in relation to the property transferred. A (Party A), B (Party B), Co (co-owner of the house) and O (owner). The symbol ⊗ indicates that no title was used in the identification of the person. For this name see Depauw 2000, 32 note 106.

582

appendix 3

Table A.26 Choachytes in the House of the Cow in the northern district of Thebes (cont.) Name S S S A

Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw son of Pa-nꜣ and Ta-ꜥw

Title

Document and date

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes the choachyte

P. Louvre E 2434 (276BC) P. Louvre E 2437 (275BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC)

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Louvre E 2434 (276BC)

B

Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw son of Pa-nꜣ and Ta-ḏḥwṱ door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC)

N

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py son of Ns-mn

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Rylands 11 (284BC)

N Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-mrr N N Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-mrl E=N

choachyte choachyte choachyte choachyte

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC)

W

Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

the choachyte

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC)

S S

Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of I҆r.t-rḏ 16

choachyte door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes ⊗ door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes choachyte door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. BM EA 10523 (295–294BC) P. Moscow 115 (293BC)

A

N N

S S S S S S S

16

For this name see Depauw 2000, 37 note 108.

P. Louvre E 2437 (275BC)

P. Rylands 12 (281–280BC) P. Rylands 13 (281–280BC)

P. Moscow 116 (293BC) P. BM EA 10524 (290–289BC) P. BM EA 10526 (288BC) P. BM EA 10527 (288BC) P. BM EA 10525 (284BC) P. Rylands 11 (284BC) P. Philadelphia X (282BC)

583

tables Table A.26 Choachytes in the House of the Cow in the northern district of Thebes (cont.) Name S S S

Title

Document and date

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Rylands 12 (281–280BC) P. Rylands 13 (281–280BC) P. Rylands 14 (281–280BC)

Co

Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of Pa-rṱ

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Philadelphia II (314BC)

Co B

Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw

⊗ door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes ⊗ ⊗

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC)

Co Co

P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC)

E

Pa-ḥyꜣ son of Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Marseilles 298/9 (235–234BC)

Co B

Pa-tm son of Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw

⊗ door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC)

A A

P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC)

W W W E E E E E

Ns-pꜣy=w-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣylwsy

⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ the choachyte the choachyte

P. BM EA 10722 (182BC) P. BM EA 10723 (182BC) P. BM EA 10679B (182BC) P. BM EA 10721 (181BC) P. BM EA 10727 (181BC) P. BM EA 10679A (181BC) P. CtYBR 3598 (181–180 BC) P. BM EA 10678 (170BC)

B B B A A A A

Ns-ḫnsw daughter of Ḏ-ḥr

woman woman woman woman woman woman woman

P. Louvre E 2440 (304BC) P. Louvre E 2427 (304BC) P. Louvre E 2426 (294 BC) P. Louvre E 2434 (276BC) P. Louvre E 2437 (275BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC)

A

Ḥr son of Pa-mn-n=s

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Louvre E 2425 (228–227BC)

S

Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t

choachyte

P. BM EA 10828 (212BC)

584

appendix 3

Table A.26 Choachytes in the House of the Cow in the northern district of Thebes (cont.) Name

Title

Document and date

O

Seluis

⊗ (choachyte)

P. Turin 2157 (112BC)

B

Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆tm said Tꜣ-šr.t-mn daughter of Ns-nꜣy=w-ẖmn-i҆w and Ta-nfr

woman

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC)

woman

P. BM EA 10073 (217BC)

woman

P. Louvre E 3440B–A (175BC)

woman

P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

B B

Tꜣ-šr.t-ḫnsw daughter of I҆mn-ḥtp and Tꜣ-šr.t-stm

B S N A S S N E E

Tꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp daughter of Ḏ-ḥr

woman woman woman woman woman choachyte woman woman woman

P. Brussels 8252 (327–326BC) P. Strasbourg 1 (324 BC) P. Philadelphia II (314BC) P. Brussels 8253 (313BC) P. Brussels 8254 (311 BC) P. BM EA 10524 (290–289BC) P. Louvre E 2434 (276BC) P. Louvre E 2437 (275BC)

N

Ta-ꜥw

the (female) choachyte

P. Brussels 6032 + BM frag. (301BC)

B

Ta-mn daughter of Pꜣ-i҆.i҆r-gꜣ and Tꜣy- woman mn

P. Marseilles 298–299 (235– 234BC)

B

Ta-mn daughter of Ḥḥ and Tꜣ-ty-ḥr- woman pꜣ-ẖrṱ Ta-mn daughter of Ḥḥ and Ns-ḥr-pꜣ- woman ẖrṱ

P. Philadelphia II (314BC)

A A

Ta-nfr daughter of I҆mn-ḥtp and Tꜣy-ḫy

A W

Ta-hb

P. Philadelphia X (282BC)

endowed woman

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC)

woman

P. BM EA 10073 (217BC)

the (female) choachyte

P. Louvre E 2425 (228–227BC)

B Ta-ktm daughter of Rlw and Tꜣy-ntm woman B-Co woman A woman

P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC)

Co

Tꜣy-i҆mn daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Tamn

P. Philadelphia XVII (241BC)

A

Tꜣy-bꜣ daughter of I҆w=f-ꜥw and Ta-rṱ woman

P. Philadelphia XVI (251BC)

A B Co

Tꜣy-bꜣ daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-mn

woman woman woman

P. Philadelphia XII (277BC) P. Philadelphia XIII (273BC) P. Philadelphia XVII (241BC)

B

Tꜣy-nṯr.wy Pa-mn-n=s Tꜣ-blwsy

woman

P. Louvre E 2425 (228–227BC)

woman

585

tables Table A.26 Choachytes in the House of the Cow in the northern district of Thebes (cont.) Name B

Title

Document and date P. Philadelphia XII (277BC)

Co

Tꜣy-nṯr.wy daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta- woman mn Tꜣy-nnꜣ daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-mn woman

Co

Ḏḥwṱ-rs son of Pa-rṱ

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Philadelphia II (314BC)

B

Ḏ-ḥr son of Wsi҆r-wr

door-keeper of Amenope in the west of Thebes

P. Philadelphia XVI (251BC)

N

Ḏ-ḥr son of Pa-ḥr

choachyte

P. BM EA 10523 (295–294BC)

P. Philadelphia XVII (241BC)

586

appendix 3

table a.27 Choachytes’ properties on the west bank17 Name

Title

Property

Document and date

Be

Ns-ḫnsw daughter of Ḏ-ḥr

woman

houses in Djeme

P. Louvre E 2428 (277BC)

H

Pa-tm son of Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw

door-keeper of house in Djeme Amenope

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC)

H

Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw

door-keeper of house in Djeme Amenope

P. BM EA 10026 (265– 264BC)

E

Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp son of I҆r.t-rḏ

the choachyte

house in Djeme

P. BM EA 10026 (265– 264BC)

?

Tfny daughter of Pa-hb

woman

house in Djeme

P. Philadelphia XX (237BC)

B

Ḥr son of Ḥr

door-keeper of building-site in Djeme Amenope

P. Berlin P. 3097–3070 (150BC)

B

Ḥr son of Ḥr

door-keeper of building-site in Djeme Amenope

P. Berlin P. 3090–3091 (140BC)

N

Hry=w son of Wsr-ptḥ

the choachyte

house in Djeme

P. Turin Suppl. 6074 (143BC)

O O

Pꜣ-šr-ḏḥwṱ son of I҆mn-ḥtp I҆mn-ḥtp son of I҆mn-ḥtp

house share in Djeme house share in Djeme

P. Amherst 62d (136BC)

O

Pꜣ-ḥm-nṯr-tp son of Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t

share house in Djeme

P. Amherst 62a (before 126BC)

O O O O O O O

Pa-nꜣ son of Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t I҆s.t-wr.t daughter of Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t Tꜣ-šr.t-nsw-tꜣ.wy d of Nsw-tꜣ.wy H̱ nm-i҆b-rꜥ(?) […] Ḥr Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr

H H H H H H

Pa-ḏmꜣ son of Pꜣ-ḫṱ Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ḫṱ Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pꜣ-ḫṱ Ḥr son of Pꜣ-ḫṱ Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn daughter of Pꜣ-ḫṱ Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆y-m-ḥtp wife of Pꜣ-ḫṱ

house share in Djeme house share in Djeme house share in Djeme house share in Djeme house share in Djeme house share in Djeme

P. Amherst 60a (125BC)

17

In the table the following symbols have been used: N (North) and E (East) to indicate the position of the house in relation to the property transferred. B (Buyer), Be (Beneficiary), H (heir), O (owner) and T (Tenant). The symbol ⊗ indicates that no title was used in the identification of the person.

587

tables Table A.27 Choachytes’ properties on the west bank (cont.) Name

Title

Property

T

H̱ nm-i҆b-rꜥ son of Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t

T

Ḥr son of Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t

door-keeper of building-site in Djeme Amenope building-site in Djeme

P. Warsaw Dem. 148.288 (119BC) P. Warsaw Dem. 148.288 (119BC)

T

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw son of Ḏ-ḥr-pꜣ-hb

building-site in Djeme

P. Warsaw Dem. 148.288 (119BC)

E

NN son of NN

the choachyte

house in Djeme

P. Turin 2135 (118BC)

H

Wsi҆r-wr son of Ḥr

H H H

Nḫṱ-mnṱ son of Ḥr Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r son of Ḥr Ta-wꜣ daughter of Ḥr

door-keeper of building-site in Pakenis P. Berlin P. 3101A–B Amenope (118BC) ⊗ P. Turin 2144 (118BC) ⊗ ⊗

H

Wsi҆r-wr son of Ḥr

H

Nḫṱ-mnṱ son of Ḥr

H H

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r son of Ḥr Ta-wꜣ daughter of Ḥr

B

Tꜣ-šr.t-pꜣ-wr daughter of Wn-nfr woman

B

Pa-nꜣ son of Pꜣ-ḫṱ

B

Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pꜣ-ḫṱ

B

Ḥr son of Pꜣ-ḫṱ

O

children of Pꜣ-ḫṱ the choachyte the choachyte

house N of above room P. Amherst 48+52 (113BC)

O

children of Pꜣ-ḫṱ the choachyte the choachyte

house E of above room

P. Amherst 48+52 (113BC)

H

Wsi҆r-wr son of Ḥr

house share in Djeme

H

Nḫṱ-mnṱ son of Ḥr

house share in Djeme

P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113BC)/P. Leiden Gr. 416 (113BC) P. Berlin P. 3104–3105 (103BC)

H H

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r son of Ḥr Ta-wꜣ daughter of Ḥr

house share in Djeme house share in Djeme

O

Tꜣ-šr.t-pꜣ-wr daughter of Wn-nfr woman

house and appropriated plot of land in Djeme

door-keeper of house share in Amenope Pmounemounis

Document and date

P. Berlin P. 3118 (116BC) P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113BC)/P. Leiden Gr. 416 (113BC)

part house in Pakeis

door-keeper of part of room in Djeme Amenope door-keeper of Amenope door-keeper of Amenope

P. Amherst 47+56 (114BC) P. Amherst 48+52 (113BC)

P. Amherst Gr. 49 (112BC)

588

appendix 3

Table A.27 Choachytes’ properties on the west bank (cont.) Name

Title

Property

Document and date

O

Σελῶις

⊗ (choachyte)

house in Djeme

P. Turin Gr. 2157 (112BC)

B

Nꜣ-nḫṱ=f pꜣ ḫm son of Ḥr-swr

building-site in Pakeis

P. Leiden Gr. 414 (105BC)

B

Šꜥ-ḫpry daughter of Wsi҆r-wr

building-site in Pakeis

P. Leiden 377 (102BC)

woman

589

tables table a.28 Lector-priests’ properties in the House of the Cow in the northern district of Thebes18 Name

Title

Document and date

lector-priest of the Baboon

P. BM EA 10524 (290–289BC)

W S

Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ son of Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s and Tꜣ-wꜥ.t-n-3.t Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ son of Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ son of Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s

lector-priest of the Baboon lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. BM EA 10527 (288BC) P. Philadelphia X (282BC)

S

Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-kꜣ.w son of Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t

lector-priest (previous owner) lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

P. BM EA 10527 (288BC) P. Philadelphia X (282BC)

S

Pa-mn-s son of Ns-mn

lector-priest in the necropolis of Thebes

P. Brussels 8252 (327–326BC)

E

S S

P. Brussels 8253 (313BC) P. Brussels 8254 (311 BC)

S S S S S S S

Hry=w

B

Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pa-nꜣ and Ta-hb

E E E E E E

Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pa-nꜣ

E E E E

Hry=w son of Ḫnsw-mꜣꜥ-ḫrw

⊗ ⊗ ⊗ the lector-priest

P. BM EA 10721 (182BC) P. BM EA 10727 (182BC) P. BM EA 10679A (182BC) P. BM EA 10722 (181BC) P. BM EA 10723 (181BC) P. BM EA 10679B (181BC) P. CtYBR 3598 (181–180 BC)

lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme lector-priest of the Baboon

P. Brussels 6032 + BM EA fragments (301BC) P. BM EA 10523 (295–294BC) P. Moscow 115 (293BC) P. Moscow 116 (293BC) P. BM EA 10526 (288BC) P. BM EA 10525 (284BC) P. Rylands 11 (284BC)

lector-priest Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py

Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Pa-nꜣ Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t son of Pa-nꜣ

18

lector-priest in the necropolis of Djeme

the lector-priest the lector-priest

P. Rylands 12 (281–280 BC) P. Rylands 13 (281–280 BC) P. Rylands 14 (281–280BC) P. Philadelphia XII (277BC)

In the following tables the following symbols have been used: N (North), S (South), E (East), and W (West) to indicate the position of the house in relation to the property transferred. A (Party A), B (Party B), Co (co-owner of the house) and O (owner). The symbol ⊗ indicates that no title was used in the identification of the person.

590

appendix 3

table a.29 Lector-priests’ properties in Pamenis and Hermonthis Name

Title

Property

Document and date

A

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Ḥr

⊗

house and lands in Pamenis

P. Turin 2138 (117BC)

N

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw son of Mꜣyḥs

lector-priest of the place of truth in the necropolis of Djeme

house and courtyard in Hermonthis

P. BM EA 10407 (224BC)

A

Pꜣ-šr-pꜣ-mwt son of Pꜣšr-i҆mn and Ta-hb

lector-priest of the place of truth in the necropolis of Djeme

lands in Hermonthis(?)

P. BM EA 10395 (227BC)

A

Pꜣy-[b]ẖ son of Hkr and lector-priest in the Ta-wꜣ-[…] necropolis of Hermonthis

lands in Hermonthis

P. BM EA 10410 (224BC)

B

Ns-pꜣ-mtr son of Wꜣḥi҆b-rꜥ and Ta-i҆y-m-ḥtp(?)

lands in Hermonthis

P. BM EA 10380a (225– 224BC)

lector-priest in the necropolis of Hermonthis

591

tables table a.30 Marriage documents in the Theban choachytes’ archives Husband

Wife

Type

Document and date19

Ḏ-ḥr son of I҆w=f-ꜥw and Nsḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ

Sṯꜣ.ṱ-i҆r.t-byn.t daughter of Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ and Tꜣ-šr.t-mn

A

P. Libbey (337BC)

Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mni҆py and Ta-wꜥ

Ns-ḫnsw daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-bꜣ

C (sẖ-ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ)

P. Louvre E 2429bis (292BC)

Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw son of Pꜣ-ty-i҆mni҆py and Ta-wꜥ

Ns-ḫnsw daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-bꜣ

sẖ n wy Mortis causa?

P. Louvre E 2428 (277BC)

I҆mn-ḥtp son of Pa-rṱ and Ta-mn

Ta-bꜣ daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-mn

C (sẖ-ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ)

P. Philadelphia 13 (273BC)

Pa-rṱ son of I҆w=f-ꜥw and Tarṱ

Tꜣ-nfr.t-i҆w daughter of Wsi҆rwr and Tꜣy-wr.ṱ

A

P. Philadelphia 14 (264BC)

Pa-tm son of Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw and Ns-ḫnsw

Ta-ktm daughter of Rlw and Ta-ntm

A

P. Louvre E 2433 (252BC)

Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw son of Pa-nꜣ and Ta-ḏḥwṱ

Tꜣy-nny daughter of Pa-mn-s and Tꜣ-brwsy

A

P. Louvre E 2429 (232BC)

Ḥr son of Smn-ḥms and Tꜣbrws

Tꜣy-ꜥw daughter of Ns-nꜣ.wḫmn-i҆w and Ta-nfr

A

P. Berlin P. 3109 (225BC)

Pa-nḫṱ son of Pa-nfr and Tꜣgr-hb

Tꜣy-bꜣ daughter of Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-i҆mn

A

P. Philadelphia 25 (223BC)

Pꜣ-nḫṱ son of Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw and Ta-mn

Tꜣ-šr.t-gb daughter of Ḥr-sꜣi҆s.t and Tꜣ-[…]

A

P. Marseilles 296 (186BC)

Pa-nꜣ son of Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t and Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ

Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ daughter of Ns-pꜣy=w-tꜣ.wy and Tꜣ-ḥmnṯr-i҆s.t

A

P. Strasbourg 56 (117BC)

19

In addition, there is also a Divorce document, P. BM EA 10074 (230BC), and a cession of liturgies accompanied by an Oath of non-interference with liturgies, P. BM EA 10079 B–C (230 BC), which indicate that the original contract was of type C and that these liturgies had been pledged as a security.

592

appendix 3

table a.31 Marriage documents in the Memphite funerary priests’ archives20 Husband

Title

Title

Father’s title

Pestman’s classification

Document and date

Ḏ-ḥr son of Pa-sy and Ta-nꜣ

god’s seal- [Ꜣrsnyꜣ] bearer

woman

[…]

C

P. Leiden I 381 (226BC) (sẖ ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ)

Pꜣ-ty-i҆s.t son of Kꜣ- god’s seal- Ta-wꜣ daughter of nfr and Hry-bꜣst.t bearer Ḏ-ḥr and Ta-i҆y-mḥtp

woman

god’s sealbearer

B

P. Leiden I 373a (131BC)

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r son of ˹Ptḥ-mꜣꜥ-ḫrw˺ and Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn

god’s seal- Ta-wꜣ daughter of bearer Ḥr and Tꜣ-ty-i҆y-mḥtp (Asklepias)

woman

⊗

C

P. Louvre E 3265 (sẖ n sꜥnḫ) P. Louvre E 2419 (sẖ ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ) (102BC)

Ḏ-ḥr son of Ḥrwḏꜣ and Ḥr-ꜥnḫ

god’s seal- NN daughter of bearer Ḏ-ḥr and Bꜣst.t-[…]

⊗

⊗

B

P. BM EA 10229 (78BC)

Hry=w son of Pꜣty-i҆s.t and Ta-wꜣ

god’s seal- Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn daugh- woman bearer ter of Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r and Ta-wꜣ (or ꜥnḫ ?)

[god’s seal- C bearer]

P. Bibl. Nat. 224 (sẖ n sꜥnḫ) P. Bibl. Nat. 225 (sẖ ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ) (68BC)

20

Wife

In the table the following symbols have been used: ⊗ no title given, […] in a lacuna.

593

tables table a.32 Marriage documents in the Hawara funerary priests’ archives Husband

Title

Wife

Title

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r son of ꜥnḫ-ḥp and I҆s.t-wr.t

god’s sealbearer and embalmer

ꜥnḫ.t daughter of ꜥnḫ-mr-wr and Psṱ

woman god’s seal- C bearer and embalmer

P. O.I. 25257 (331BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ)

ꜥnḫ-mr-wr son of god’s sealPꜣ-ty-nꜣ-nṯr.w and bearer and ꜥnḫ.t embalmer

Nꜣ-nfr-i҆b-ptḥ daughter of Pꜣyꜥr-i҆mn and Šty

woman god’s seal- C bearer and embalmer

P. O.I. 25259 (311–310BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ)

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r son of ꜥnḫ-mr-wr and Nꜣ-nfr-i҆b-ptḥ

god’s sealbearer and embalmer

Ḥr-ꜥnḫ daughter of Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ and Nb.t-tꜣ˹ḥy˺

woman god’s seal- C bearer and embalmer

P. O.I. 25338 (259BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ)

ꜥnḫ-mr-wr son of god’s sealPꜣ-ty-nꜣ-nṯr.w and bearer and Ta-rnn.t embalmer

Ḥr-ꜥnḫ daughter of Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ and Nb.t-[tꜣ˹ḥy˺]

woman god’s seal- C bearer and embalmer

P. Carlsberg 34 (239BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ)

Sbk-ḥtp son of ꜥnḫ-ḥp and ˹I҆hyḥtp˺

Nꜣ-nfr-sbk daughter of S-wsr, called Gḏwꜣ, and Tꜣ-tywsi҆r

woman god’s seal- C bearer and embalmer

P. Carlsberg 35 (235BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ)

PN son of PN and ? Tꜣ-šr.t-ꜥꜣ-pḥty

Tꜣ-šr.t-n-tꜣ-i҆ḥ.t daughter of PN and PN

woman overseer C? sealbearer and embalmer

P. Ash. D. 7 [1968.7] + 8 [1968.8] + 11 [1968.7] + 12 [1968.8] + 13 [1968.11] (187– 186BC)

Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ pꜣ ꜥꜣ son of Pꜣ-ty-sbk and Ta-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy

god’s sealbearer and embalmer

Ta-lwꜣ daughter of Twt and Ta-swr

woman god’s seal- C bearer and embalmer, servant of Sobek

P. Hamburg 14 (sẖ n sꜥnḫ) P. Hamburg 11 (sẖ ḏbꜣ-ḥḏ) (129BC)

Pꜣ-msḥ son of Ḳll and Ta-ftw-nmḥy

sealbearer and embalmer

Ta-msḏr-stm daughter of Ḥrm-ḥb and Ta-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ

woman sealC bearer and embalmer

P. BM EA 10603 (100BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ)

Ḥr-m-ḥb son of Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-sꜣ-sbk and Ta-wꜣ-n-i҆s.t

god’s sealbearer and embalmer

Tꜣ-rpꜣ.t daughter of Pꜣy=y-mr-i҆ḥ and Ta-swr

woman ⊗

C

P. BM EA 10605 (98BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ)

Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-pa-wꜣ son of Nḫṱ-sbk and Pꜣy=w-ḥr-i҆n.i҆w=y

sealbearer and embalmer

Ta-sbk daughter of Sbk-ḥꜥpy and Ta-˹nfr˺

woman sealC bearer and embalmer

P. BM EA 10606 (93BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ)

god’s sealbearer and embalmer

Father’s title

Pestman’s classification

Document and date

594

appendix 3

Table A.32 Marriage documents in the Hawara funerary priests’ archives (cont.) Husband

Title

Wife

Title

Father’s title

Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-pa-wꜣ son of Nḫṱ-sbk and Tꜣ-i҆.i҆r-ḥr-n-i҆n.w

overseer god’s sealbearer and embalmer, servant of Sobek

Ta-sbk daughter of Pꜣ-ty-sbk and Tꜣy-i҆r-bꜣst.(t)

woman ⊗

Pestman’s classification

Document and date

B

P. Cairo 50129 (86BC)

table a.33 Marriage documents in the archives of mortuary priests from Siut Husband

Title

Twt son of Pꜣ-tyi҆tm and Tꜣ-šr.t-ꜥn

Wife

Title

Father’s title

Pestman’s classification

Document and date

lector-priest H̱ rṱ-ꜥnḫ daughter of woman ~ Pꜣ-ty-wp-wꜣwt and Tꜣ-šr.t-n-i҆s.t

C

P. BM EA 10591 (181BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ—185BC)

Pꜣ-ty-i҆tm son of Twt and Tꜣ-šr.ttwt

lector-priest Tꜣ-wꜣ daughter of Wp-wꜣwt-i҆w and Tꜣ-i҆s.t

woman ~

C

P. BM EA 10591 (170BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ—181BC)

Pꜣ-i҆kš son of Pꜣybs and Tꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

lector-priest Tꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp daughter of Pꜣty-i҆tm and Tꜣ-wꜣ

woman (lectorpriest)

C

P. BM EA 10594 (172BC) (sẖ n sꜥnḫ)

Pꜣ-i҆kš son of Pꜣybs and Tꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

lector-priest Tꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp daughter of Pꜣty-i҆tm and Tꜣ-wꜣ

woman (lectorpriest)

B

P. BM EA 10593 (172BC)

tables

595

table a.34 Theban tax / money (of the) overseer of the necropolis variant formulae

1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Has paid PN son of PN money X on account of PN whom they brought to the necropolis. Wrote PN son of PN in year X (var. wrote PN at the command of PN in year X); Has paid PN son of PN money X as money (of the) overseer of the necropolis on account of PN whom they brought to the necropolis. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; Has paid PN son of PN money X as money (of the) overseer of the necropolis on account of PN whom they brought to the necropolis. Wrote PN at (the) request (of) PN (the overseer of the necropolis) in year X; Has paid PN son of PN money X as money (of the) overseer of the necropolis on account of PN. Wrote PN (son of PN) at (the) request (of) PN (the overseer of the necropolis) in year X; Has paid PN son of PN money X as money (of the) overseer of the necropolis on account of PN. Wrote PN (son of PN) in year X; Has paid PN son of PN money X as money (of the) overseer of the necropolis on account of PN. Wrote PN at (the) request (of) PN in year X. The agent/representative (the lesonis) PN; Has paid PN son of PN money X to (the) temple on account of PN. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; Has paid PN son of PN money X as tax (of the) overseer of the necropolis (tni҆.t mr ḫꜣs.t) on account of PN. Wrote PN son of PN in year X.

596

appendix 3

table a.35 Receipts of payment of farmed-out necropolis-tax at Edfu Tax-payer

Date of receipt

Payment period

Amount

Officials

Document

[Ns-pꜣ-ḫy] son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13? month 2 of winter day 10

Year 13 month 1 of winter

2 deben 2 1/6 kite ½ obol

Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy [Ḥr]-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Ns-pꜣ-ꜥẖm Pa-rt son of Ns-mn Ḥr-šfy son of Patꜣ.wy

O. IFAO 212 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 3 ~ of winter day 14

1 deben

Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr Ḥr-pꜣ-i҆s.t son of Nspꜣ-ẖrṱ

O. IFAO 228 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 4 Year 13 of winter day 10

5 deben 7¼ kite Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Nspꜣ-ẖrṱ

O. IFAO 203 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 4 Year 13 of winter day 17

2 deben 7¼ kite Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty=s son of Pa-tꜣ.wy

O. IFAO 241 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 1 of harvest day 21

2 deben

O. IFAO 220 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 2 Year 13? month of harvest day 11 4 of winter

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 3 of harvest

Year 13

Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Nspꜣ-ẖrṱ

O. IFAO 231 (234BC)

Pꜣ-ty-pꜣ-sgnꜣ? son of Ḏḥwṱstm

Year 13 month 3 of harvest

Year 13 month 2 2 deben 6⅓ of winter kite

Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr

O. Cairo TR 7/11/30/1 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 3 of harvest day 1

Year 13 month 1 2 deben 8½ kite Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy and 2 of harvest

O. IFAO 240 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 3 Year 13 month 1 of harvest day 6 of harvest

Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy

O. IFAO 230 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 4 Year 13 month 2 4 deben 7¼ kite Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy of harvest day 1 of harvest

O. IFAO 223 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 4 Year 13 month 1 of harvest day 11 of harvest

8⅔ 1/12 kite

Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy

O. IFAO 250 (234BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 13 month 4 Year 13 month 3 of harvest last of harvest day

4 deben 7 1/6 kite ½ obol

Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy

O. IFAO 209 (234BC)

Year 13

Pa-ẖrṱ son of Pꜣ-ṯnfy

1 deben 6¼ kite Pa-[…]

1 deben

O. IFAO 207 (234BC)

597

tables Table A.35 Receipts of payment of farmed-out necropolis-tax at Edfu (cont.) Tax-payer

Date of receipt

Payment period

Amount

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 14 month 2 of inundation day 1

Year 13 month 4 4 deben 7 1/6 of winter kite ½ obol

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 14 month 3 of inundation day 1

Year 14? month 1 of inundation

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Officials

Document

Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr

O. IFAO 210 (234BC)

3 deben 5⅓ 1/12 Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Nskite pꜣ-ẖrṱ

O. IFAO 260 (234BC)

Year 14 month 4 Year 13 of inundation

4 deben 1 kite

O. IFAO 208 (233BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 14 month 4 of inundation day 2

Year 13 = 14 month 2 of inundation

4 deben 7¼ kite Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr

O. IFAO 221+202 (233BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 14 month 4 of inundation day 20

Year 13 = 14

4 deben 3½ kite Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr

O. IFAO 211 (233BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 14 month 2 Year 14? month of winter 2 of winter + month 3 of inundation

4 deben 4½ […] kite: 6½ kite + 3 deben 8 kite

O. IFAO 253+261 (233BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 14 month 2 of winter day 25?

Year 14

3 deben 3⅓ kite Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t son of Nspꜣ-ẖrṱ Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t son of Patꜣ.wy Pa-rt son of Ns-mn

O. IFAO 215 (233BC)

Ns-pꜣ-ḫy son of Pa-šꜣ

Year 14 month 3 of winter last day

Year 14? month 3 of winter

6½ kite

Ḏḥwṱ-ms son of Ḥrpꜣ-i҆s.t

O. IFAO 239 (233BC)

Pꜣ-ty-pꜣ-sgnꜣ? son of Ḏḥwṱstm

Year 16 month 1 Year 14 month 4 1 deben of winter day 5? of inundation

Km-ꜥnḫ son of Twt

O. IFAO 254 (233BC)

Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy son of Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr

598

appendix 3

table a.36 Edfu burial tax variant formulae

1. 2. 3.

4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

PN has brought (as the money) for the necropolis-tax of regnal year X silver X kite X, they are received on account. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought as part of (lit. in) the money for the necropolis-tax of regnal year X silver X kite X. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought as part of (lit. in) the money for the necropolis-tax of regnal year X concerning which he wrote at his command for regnal year X silver X kite X, they are received on account. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought the money for the necropolis-tax of regnal year X as part of (lit. in) the money for month X silver X kite X, they are received on account. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought as part of (lit. in) the money concerning which he wrote at his command for his amount for month X silver X kite X. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought as part of (lit. in) the money concerning which he wrote at his command for the necropolis-tax of regnal year X silver X kite X as the money for the month X; PN has brought as part of (lit. in) the money for the necropolis-tax concerning which he wrote at his command for regnal year X as the money for regnal year X silver X kite X month X. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought as part of (lit. in) the money for the necropolis-tax concerning which he wrote at his command in regnal year X silver X kite X as the money for the month X (var. as the money for the month X silver X kite X). Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought as part of (lit. in) the money for the necropolis-tax silver X kite X within the money concerning which he wrote at his command in/for regnal year X. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought silver X kite X as part of (lit. in) the money for the necropolis-tax in/for regnal year X. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought as part of (lit. in) the money concerning which he wrote at his command for the necropolis-tax for regnal year X silver X kite X. They are received on account, they having a claim on him for the remainder which is against him to complete it for the temple in accordance with silver X. Wrote PN son of PN in year X. PN has brought the remainder of the money for month X (as) the necropolis-tax of regnal year X silver X kite X as part of (lit. in) the money concerning which he wrote at his command. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN has brought silver X kite X as the remainder of the money for month X silver X kite X. They are received on account, they having a claim on him for the remainder which is against him. Wrote PN son of PN in year X; PN1 has brought in the name of PN2 silver X kite X, they are received on account within his share of the necropolis-tax. Wrote PN son of PN in year X.

599

tables table a.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) Name

Epithet Epithet Title

Other

1

I҆w=f-ꜥnḫ

master

and his s.t-tombs

2

I҆mn-rwš

master

and his people

I҆mn-rwš

master

I҆mn-rwš

master

Structure

Document and date P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

s.t-tomb

P. BM EA 10827 (273– 272BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10829 (209BC) P. BM EA 10532 A–B (2nd cent. BC)

blessed one

and every person belonging to him

blessed one

and Ns-mn who is therein with him, and Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn who is therein with him, and every person belonging to them

blessed one

and every person therein with him

s.t-tomb

3

I҆mn-ḥtp

4

I҆mn-ḥtp

master

5

I҆mn-ḥtp

master

and its s.t-tombs

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10830 (198BC)

6

I҆mn-ḥtp

master

in which he rests, and his people

towertomb

P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

7

ꜥnḫ-ḥp

s.t-tomb

P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC)

8

ꜥlꜥl

s.t-tomb

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

9

Wꜣḥ-i҆b-rꜥh̭ we

10

Wn-nfr

master

Wn-nfr

master

11

blessed one master

choachyte and his s.t-tombs

P. Berlin P. 3089P. BM EA 10426 (230BC)

blessed one

Wsi҆r-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ master the elder

P. BM EA 10377 (214BC)

P. Philadelphia XVIII (241BC) and his people

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) ½ mꜣꜥchapel

P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

600

appendix 3

Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name

Epithet Epithet Title

Other

Structure

Document and date

12

Wsi҆r-mꜣꜥrꜥ the younger

master

½ mꜣꜥchapel

P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

13

Wḏꜣ=f

master

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

14

Wḏꜣ-ḥr

master

P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC)

15

Br

master

16

Pꜣ-mšꜥ (?)

master

17

Pꜣ-hb

master

18

Pꜣ-s-n-mṱk

master

and his s.t-tombs

19

Pꜣ-sn-sn.w

master

together with the mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10829 master Pꜣ-šr-ḥr (209BC) who rests with him and every person belonging to them

20

Pꜣ-šr-i҆s.t

master

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10830 (198BC)

21

Pꜣ-šr-mn

master

22

Pꜣ-šr-mn

master

23

Pꜣ-šr-mn

master

24

Pꜣ-šr-mn

master

and his people and mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 his ḥ.t-tombs (175BC) s.t-tomb blessed one

and every person relating to it

in(?) the s.t-tomb of Sšnḳ with the master Ḏḥwṱ-rs and those resting with them and their people

P. Philadelphia XIX (240BC)

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Louvre N. 3263 (215BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC)

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10830 (198BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) together with the mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Amherst 60b blessed ones of the (153BC) people from Papa

601

tables Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name

Epithet Epithet Title

Other

25

Pꜣ-šr-mnṱ

master

and his s.wt-tombs

26

Pꜣ-šr-ḥr

master

and his people

27

Pꜣ-šr-ḥr(?)

master

28

Pꜣ-šr-ḥr

master

29

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw

master

ḥ.t-tomb

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw

master

ḥ.t-tomb

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw

our master

ḥ.t-tomb

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw

master

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw

master

and those who rest ~ with him and his s.t-tombs and his s.t-tombs

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw

master

and his s.t-tombs

31

Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw

master

from Permentinebmaten

32

Pꜣ-šr-ẖnm.

33

Pꜣ-šr-stm

master

and his s.t-tombs

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

34

Pꜣ-gyl

master

and his s.t-tombs

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

30

blessed one

Structure

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) s.t-tomb

and his people who rests with the master Pꜣ-sn-sn.w him and every person belonging to them

blessed one

Document and date

P. BM EA 10827 (273– 272BC) P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC)

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10829 (209BC)

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC) P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) P. BM EA 10073 (217BC)

602

appendix 3

Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name

Epithet Epithet Title

35

Pꜣ-gmt

master

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

36

Pꜣ-ty-bꜣst.t

master

and the s.t-tomb in mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Philadelphia XXVI which he rests (217BC)

37

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

master

38

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

master

39

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

master

40

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

master

and his s.t-tombs

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

master

and his s.t-tombs

41

Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r

master

42

Pꜣ-ty=f(?)

master

43

Pꜣ-ty-nfrḥtp

our master

44

Pꜣ-ty-nfrḥtp son of Pa-ḥy

master

45

Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ- master rꜥ

46

Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw

47

Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw

master

blessed one

Other

Structure

and his people mꜣꜥ-chapel held by Ḏḥwṱ-stm

Document and date

P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC)

blessed one

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

his wife (and) his children from Hermonthis

god’s father

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

given as landmark

s.t-tomb

P. Philadelphia V (302BC)

and his people

s.t-tomb

P. Marseilles 299– 298 (235BC)

s.t-tomb as a place of rest

P. BM EA 10388 (223BC)

blessed one the god of the ˹transport-boat˺ (nf.w ꜥrꜥr)

P. Philadelphia V (302BC)

blessed one

and his s.wt-tombs

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

blessed one

who rests with Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn the craftsman and those who rest therein

s.t-tomb

P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC)

603

tables Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name

Epithet Epithet Title

48

Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw

49

Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw

master

50

Pꜣ-ty-šwl

master

51

Pꜣy- I҆s.t

master

52

Pꜣy-ꜥw

master

53

Pꜣy-wn

master

54

Pꜣy-pꜥ

master

55

Pꜣy-mn

master

Pꜣy-mn

~

Other

carrier of the milkjar

Structure

Document and date

s.t-tomb

P. Bibl. Nat. 218 + P. BM EA 10396 (146BC)

blessed one

P. Berlin P. 5507– 3098 (136BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC) who is with the master Pa-tw

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

and ⟨his⟩ people

of the men from Ipy the man from Ipy

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) s.t-tomb

P. Amherst 58b (153BC)

and every person belonging to him

s.t-tomb

and every person belonging to him

s.t-tomb

P. Berlin P. 3089 + P. BM EA 10426 (230BC) P. BM EA 10377 (214BC)

56

Pꜣy-kꜣ (var. master Kꜣ)

and his s.t-tombs

s.t-tomb

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

57

Pꜣy-kꜣ

master

who rests in Djeme, and ⅓ of his people (from) Hermonthis who rest with him

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

58

Pꜣy-tꜣ

master

and his people

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

59

Pylwm

master

60

Pyln

master

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC) together with his s.t-tomb

P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC)

604

appendix 3

Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.)

61

62

Name

Epithet Epithet Title

Phlꜣn

master

Phlꜣn

master

Pa-i҆np Pa-i҆npw

63

Other

blessed one blessed one

temporarily placed s.t-tomb in this tomb ḥ.t-tomb together with those resting with him together with those who rest with him

~

~

Pa-yw

master

blessed one

P(a)-pꜥ

master

and his s.t-tombs

P(a)-pꜥ

master

and his s.t-tombs

65

Pa-mw.t

master

and his people

66

Pa-nꜣ

master

blessed one

Pa-nꜣ

master

blessed one

Pa-nꜣ

master

Pa-nꜣ

master

67

Document and date P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

Pa-yw

64

Structure

and every person belonging to him and the gods of Pꜣty-i҆mn and every person belonging to him and every person belonging to him and the gods of Pꜣty-i҆mn and every person belonging to him

P. Amherst 58a (153BC) P. Berlin P. 5507– 3098 (136BC)

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Amherst 60b (153BC) P. Berlin P. 5507– 3098 (136BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC) s.t-tomb

P. Berlin P. 3089— P. BM EA 10426 (230BC)

s.t-tomb

P. BM EA 10377 (214BC)

and those who rest mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 with him (175BC) and his s.wt-tombs P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

605

tables Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name

Epithet Epithet Title

Other

68

Pa-nꜣglgꜣ.w

master

69

Pa-nfr

master

Pa-nfr

master

70

Pa-ḥr

master

71

Pa-ḥr(?)

master

72

Pa-ḫꜣ

master

blessed one

byssosweaver

Pa-ḫꜣ

master

blessed one

byssosweaver

73

Pa-ḫꜣ

master

blessed one

74

Pa-ḫy

master

with his mother and her husband (and) her children

75

Pa-ẖnm

master

Pa-ẖnm

master

Pa-ẖnm

master

Pa-ẖnm

master

and the gods therein with him and the gods who are with him and the rest of the people inside it and the gods who are with him

Structure

Document and date P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

and every person belonging to him

blessed one

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10829 (209BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10612 (175BC)

with the mistress Šymṱ the (fem.) blessed one and the master Mrꜣ the blessed one

P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC)

P. BM EA 10532 A–B (2nd cen. BC)

blessed one

and an unknown man therein with him, and every person belonging to them and every person belonging to him and every person therein with him and his people

~

P. Berlin P. 3089 + P. BM EA 10426 (230BC)

s.t-tomb

P. BM EA 10377 (214BC)

s.t-tomb

P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC) P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

large ḥ.ttomb large ḥ.ttomb large s.ttomb large ḥ.ttomb

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC)

606

appendix 3

Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name

Epithet Epithet Title

Pa-rt

master

Pa-rt

master

77

Pa-rṱ

our master

your god

78

Pa-rṱ

master

and his people ~ and those who rest with him

79

Pa-tꜣ-ꜥḫy

master

80

Pa-tw

master

81

Pa-ḏḥwṱ

master

82

Mꜣy-rsy

master

Mꜣy-rs

master

83

Mrꜣ

master

84

Nꜣṱ

85

Nḫt.ṱ-mnṱ

76

Other

Structure

Document and date P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

~

P. Philadelphia V (302BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

together with the master Pꜣy-i҆s.t, together with Pꜣyi҆s.t his father, his woman (and) his children blessed one

and his people

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

blessed one

with the mistress Šymṱ the (fem.) blessed one and the master Pa-ḥr the blessed one

P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC)

master

and their people

P. Marseilles 299– 298 (235BC)

master

and his people mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 and those who rest (175BC) with him

607

tables Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name

Epithet Epithet Title

Other

Structure

Document and date

86

Nḫt.ṱ-ḏḥwṱ master

(P. Philadelphia XVI ˹Nsḏḥwṱ˺)

P. BM EA 10839 (198– 186BC)

87

Ns-i҆n-ḥr

master

and his s.wt-tombs

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

88

Ns-ptḥ

master

given as landmark

89

Ns-mn

master

who is with [P]hyl and every persons belonging to them

P. BM EA 10227 (230BC)

90

Ns-mn

master

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC)

Ns-mn

master

together with the ~ mistress Tꜣy-šb.ṱ and their people together with the s.t-tomb mistress [Tꜣy-] who rests there with him, and every person belonging to them

91

Ns-mn

master

given as landmark

P. BM EA 10226 (185BC)

92

Ns-mn

master

93

Ns-nꜣ-ḫṱ

master

94

Ns-nꜣ.wẖmn-i҆w

master

95

(H)plws(?) master

and his people

(H)plw

master

and his people

Hry=w

master

and his s.t-tombs

Hry=w

master

96

blessed one

˹dam˺

~

P. BM EA 10612 (175BC)

P. BM EA 10073 (217BC)

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) and its s.t-tombs

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10830 (198BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

608

appendix 3

Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name

Epithet Epithet Title

Other

97

Hlgytys

master

Toge there with his mother, father, wife (and) children

98

Ḥmꜣ the elder

our master

and his people

s.t-tomb

P. Marseilles 299– 298 (235BC)

99

Ḥmꜣ the younger

our master

and his people

s.t-tomb

P. Marseilles 299– 298 (235BC)

100 Ḥmḳ (?) the younger

master

and his s.t-tomb with their people and those resting with them

101

Ḥr son of Pꜣ-gbr

master

and his people

102

Ḥr(?)

master

and his people

P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC)

103

Ḥr

master

and every person relating to it

P. Louvre N 3263 (215BC)

104

Ḥr

master

together with the mistress Mw.t-mwyꜣ with whom he is

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC)

105

Ḥr-wḏꜣ

master

and his people

Ḥr-wḏꜣ

master

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

106 Ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ

master

107

Ḥr-pꜣ-[…] son of Twrmn

master

and the s.t-tomb in mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Philadelphia XXVI which he rests (217BC)

108

Ḥr-m-ḥb

master

Ḥr-m-ḥb

master

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

blessed one

blessed one

Structure

Document and date P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

P. BM EA 10226 (185BC)

s.t-tomb

and his people ~ and the s.t-tomb to which they belong

P. BM EA 10827 (273– 272BC)

P. Philadelphia XVIII (241BC)

609

tables Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name

Epithet Epithet Title blessed one

Other

man from Ipy

Structure

Document and date

109

Ḥr-ḥtr

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC)

110

Ḫꜥ=f

master

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

111

Ḫnswḏḥwṱ

master

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

112

Sy-pa-mwt master son of Pwlꜣnths

together with his people

P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC)

113

Smꜣ-tꜣ.wy

master

with his wife (and) his children

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

114

Sylws

master

and his people

P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC)

115

Snws

master

116

G-ḏꜣḏꜣ

~

G-ḏꜣḏꜣ

master

K-ḏꜣḏꜣ

master

117

Gmrws

our master

118

Tꜣ-ḥny

master

P. BM EA 10532 A–B (2nd cent. BC)

119

Tw-ḥḏpꜣy=f-ṯꜣw

master

P. BM EA 10532 A–B (2nd cent. BC)

120

Twt

master

Twt

master

Twt

master

~ blessed one blessed one blessed one

who is with Ta-nfr mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Amherst 60b the mistress (153BC) and their people mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Berlin P. 3119 and those who rest (146BC) therein and their people mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Bibl. Nat. 218—P. and those who rest BM EA 10396 (146BC) therein s.t-tomb

and his people blessed one

P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC)

and every person belonging to him and his people

s.t-tomb

P. Marseilles 299– 298 (235BC)

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC) s.t-tomb P. BM EA 10073 (217BC) mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

610

appendix 3

Table A.37 The epithets master (ḥry) and blessed one (ḥsy) (cont.) Name 121

Tw […]

122

Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆rty-s

123

Ḏḥwṱ-rs

124

Epithet Epithet Title

Other

Structure

Document and date

together with those who rest inside it

ḥ.t-tomb

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

and his dead (ḳs.w) s.t-tomb

P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC)

master

in(?) the s.t-tomb of Sšnḳ with the master Pꜣ-šr-mn and those resting with them and their people

P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC)

Ḏḥwṱ-stm

master

and his people

Ḏḥwṱ-stm

master

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC) P. BM EA 10073 (217BC)

125

Ḏḥwṱ-stm

master

126

Ḏ-ḥr

master

127

Ḏ-ḥr

master

128

Ḏ-ḥr

master

P. BM EA 10532 A–B (2nd cen. BC)

129

Ḏ-ḥr

master

P. Louvre E 3440 B– A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

130

Ḏ-h̭ y?

master

O. BM EA 66402 (242BC)

131

[…]-i҆mn

blessed one

lettercarrier

and his people

blessed one

of the priests

and every person belonging to him

blessed one

of the ˹doorkeepers˺

and his people and every person resting in the said s.t-tomb

blessed one

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. BM EA 10227 (230BC) s.t-tomb

Ta-i҆s.t can access ḥ.t-tomb ḥ.t-tomb of Tꜣy-šb.ṱ on account of him

P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC)

P. Amherst 60b (153BC)

611

tables table a.38 The epithets mistress (ḥry.t) and (fem.) blessed one (ḥsy.t) Name

Epithet

1

Ꜣṱꜣ

mistress

P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

2

I҆r.t-ḥr-rr=w

mistress

P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

3

Wgš

mistress

4

Mw.t-m-wyꜣ mistress

5

Mr[…]

mistress

6

Nynꜣ(?)

mistress

(fem.) blessed one

and her(?) people

s.t-tomb

P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC)

7

Ḥtp-bꜣst.t

~

~

ḥ.t-tomb

P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

Ḥtp-bꜣst.t

mistress

and those who rest with her together with his (sic. her) s.t-tomb

Ḥtp-bꜣst.t

8

Šymṱ Šymṱ Šymṱ

Epithet Other

Document and date

and her people and her ḥ.t-tombs

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

together with the master Ḥr who is therein with her

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Philadelphia XXVI (217BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

(fem.) blessed one mistress (ḥry) mistress (ḥry) mi҆stress

Structure

(fem.) blessed one

and the master Mrꜣ the blessed one and the master Pa-ḥr the blessed one

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Amherst 60b (153 BC) ḥ.t-tomb

P. Berlin P. 5507–3098 (136BC)

ḥ.t-tomb

P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC)

ḥ.t-tomb

P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC)

~

P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC)

P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC)

Šymṱ

mistress (ḥry.(t))

ḥ.t-tomb

9

Tꜣ-wrt-mn

mistress

every person relating it to mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Louvre N 3263 (215 BC) it

10

Tꜣ-bw-i҆r-rḫ mistress daughter of (ḥry.(t)) Tꜣ-lwꜣ the herder

P. BM EA 10074 (230BC)

11

Ta-ḥr

P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

mistress

612

appendix 3

Table A.38 The epithets mistress (ḥry.t) and (fem.) blessed one (ḥsy.t) (cont.) Name

Epithet

Epithet Other

Structure

12

Tꜣ-i҆ḥ.t

mistress

P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

13

Tꜣ-i҆gš?

mistress

O. BM EA 14026 (255BC)

14

Tꜣ-šr.t-mw.t Tꜣ-šr.t-mw.t

mistress (ḥry.(t)) mistress

Tꜣ-šr.t-mw.t

mistress

P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

15

Tꜣ-šr.t-mnṱ

mistress

P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC)

16

Tꜣ-ḏtmꜣ (var. Taḏtm, Ta-tꜣ-ḏtmꜣ)

mistress

and the gmt.w (var. gm.w)

17

Tꜣy-ꜥw

mistress

and her s.t-tombs and those who rest therein

18

Tꜣy-ḫꜣ (var. Tꜣy-ḫꜣꜣ)

mistress

19

Tꜣy-šb.ṱ

mistress (ḥry.(t))

20 Tꜣy-šb.ṱ

mistress

and her people

~

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC)

and every person belonging to her

s.t-tomb

P. BM EA 10073 (217BC)

P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

~

P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC)

together with the master Ns-mn and their people

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC)

(fem.) blessed one (ḥsy.(t))

P. Amherst 60b (153BC)

Tꜣy-šb.ṱ 21

Document and date

P. Amherst 58a (153BC)

Tꜣy-tꜣe

mistress

22 Tꜣy-tꜣ.t

mistress

23 [Tꜣy-]

mistress

24 Ta-i҆mn

mistress

P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) (fem.) blessed one

and her people

together with the master Ns-mn the blessed one, and every person belonging to them (fem.) blessed one

P. Philadelphia XVIII (241BC) s.t-tomb

P. BM EA 10073 (217BC)

P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC)

613

tables Table A.38 The epithets mistress (ḥry.t) and (fem.) blessed one (ḥsy.t) (cont.) Name

Epithet

25 Ta-nwꜣ

mistress

Epithet Other and Wsi҆r-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ and Ḏ-ḥrpꜣ-ḥb

26 Ta-nwꜣ mistress? daughter of Pꜣ-ty-mn 27 Ta-nfr

mistress

together with G-ḏꜣḏꜣ the ḥsy

28 Ta-rṱ daughter of Pa-rwꜣ

mistress

and her people

29 Ta-ḏḥwṱ

mistress

30 Ttꜣ

mistress

with Ta-ḏtm the (female) embalmer (and) their children

31

mistress (ḥry.(t))

and her(?) people

[…]

Structure

Document and date

½ mꜣꜥchapel

P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

ḥ.t-tomb

P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

mꜣꜥ-chapel P. Amherst 60b (153 BC) P. BM EA 10827 (273– 272BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

s.t-tomb

P. Louvre E 2425 (227BC)

614

appendix 3

table a.39 List of titled people and the tomb type in which they rested21 Name

Gender Epithet

Title

Br

m.

pastophoros of Djeme

Pꜣ-ꜣstw

m.

mender/barber

Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr

m.

divine father

Pꜣ-i҆my Pꜣ-mꜣy Pꜣ-mrr Pꜣ-mri҆ Pꜣ-mrrꜣ Pꜣ-mrr Pꜣ-hb Pꜣ-hb Pꜣ-hb

m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m.

pastophoros ibises’ servant

Pꜣ-šr-i҆ꜥḥ Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn-i҆py Pꜣ-šr-mn Pꜣ-šr-mnṱ Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw Pꜣ-ḳrꜥ=f

harbour master goldsmith from Resnef scribe craftsman

m.

smith pastophoros of Amun washerman who uses heated water kalasiris feeder supplier/watcher pastophoros of Amun pastophoros of Djeme

Pꜣ-ty-ꜥš-stm(?) Pꜣ-ty-mn

m. m.

washerman goldsmith

Pꜣ-ty-nf Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp

m. m. m.

Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw Pꜣ-ty-ssw Pꜣy-pꜥ

m. m. m. m. m. m. m.

21

m. m. m. m.

(blessed one?) (blessed one?) master

blessed one

merchant servant of Hathor prophet Nesmin god’s father draughtsman jeweller carrier of the milk-jar carrier of the milk-jar carrier of the milk-jar 3rd prophet dancer

The list includes only people for whom a title, and the type of tomb in which they were buried, is given in the documents analysed, those listed only by name are excluded from this table.

615

tables

Other people

Tomb

Notes

Document(s)

s.t

every man who belongs to him

ḥ.t

those who rest therein and those who will come to it those buried therein

P. Berlin P. 3089 (230BC) P. BM EA 10377 (214BC) P. Berlin P. 3116 (114BC)

Ḏ-ptḥ-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ

s.t

Ptḥ-mꜣꜥ-ḫrw Ptḥ-mꜣꜥ-ḫrw Ptḥ-mꜣꜥ-ḫrw Ptḥ-mꜣꜥ-ḫrw Pꜣ-tꜣ.wy

s.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t s.t s.t

Ns-nꜣy=wẖmnw Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s

s.t s.t s.t s.t s.t s.t s.t s.t

his people his children and those who rest therein

pastophoroi

P. Amherst 58a (153BC) P. BM EA 10614 (175BC) P. Louvre N 3263 (215 BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A (175BC) P. Philadelphia 19 (240 BC) P. BM EA 10532B (early 2nd cent. BC) P. Louvre E 3440 A (175BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC)

his people his people (identified as ‘our’ saint)

P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC) P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC) P. Marseilles 298 (235BC)

and every person relating to it the people therein

ḥ.t s.t s.t s.t s.t

Strtn

his people

s.t s.t s.t s.t s.t ḥ.t s.t

P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. BM EA 10830 (198BC) P. BM EA 10827 (273–272BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC) P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC)

his people

his people and those who rest therein his people and those who rest therein those who rest with them

P. Philadelphia 18 (241 BC) P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) P. Amherst 60b (153BC) P. Berlin P. 3119 (146 BC) P. Bibl. Nat. 218 (146 BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC)

616

appendix 3

Name

Gender Epithet

Title

Pꜣy-mn Pꜣy-mn (Pꜣy)-rwꜣs Pꜣy-rws Pa-wn Pa-bꜣ

m. m.

of the men from Ipy the man from Ipy pastophoros of Khonsu pastophoros of Khonsu craftsman prophet of Osiris

Pa-mn Pa-mn=s Pa-mnṱ Pa-mnṱ Pa-mnṱ Pa-mnṱ and that of Pꜣy-mḥy Pa-mnṱ and that of Pꜣy-mḥy Pa-nꜣ-ḫt.ṱ.w Pa-nfr Pa-rw Pa-rwꜣ Pa-rḏꜥ(?) Pa-hb Pa-hb Pa-ḥr

m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m.

Pa-ḥr ⟨Pa⟩-ḥr ⟨Pa⟩-ḥr Pa-ḫꜣ

m. m. m. m.

Pa-sy Pa-sy Pa-ḏmꜣ Pa-ṯ-[?]/Pa-ḏmꜣ? Mꜣy-ḥs

m. m. m. m.

Mr-ꜥw Mrṱ Nḫt.ṱ-mnṱ Nḫt.ṱ-mnṱ Ns-pꜣ-mtr Ns-pꜣy=w-tꜣ-wy Ns-pꜣy=w-tꜣ-wy

m. f. m. m. m. m.

master

(blessed one?)

master blessed one (blessed one?) (blessed one?)

barber ibises’ servant prophet of Khnum prophet of Khnum prophet of Khnum byssos-weaver byssos-weaver byssos-weaver byssos-weaver engraver pastophoros of Djeme goldsmith goldsmith servant of Hathor prophet Nesmin prophet of Hathor prophet of Hathor goldsmith pastophoros of Amun pastophoros of Amun pastophoros of Amun byssos-weaver craftsman craftsman pastophoros of Djeme pastophoros of Djeme farmer barber washerwoman baboon’s servant craftsman prophet of Khonsu draughtsman draughtsman (sic.)

617

tables

Other people

Gwꜣ son of Mrꜣ

Ḥr-nfr

Tomb

Notes

Document(s)

s.t s.t s.t ḥ.t s.t s.t

every man belonging to him every man belonging to him

s.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t ḥ.t s.t s.t s.t s.t s.t (ḥ.t?) ḥ.t s.t s.t s.t s.t s.t ḥ.t

those who rest with them his people

every man belonging to them

P. Berlin P. 3089 (230BC) P. BM EA 10377 (214BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC) P. BM EA 10532B (early 2nd cent. BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC) P. BM EA 10827 (273–272BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC) P. Berlin P. 3089 (230BC)

every man belonging to them

P. BM EA 10377 (214BC)

s.t half ḥ.t half ḥ.t s.t s.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t s.t

Twt

ꜥnḫ=f-n-ḫnsw Ḫf-ḫnsw

ḥ.t s.t ḥ.t s.t s.t ~ in the ḥ.t of Nb-wnn

the people therein with them buyer has 3 people there buyer has 3 people there his people

and the people of Pa-šꜥ pastophoros of Montu

every man who belongs to him, every man therein his people his people the people therein the people therein

Tꜣ-ḫm-br

his children and his people

P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC) P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) P. Marseilles 298 (235BC) P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC) P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) P. Marseilles 298 (235BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Amherst 60b (153BC) P. Berlin P. 5507 (136BC) P. Berlin P. 3098 (136BC) P. BM EA 10377 (214BC) P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) P. Marseilles 298 (235BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. BM EA 10827 (273–272BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Amherst 60b (153BC) P. Berlin P. 3119 (146 BC)

618

appendix 3

Name

Gender Epithet

Title

Ns-pꜣy=w-tꜣ-wy

m.

draughtsman

Ns-mn Ns-mn Ns-mn Ns-mn Ns-mn

m. m. m. m. m.

Rwtn Rwtn Hry=w Hry=w Hry=w Hry=w Hry=w Hry=w Hry=w Hrmn Ḥmwrꜣ Ḥmn Ḥr ⟨Pꜣy⟩-ḥr Ḥr Ḥry Ḥr-ꜥw Ḥr-mnṱ Ḥr-m-ḥb Ḥr-m-ḥb Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t Ḥr-ḥtr Ḥr-ḥtr Ḥr-ḥtr Ḥr-ḥtr Ḥr-ḫb Ḥr-ḫb Ḥr-ḫb

m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. sic. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m.

Ḥr-ḫb Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t Ḥr-ḏḥwṱ

m. m. m.

(blessed one?) (blessed one?) (blessed one?) (blessed one?)

prophet of Hathor prophet of Hathor horoscope horoscope pastophoros of Montu

(blessed one?)

army chief

(blessed one?)

army chief pastophoros of Amun boatman builder builder craftsman craftsman builder merchant royal-byssos weaver priest of Min fisherman byssos-weaver boatman* pastophoros of Amun hunter skipper of the bark herdsman of Montu second prophet hunter hunter hunter man from Ipy man from Ipy man from Ipy man from Ipy prophet of Khnum prophet of Khnum prophet of Khnum

blessed one

blessed one

prophet of Khnum choachyte craftsman

619

tables

Other people

Tomb

Notes

Document(s)

ꜥnḫ=f-n-ḫnsw

in the ḥ.t of Nb-wnn s.t s.t s.t s.t s.t

his children and his people

P. Bibl. Nat. 218 (146 BC)

s.t

Wsi҆r-wr Pꜣ-ty-ḏḥwṱ

Pa-ḥr

Pa-mnṱ

I҆mn-ḥtp

s.t s.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t half ḥ.t half ḥ.t ḥ.t ḥ.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t s.t s.t s.t s.t s.t ḥ.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t ḥ.t ḥ.t ḥ.t mꜣꜥ ḥ.t ḥ.t ḥ.t s.t ḥ.t s.t s.t

his people his people pastophoroi of Montu every person belonging to them the buyer’s people Ta-mn daughter of Pꜣ-i҆.i҆r-gꜣ the buyer’s people

those who rest therein

his people

and every person relating to it

by the path of the god by the path of the god and his father Pa-mnṱ and the pure ones therein with him by the path of the god

P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) P. Marseilles 298 (235BC) P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) P. Marseilles 298 (235BC) P. BM EA 10073 (217BC) P. Marseilles 299 (235BC) P. Marseilles 298 (235BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) P. Berlin P. 5507 (136BC) P. Berlin P. 3098 (136BC) P. Berlin P. 5507 (136BC) P. Berlin P. 3098 (136BC) P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Philadelphia 19 (240BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) P. Philadelphia 24 (227BC) P. BM EA 10612 (175BC) P. Louvre N 3263 (215 BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC) P. BM EA 10240 (228–227BC) P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC)

620

appendix 3

Name

Gender Epithet

Title

Ḫnsw-ḏḥwṱ and his brother Ḏ-ḥr Ḫnsw-ḏḥwṱ H̱ l-ḥr-i҆w

m. m. m.

taricheutes taricheutes taricheutes draughtsman

S-s-wsr.t

m.

builder

Ḳlwḏ

m.

smith

Gymrws Gpln

m. m.

goldsmith smith

Tꜣ-rws Tꜣ-lws Tꜣy=f-nḫt Tꜣy-ḥr

f. f. f.

pastophoros of Khonsu pastophoros of Khonsu baker the woman from Ipy

Twt Twt Ta-wꜣ Ḏḥwṱ-i҆w Ḏḥwṱ-i҆w Ḏḥwṱ-i҆w Ḏḥwṱ-i҆w.w

m.

m.

pastophoros of Nb-ꜥnḫ barber/mender doctor (swnw) byssos weaver overseer of fields watcher/supplier? fodderer

Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s Ḏḥwṱ-stm Ḏ-ḥr Ḏ-ḥr Ḏ-ḥr Ḏ-ḫnsw-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ Ḏ-ḫnsw-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ Ḏ-ḫnsw-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ doctors (embalmers?) of the people of Hermonthis husband of Ta-nꜣ-ḫṱ.w glhb.w of rituals and the glhb.w of place of rest menders/barbers nurses of Pꜣ-wḏꜣ-mtw=s nurses of the first prophet pastophoroi of Osiris

m. m. m. m. m. m. m. m.

great one of thoth man from Gs lector priest overseer of priests of door-keepers eye doctor eye doctor eye doctor

pastophoroi of Mut

f.? m. m.

m.

master

dealer (fem.)

ẖꜥḳ.w Nurses (mn-i҆ry.w) Nurses (mn-i҆ry.w)

621

tables

Other people

Tomb

Notes

ḥ.t

P. Amherst 50 (before 150BC)

ḥ.t ḥ.t (lower?) s.t

P. Amherst 46+55 (150BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) and every man who belongs [to said s.t]

s.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t ḥ.t s.t s.t

Ḥp-mn

Pꜣ-hb Wꜣḥ-i҆b-rꜥ Ṯ-nfr

Document(s)

s.t ḥ.t s.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t s.t

his people

and every person relating to it together with s.t that is by its entrance his people those who rest therein his people his people

P. BM EA 10829 (209BC) P. Louvre E 3440 A + P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Philadelphia 18 (241 BC) P. Berlin P. 5507 (136BC) P. Berlin P. 3098 (136BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249BC) P. Louvre N 3263 (215 BC) P. Brussels E 6037 (153BC) P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. BM EA 10074 (230BC) P. BM EA 10827 (273–272BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. Marseilles 299–298 (235BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. Philadelphia 5 (302BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245BC) P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC) P. Louvre E 2424 (267BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243 BC) P. Amherst 46+55 (150BC)

s.t ḥ.t s.t s.t s.t ḥ.t ḥ.t ḥ.t ḥ.t

his people

ḥ.t s.t

his wife and his children

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B (175BC)

s.t ḥ.t s.t s.t

their people

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC) P. Philadelphia 19 (240BC) P. Louvre E 3440 B–A P. Berlin P. 3112 (175BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

ḥ.t

his people, every man the people therein the people therein the people therein

622

Name pastophoroi of Mut pastophoroi of Montu pastophoroi of Tutu people who are in Djeme

people from Pr-ꜣlk(?) people from Pr-šhꜣ

appendix 3

Gender Epithet

Title

623

tables

Other people

Tomb another ḥ.t s.t ḥ.t large s.t

half ḥ.t s.t

Notes

Document(s) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC)

their people lotus cultivators and the people of I҆r.t=w-r-r=w son of Pꜣ-ẖr-Ḫnsw therein with them

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222BC) P. BM EA 10615 (175BC) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264BC)

P. Berlin P. 5507 (136BC) P. Berlin P. 3098 (136BC) P. BM EA 10223 (171? BC)

624

appendix 3

table a.40 Summary of archaeological evidence on body treatment and inhumation typology Mummified often with cartonnage often with coffins

Buried in one of the earlier tombs with funerary goods – (TT414) – (Naga el-Hisaya, Nes-shutefnut prophet of Khonsu and Horus) – mummies with cartonnage placed in coffins of thin wood (Medinet Gurob) Buried in brick-tombs with few or no funerary goods – with cartonnage and decorated wooden coffins (Asasif); – with decorated/inscribed shroud, pottery or unfired figured clay coffin (‘family brick-tombs’ in Amenhotep son of Hapu funerary temple); – with decorated/uninscribed shroud, wooden coffin (Type II burials in funerary temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu); – mummies with cartonnage cases or decorated coffins (Gebel Ghibli) – with cartonnage, some with gilt masks, coffins (Gurob) Buried inside cavities dug in surface of mud-brick walls (and bordered with reused bricks), dug in the bedrock, or inside ‘architectural coffins’ – with cartonnage and/or wooden coffins (area between step pyramid and OK mastaba of Ptah-hotep) – bandaged mummies coated with painted plaster, inside stone sarcophagi (Tûra El-Asmant) – mummy placed in oblong cavity cut in bedrock, with complete cartonnage set, often with wooden (rarely pottery) coffin (richly painted in wealthier burials) (Gurob) – mummy placed in individual mud-brick tomb with vaulted (or rarely flat) roof, with complete cartonnage set (Gurob) Bandaged and buried in pits in the ground – well-bandaged mummies, with cartonnage pieces and round-topped corner posts coffins (deep pit-tombs, Hawara) – rhombic pattern bandages, with four separate cartonnage pieces, plain wooden box with flat lid (Hawara, later than previous group) – mummies (most) wrapped with rhombic pattern bandages, four separate cartonnage pieces, unpainted rough figured coffins of thin wood, narrower at foot than top end (Medinet Gurob) – mummies in basketry-cases with hinging lid, rushes canopies built over coffins painted in pink and white (Medinet Gurob) – fine mummies, with complete cartonnage set, with undecorated oblong limestone sarcophagi with rounded top, or with rough anthropoid shape (Gurob) – mummies placed in deep pits (one with polished limestone walls), remains of gilt plaster mask (Gurob) Bandaged and buried directly in ground – cartonnage fragments present (next to Asasif brick-tomb B40) – wrapped mummies, no external decoration (area between step pyramid and OK Mastaba of Ptah-hotep) – mummified, with cartonnage elements, with roughly anthropoid, wooden figured coffins, placed directly on bedrock, pottery as burial goods (Gurob)

625

tables Table A.40 Summary of archaeological evidence on body treatment (cont.) Poorly/possibly mummified some with cartonnage with bandages or mats, no coffin (or only rarely)

Buried in one of the earlier tombs, only some with a coffin (TT253)

Not mummified with/out bandages/mats with/out coffin

Type III burials (Amenhotep son of Hapu funerary temple)

Buried in graves in the ground (some deep) – poorly mummified, with crude anthropoid figured painted coffins (Hawara) – ‘summarily’ mummified, wrapped in palm slats tray or mats, sometimes with cartonnage elements, pottery as burial goods (Gurob) No associated funerary structures, burial goods, coffins or cartonnage – wrapped in mats (area between step pyramid and OK Mastaba of Ptah-hotep) – bodies wrapped in cloth and placed directly in the ground (Gebel Ghibli)

No associated funerary structures – wrapped in mats, no burial goods (area between step pyramid and OK mastaba of Ptah-hotep) – bandaged and coffined, no burial goods (area between step pyramid and OK Mastaba of Ptah-hotep) – wrapped in mats, placed in shallow pits with pottery as burial goods (Gurob)

Bibliography Abdalla, A. 1992. Graeco-Roman Funerary Stelae from Upper Egypt. Liverpool Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Abu-Bakr, A.M. 1953. Excavations at Giza 1949–1950. Cairo: Government Press. Abd el-Aal, S. 2003. The Mallawy Papyrus No. 602/1–602/5: A Comprehensive Study of the Document and the Professional and Administrative Titles. In Hawass, Z. and Pinch Brock, L. (eds) Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists Cairo 2000. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Adams, C.V.A. 1966. The manufacture of ancient Egyptian cartonnage cases. The Smithsonian Journal of History 1.3 (1966) 55–66. Adams, C. 2007. Shades of meaning: the significance of manifestations of the dead as evidenced in texts from the Old Kingdom to the Coptic Period. In Cannata, M. (ed.) Current Research in Egyptology. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium Oxford University 2006. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1–20. Adams, C. In progress. Between two worlds: the interface between the living and the dead as evidenced in texts of the Late, Ptolemaic and Roman periods (D.Phil. thesis). Adler, E.N., Tait, J.G. and Griffith, F.Ll. 1939. The Adler papyri. Oxford: University Press; London: Humphrey Milford. El-Aguizy, O. 1998. A palaeographical study of Demotic papyri in the Cairo Museum from the reign of king Taharka to the end of the Ptolemaic period, 684–30B.C. Cairo: IFAO.lness1 El-Aguizy, O. 1990. Une nouvelle «taxe de la nécropole» à Edfou. OLP 21 (1990) 135– 139. El-Aguizy, O. 1989. A Demotic deed of «not hindering» from Sharunah. BIFAO 89 (1989) 89–99. El-Aguizy, O. 1988. A Ptolemaic judicial document from Ḥwt-nsw. BIFAO 88 (1988) 51–62. Alcock, A. 1996. Coptic Terms for Containers and Measures. Enchoria 23 (1996) 1–7. Allam, S. 1989. Non-Royal Women and their Occupations in the Middle Kingdom. In Lesko, B.S. (ed.) Women’s earliest records from ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5–7, 1987. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Allam, S. 1985. Le ḥm-kꜣ était-il exclusivement prêtre funéraire? RdÉ 36 (1985) 1–15. Allam, S. 1981. Quelques aspects du mariage dans l’Égypte ancienne. JEA 67 (1981) 116– 135. Allam, S. 1973. Hieratische Ostraka und Papyri aus der Ramessidenzeit. Tübingen: Im Selbstverlag des Herausgebers. Altenmüller, H. 2000. Etappen des Mythos: Vom Ikon zum Epitheton, vom Epitheton

bibliography

627

zum Götternamen. In Barta, M. and Krejčí, J. (eds) Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2000, 305–316. Prague: academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. Altenmüller, H. 1981. Amenophis I. als Mittler. MDAIK 37 (1981) 1–7, Pl. I. Amélineau, E. 1887. Étude sur le Christianisme en Égypte au Septième Siècle. Paris: Ernest Leroux Éditeur. El-Amir, M. 1974. Varia Demotica. In Kießling, E. and Rupprecht, H.A. (eds) Akten des XIII. Internetionalen Papyrologenkongresses. Marburg/Lahn, 2.–6. August 1971. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagbuchhandlung. El-Amir, M. 1969. Further notes on the Demotic papyri in the Turin Museum (topographical, sociological and legal studies). BIFAO 68 (1969) 85–120. El-Amir, M. 1960. The unpublished Demotic papyri in the Turin Museum. Acta Orientalia 25 (1960) 203–228. El-Amir, M. 1959. A family Archive from Thebes. Demotic Papyri in the Philadelphia and Cairo Museums from the Ptolemaic Period. Cairo: General organisation for Government Printing Offices. El-Amir, M. 1951. The Cult of Ḥryw at Thebes in the Ptolemaic Period. JEA 37 (1951) 81–85. Amundsen, D.W. and Ferngren, G.B. 1978. The forensic role of the physicians in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 52 (1978) 336–353. Andrews, C.A.R. 2004. Papyrus BM 10381: An Inheritance of the Memphite Choachytes. In Hoffmann, F. and Thissen, H.J. (eds) RES SEVERA VERUM GAUDIUM. Festschrift für Karl-Theodor Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004. Leuven: Peeters. Andrews, C.A.R. 1990. Catalogue of Demotic papyri in the British Museum Vol. IV. Ptolemaic legal texts from the Theban area. London: British Museum Publications Ltd. Andrzejewski, T. 1961. Un contrat ptolemaïque de Djeme. JJP 13 (1961) 95–108. Anonymous 1975. Fouilles de l’Assassif 1970–1975. CdÉ 50 (1975) 13–64. Anonymous 1925. Papiri Greci e Latini. Publicazioni della società italiana per la ricerca dei Papiri greci e latini in Egitto, Vol. Settimo. Firenze: Stabilimento tipographico E. Ariani. Anti, C. 1930–1931. Gli scavi della Missione archeologica italiana a Umm el Breighat (Tebtunis). Aegyptus 11 (1930–1931) 389–391. Anus, P. and Saʾad, R. 1971. Habitations de prêtres dans le temple d’Amon de Karnak. KÊMI XXI (1971) 217–238. Arlt, C. 2011. Scribal offices and scribal families in Ptolemaic Thebes. In. Dorman, P.F. and Bryan, B.M. (eds) Perspectives on Ptolemaic Thebes. Occasional proceedings of the Theban workshop 2006. SAOC 65. Chicago: the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 17–34. Armoni, C. 2013. Das Archiv der Taricheuten Amenneus und Onnophris aus Tanis (P. Tarich.) (Pap. Colon. 37). Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh.

628

bibliography

Arnold, D. and Settgast, J. mit einem Beitrag von Bidoli, D. 1970. Fünfter Vorbericht über die vom Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Kairo in Qurna unternommenen Arbeiten (7. Kampagne). MDAIK 26 (1970) 1–9. Arnold, D. and Settgast, J. mit einem Beitrag von Assmann, J. 1968. Vierter Vorbericht über die vom Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Kairo im Asasif unternommenen Arbeiten (5. und 6. Kampagne). MDAIK 23 (1968) 9–25. Arnold, D. and Settgast, J. 1966. Zweiter Vorbericht über die vom Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Kairo im Asasif unternommenen Arbeiten (3. Kampagne). Mit einem Beitrag von Arnold, D. MDAIK 21 (1966) 72–94. Ashely, K. 1992. Art in ritual context: Introduction. Journal of Ritual Studies 6 (1992) 1–11. Ashmore, W. 2004. Social archaeologies of landscapes. In Meskell, L. and Preucel, R.W. (eds) A Companion to Social Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Assmann, J. 2005. Death and salvation in ancient Egypt. Translated by Lorton, D. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Assmann, J. 1991. Das Grab des Amenemope TT 41. Mit Beiträgen von Machmud Abd elRaziq, Petra Bartelmess, Beatrix Gessler-Löhr, Eva Hofmann, Ulrich Hofmann, T.G.H. James, Lise Manniche, Daniel Polz, Karl-Joachim Seyfried. Photographien von Eva Hofmann. Zeichnungen van Aleida Assmann, Dina Faltings, Andrea Gnirs, Friederike Kampp, Claudia Maderna. Vermessungen und Pläne von Günther Heindl. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Assmann, J. 1989. State and religion in the New Kingdom. In Simpson, W.K. 1989. Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt (Yale Egyptological Studies). New Haven, Conn: Yale Egyptological Seminar, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Assmann, J. 1972. Neith spricht als Mutter und Sarg: Interpretation und metrische Analyse der Sargdeckelinschrift des Merenptah. MDAIK 28 (1972) 115–139. Aston, D.A. 2011. Tꜣ pẖrt wty. The Saqqara embalmers’ caches reconsidered. Typology and chronology. In Aston, D., Bader, B., Gallorini, C., Nicholson, P. and Buckingham, S. (eds) Under The Potter’s Tree. Studies on Ancient Egypt presented to Janine Bourriau on the occasion of her 70th birthday. Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters en departement oosterse studies. Aston, D.A. 2003. The Theban West Bank from the Twenty-fifth Dynasty to the Ptolemaic Period. In Strudwick, N. and Taylor, J.H. (eds) The Theban necropolis, Past, Present and Future. London: The British Museum Press. Aston, D.A. and Aston, B.G. 2010. Late period pottery from the New Kingdom Necropolis at Saqqâra: Egypt Exploration Society-National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden, excavations 1975–1995. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Aufrère, S. 1991. L’univers mineral dans la pensée égyptienne. Volume 1. Cairo: IFAO. Aufrère, S. and Golvin, J.-C. 1997. L’Égypte restituée. Tome 3: Sites, temples et pyra-

bibliography

629

mides de Moyenne et Basse Égypte. De la naissance de la civilisation pharaonique à l’époque gréco-romaine (Collection S. Aufrère, J.-Cl. Golvin, J.-Cl. Goyon). Paris: Éditions Errance. Backes, B. 2010. Three funerary papyri from Thebes: New evidence on scribal and funerary practice in the Late Period. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 15 (2010) 1–21. Baines, J. 1994. Ancient Egyptian concepts and uses of the past: 3rd to 2nd millennium BC evidence. In R. Leyton (ed.) Who needs the past. Indigenous values and archaeology. London and New York: Routledge. Bagnall, R.S. (ed.) 2017. The Undertakers of the Great Oasis (P. Nekr.) (Graeco-Roman Memoirs Supplement). London: Egypt Exploration Society. Balanda, S.Z. The Title “ḥry—sštꜣ” to the end of the New Kingdom. JARCE 45 (2009) 319–348. Bareš, L. and Smoláriková, K. 2011. Abusir XXV. The shaft tomb of Menekhibnekau. Volume I: Archaeology. Prague: Charles University in Prague. Barns, J. 1952. A Demotic Coffin Inscription in Edinburgh. Archív Orientální 20 (1952) 69–71. Basta, M. 1966, Clearance of Some Tombs of the Late Period Near the Serapeum at Saqqara. ASAE 59 (1966) 15–22. Bataille, A. 1952. Les Menmonia. Recherches de papyrologie et d’épigraphie greques sur la nécropole de la Thèbes d’Égypte aux époques hellénistique et romaine. Cairo: IFAO. Bataille, A. 1946. L’emplacement des Karameia thébains. CdÉ 21 (1946) 237–244. Bataille, A. 1946a. A propos d’une étiquette de momie inédite. Revue archéologique sér. 6, XXV (1946) 43–56. Bataille, A. and Bruyère, B. 1939. Une tombe gréco-romaine de Deir el-Médineh [2]. BIFAO 38 (1939) 73–107. Bataille, A. and Bruyère, B. 1936. Une tombe gréco-romaine de Deir el-Médineh. BIFAO 36 (1936–1937) 145–174. Bayle, St. John, 1852. Village life in Egypt: with sketches of the Saïd, Volumes I–II. London: Chapman and Hall. Beinlich, H. 1975. Assiut. In Helk, W. Otto, E. (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band I. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 489–495. Bell, L. 1981. Dira Abu el-Naga: The Monuments of the Ramesside High Priests of Amun and Some Related Officials. MDAIK 37 (1981) 51–62. Bell, L. 1973. In the Tombs of the High Priests of Amun. Expedition 15.2 (Winter 1973) 17–27. Benson, G.G., Hemingway, S.R. and Leach, F.N. 1979. The analysis of the wrappings of Mummy 1770. In David, R. (ed.) The Manchester Museum Mummy Project. Multidisciplinary Research on Ancient Egyptian Mummified Remains. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 119–132.

630

bibliography

Berger, J. 1889. Un nouveau contrat bilingue démotique-grec. Paris: E. Leroux. Bernand, E. 1992. Inscriptions grecques d’Egypte et de Nubie au Musée du Louvre. Paris: Ed. du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Betrò, M.C. 1994. Il demotico, la lessicografia botanica e gli incensi. EVO 17 (1994) 39–48. Bevan, E.R. 1927. A history of Egypt under the Ptolemaic dynasty. London: Methuen. El-Bialy, M.A. 1992. Découverte d’une nécropole tardive aux environs de Gurnet Murrai. Memnonia III (1992) 83–87. Bietak, M. 2012. Das schöne Fest vom Wüstental. Kult zur Vereinigung mit den Toten in der thebanischen Nekropole. In Danek, G. and Hellerschmid, I. (eds) Rituale— identitätsstiftende Handlungskomplexe: 2. Tagung des Zentrums Archäologie und Altertumswissenschaften an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2./3. November 2009. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (DÖAW, 437), 23–36. Bietak, M. 2012a. La Belle Fête de la Vallée. L’Asasif revisité. In Zivie-Coche, C. and Guermeur, I. (eds) « Parcourir l’éternité ». Hommages à Jean Yoyotte. Vol. 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 135–164. Bietak, M. 1979. Urban Archaeology and the “Town Problem” in Ancient Egypt. In Weeks, K.R. (ed.) Egyptology and the social sciences. Five Studies. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 97–144. Bietak, M. and Reiser-Haslauer, E. 1982. Das Grab des ‘Anch-Hor, Obersthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris. II. Mit Beiträgen von Joachim Boessneck, Angela von den Driesch, Jan Quaegebeur, Helga Liese-Kleiber und Helmut Schlichtherle und Reliefund Fundzeichnungen von Heinz Satzinger. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bietak, M. and Reiser-Haslauer, E. 1978. Das Grab des ‘Anch-Hor, Obersthofmeister der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris I. Mit einem Beitrag von Erhart Graefe und Relief- und Fundzeichnungen von Heinz Satzinger. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Blackman, E. and Bell, M. 1988. Pyramids and Puns. Chicago: Norcor Enterprises, R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Crawfordsville Division. Blake, E. 2003. The Familiar Honeycomb: Byzantine Era Reuse of Sicily’s Prehistoric Rock-Cut Tombs. In Van Dyke, R.M. and Alcock, S. (eds) 2003. Archaeologies Of Memory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Blake, E. 1998. Sardinia’s Nuraghi: Four Millennia of Becoming. World Archaeology 30.1. The Past in the Past: The Reuse of Ancient Monuments (1998) 59–71. Boak, A.E.R. 1933. A Loan of 74BC. Aegyptus 13.1 (1933) 107–112. Bond, E.A., Thompson, E.M. and Wagner, G.F. 1884–1894. The Palaeographical Society, Facsimiles of Manuscripts and Inscriptions. Second Series, Vol. 2. London. Bonneau, D. 1971. Le fisc et le Nil: incidences des irrégularités de la crue du Nil sur la fiscalité foncière dans l’Égypte grecque et romaine. Paris: Cujas.

bibliography

631

Bonnet, H. 1952. Reallexikon der Ägyptischen religionsgeschichte. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Bosticco, S. 1972. Le stele egiziane di epoca tarda. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Boswinkel, E. and Pestman, P.W. 1982. Les archives privées de Dionysios, fils de Kephalas (P. L. Bat. 22). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Boswinkel, E. and Sijpesteijn, P.J. 1968. Greek Papyri, Ostraca and Mummy Labels. Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert. Botti, G. 1969. Frammenti del Papiro demotico n. 8698 del Museo egizio di Firenze. MDAIK 24 (1969) 73–77. Botti, G. 1967. L’archivio demotico da Deir el-Medineh. Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino. Serie Prima—Monumenti e Testi. Volume I. Firenze: Felice Le Monnier. Botti, G. 1960. Minima Demotica. Acta Orientalia 25 (1960) 189–196. Botti, G. 1954. Le etichette di mummie in caratteri demotici del Museo Egizio di Torino. Atti dell’Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere «La Colombaria» XIX (1954) 3–6. Botti, G. 1952. Le stele N. 1578 e N. 1655 del museo egizio di Torino. In Žába, Z. (ed.) Diatribae quas amici collegae discipuli Francisco Lexa. Archiv Orientální 20 (1952) 337–341. Botti, G. 1949. Testi demotici I. Museo Civico di Bologna—Museo Archeologico di Firenze—Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Firenze: Tipografia Enrico Ariani, S.A. Botti, G. 1941. Documenti demotici del Regio Museo Archeologico di Firenze. In Miscellanea Gregoriana. Raccolta di scritti pubblicati nel centenario dalla fondazione del Pontificio Museo Egizio (1839–1939). Roma: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana. Botti, G. 1939. Il papiro demotico n. 1120 del museo civico di Pavia. Bollettino Storico Pavese 2 (1939) 17–36. Bottigelli, P. 1941. Repertorio topografico dei templi e dei sacerdoti dell’Egitto tolemaico. Aegyptus 21 (1941) 3–54. Bowman, A.K. 1996. Egypt after the Pharaohs, 332BC–AD642: from Alexander to the Arab conquest. London: British Museum Press. Boyaval, B. 1981. La mortalité saisonnière dans l’Égypte greco-romaine. In Vercoutter, J. (ed.) 1980. Livre du centenaire 1880–1980 de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire. Series: Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, 104. Cairo: IFAO. Boyaval, B. 1976. Remarques sur les indications d’âges de l’épigraphie funéraire grecque d’Egypte. ZPE 21 (1976) 217–243. Boyaval, B. 1975. Remarques à propos des indications d’âges des etiquettes de momies. ZPE 18 (1975) 49–74. Boyaval, B. 1973. Papyrus ptolémaiques inédits de Ghôran et Magdôla. CRIPEL 1 (1973) 185–285. Bradley, R. 2003. The translation of time. In Van Dyke, R.M. and Alcock, S. (eds) 2003. Archaeologies of Memory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

632

bibliography

Bradley, R. 1993. Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. The Rhind Lectures 1991–1992. Monograph Series 8. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Bradley, R. 1984. Studying monuments. In Bradley, R. and Gardiner, J. (eds) Neolithic Studies: A Review of Some Current Research. Reading Studies in Archaeology No. 1. BAR British Series 133. Oxford: B.A.R. Brand, P. 2010. Reuse and Restoration. In Willeke Wendrich (ed.) UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles. Breasted, J.H. 1906–1907. Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Documents from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bresciani, E. 1990. L’hypogée du vizir Bakenrenef. Les dossiers d’archeologie 146–147 (1990) 110–113. Bresciani, E. 1980. L’attività archeologica dell’Università di Pisa in Egitto: 1977–1980. EVO 3 (1980) 1–19. Bresciani, E. 1985. Le stele egiziane del Museo civico archeologico di Bologna. Bologna: Grafis. Bresciani, E. 1976. A propos de la toile funéraire peinte trouvée récemment à Saqqara. BSFE 76 (1976) 5–24. Bresciani, E. 1964. Der Kampf um den Panzer des Inaros: (Papyrus Krall). Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. Papyrussammlung. Wien: G. Prachner. Bresciani, E., Fornaciari, G. and Silvano, F. 1996. L’attività archeologica dell’Università di Pisa in Egitto a Saqqara. EVO 19 (1996) 13–25. Bresciani, E. et al. 1988. Saqqara IV. Tomba di Bakenrenef (L. 24). Attività del cantiere scuola 1985–1987. Bresciani, E. 1969. Un papiro demotico da Tebe nel Kunsthistorisches Museum di Wien. Aegyptus 49 (1969) 35–42. Bresciani, E. 1961. Etichette di mummia in calcare da Dendera nella collezione Michaelidis. Studi Classici e Orientali X (1961) 209–213. Brinks, J., Gestermann, L., Gomaà, F., Israel, A., Jürgens, P. and Schenkel, W. 1986. AlKōm al-ahmar / Šāarūna 1986. GM 93 (1986) 65–83. Brinks, J., Gomaà, F., Israel, A., Jürgens, P. and Schenkel, W. 1985. Al-Kōm al-Ahmar/ Šārūna 1985. GM 86 (1985) 55–68. Brinks, J., Dittmar, J., Gomaà, F., Jürgens, P. and Schenkel, W. 1984. Al-Kōm al-Ahmar/ Šārūna 1984. GM 79 (1984) 73–84. Brovarski, E. 2011. I҆pt, ‘Indirect access approach (to an edifice).’ In Hawass, Z.A., Daoud, K.A. and Hussein, R.B. (eds) Scribe of Justice. Egyptological Studies in honour of Shafik Allam. Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de L’égypte, Cahier no. 42. Cairo: Ministry of State for Antiquities, 111–117. Brovarski, E. The Doors of Heaven. Orientalia 46 (1977) 107–115. Brugsch, H.F.K. 1855. Grammaire démotique. Berlin: F. Dümmler.

bibliography

633

Brugsch, H.F.K. 1850. Lettre à Mr. de Rougé. Berlin: R. Gaertner. Brugsch, H.F.K. 1848. Scriptura aegyptiorum demotica. Berlin: R. Gaertner. Brunsch, J. 1990. Der Papyrus BM 10398 eine Geschwisterliche Regelung von Besitzverhältnissen. Meroitica 12 (1990) 71–77. Bruyère, B. 1934. Rapport sur les fouilles de Deir el Médineh. Cairo: IFAO. Buckley, S.A. and Evershed, R.P. 2001. Organic chemistry of embalming agents in Pharaonic and Graeco-Roman mummies. Nature 413 (2001) 837–841. Budge, E.A.W. 1909. A guide to the Egyptian collections in the British Museum. London: British Museum. Budka, J. 2010. Bestattungsbrauchtum und Friedhofsstruktur im Asasif. Eine Untersuchung der spätzeitlichen Befunde anhand der Ergebnisse der österreichischen Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1969–1977. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts 34, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie59. Vienna. Bülow-Jacobsen, A. 1982. Three Ptolemaic Tax-Receipts from Hawara (P. Carlsberg 46– 48). BICS 29 (1982) 12–16, Pl. 1–2. Burford, A. 1972. Craftsmen in Greek and Roman society. London: Thames and Hudson. Burkard, G. 1986. Grabung im Asasif 1963–1970, 3. Die Papyrusfunde. Nach Vorarbeiten von Dino Bidoli (†). Archäologische Veröffentlichungen. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo, 22. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Cadell, H. and Le Rider, G. 1997. Les prix du blé et numéraire dans l’Égypte Lagide de 305 à 173. Papyrologica Bruxellensia 30. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. Canetti, E. 1973. Crowds and Power. Translated by Stewart, C. New York: Continuum. Cannata, M. in preparation. The necropolis of the vaulted tombs. The Metropolitan Museum of Art excavations of the Late and Ptolemaic periods necropolis at Thebes. Excavation seasons 1912–13, 1915–16 and 1934–35. With a section on the excavations of Howard Carter and the Earl of Carnarvon (season 1907–11). Cannata, M. in preparation a. Reconstructing the history and purpose of the choachytes’ Theban house. An exercise in Archaeological (con)Texualisation (P. Bodleian MS.Egypt.c.4 (P); P. Berlin P. 3118; P. Wien ÄS 3872 (121BC)). Cannata, M. 2012. Funerary Artists: the Textual Evidence. In Riggs, C. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 597–612. Cannata, M. 2009. God’s Seal-bearers, Lector-priests and Choachytes: Who’s Who at Memphis and Hawara. In G. Widmer and D. Devauchelle (eds) Actes du IXe congrès international des études démotiques, Paris, 31 août–3 septembre 2005. Cairo: IFAO / Bibliothèque d’Etude 147, 57–68. Cannata, M. 2007. Of Bodies and Soles: the Meaning of the Root qs and its derivatives in the Ptolemaic Period. In Cannata, M. (ed.) Current Research in Egyptology. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium Oxford University 2006. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 21–42.

634

bibliography

Cannata, M. 2007a. Social Identity at the Anubieion: a reanalysis. American Journal of Archaeology 111.2 (2007) 223–240. Cannata, M. 2006. Papyrus BM EA 10075 and Papyrus Bodleian MS. Egypt. a.41(P): Two Halves of a Ptolemaic Contract of Sale Reunited. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 92 (2006) 185–203. Capart, J. 1943. A propos du cercueil d’argent du roi Chechonq. CdÉ 18 (1943) 191–198. Capart, J., Gardiner, A.H. and van de Walle, B. 1936. New Light on the Ramesside TombRobberies. JEA 22 (1936) 169–193, Pls x–xvi. Capel, A.K. and Markoe, G. 1996. Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt. New York: Hudson Hills Press in association with Cincinnati Art Museum. Carter, H. 1912. Ptolemaic vaulted graves. In The Earl of Carnarvon and Carter, H. (eds) Five Years’ Explorations at Thebes. A Record of Work done 1907–1911. London: Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press. Castel, G. and Dunand, Fr. 1981. Deux lit funéraire d’époque romaine de la nécropole de Douch. BIFAO 81 (1981) 77–110, Pls XIII-XXV. Cattaui, A. 1888. Rapport sur une mission dans la Haute Egypte (août-décembre 1886). Revue égyptologique 5 (1888) 78–85. De Cenival, F. 1986. Comptes d’une association religieuse thébaine datant des années 29 à 33 du roi Amasis (P. démot. Louvre E 7840 bis). RdÉ 37 (1986) 13–29. De Cenival, F. 1984. Remarques sur l’imprésion des titres dans l’armée et l’administration en démotique. In Atti del XVII congresso internazionale di papirologia, Vol. II. Napoli: Centro internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi, 723–726. De Cenival, F. 1977. Deux papyrus inédits de Lille avec une révision du P. Dém. Lille 31. Enchoria 7 (1977) 1–49. De Cenival, F. 1973. Cautionnements démotiques du début de l’époque ptolémaïque (P. dém. Lille 34 à 96). Paris: Klincksieck. De Cenival, F. 1972. Les associations religieuses en Égypte d’après les documents démotiques. Cairo: IFAO. De Cenival, F. 1972a. Un acte de renonciation consécutif à un partage de revenues liturgiques memphites (P. Louvre E 3266). BIFAO 71 (1972) 11–65. De Cenival, F. 1966. Un document démotique relatif au partage d’une maison (P. Louvre N. 2430). RdÉ 18 (1966) 7–30. Černý, J. 1976. Coptic etymological dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Černý, J. 1939. Late Ramesside letters. Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. Chardon, D. and Denisse, L. 1893. Dictionnaire démotique. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Charron, A. (ed.) 2004. La mort n’est pas une fin. Pratiques funéraire en Égypte d’Alexander à Cléopâtre. Catalogue de l’exposition 28 septembre 2002–5 janvier 2003. Musée de l’Arles antique.

bibliography

635

Chauveau, M. 2001. Egypt in the age of Cleopatra: history and society under the Ptolemies. Translated by David Lorton. London, Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University Press. Chauveau, M. 1991. Un été 145 (Post-scriptum). BIFAO 91 (1991) 129–134. Chauveau, M. 1990. Glorification d’une morte anonyme (P. dém. Louvre N 2420 c). RdÉ 41 (1990) 3–8. Chauveau, M. 1986. Un compte en Démotique Archäique: Le Pap. Claude 1. Enchoria 14 (1986) 21–29. Clarysse, W. 2009. An Account of the Last Year of Kleopatra in the Hawara Embalmers Archive. In G. Widmer and D. Devauchelle (eds) Actes du IXe congrès international des études démotiques, Paris, 31 août–3 septembre 2005. Cairo: IFAO / Bibliothèque d’Etude 147, 69–84. Clarysse, W. 2007. A bilingual archive from the Cynopolite nome. In Frösén, J., Purola, T. and Salmenkivi, E. (eds) Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Papyrology. Helsinki, 1–7 August, 2004. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum I 122 (2007) 185–189. Clarysse, W. 2003. The Archive of the praktor Milon. In Vandorpe, K. and Clarysse, W. (eds) Edfu, an Egyptian Capital in the Ptolemaic Period. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, 17–27. Clarysse, W. 2001. Gilding and Painting Mummy Masks. In Palme, B. (ed.) Wiener Papyri. Als Festgabe zum 60. Geburtstag von Hermann Harrauer. Vienna: Holzhausen. Clarysse, W. 1995. Greeks in Ptolemaic Thebes. In Vleeming, S.P. (ed.) Hundred-gated Thebes. Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Greco-Roman period (P. L. Bat. 27). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Clarysse, W. 1987. Noms démotiques en -i҆w, -m-ḥb et i҆.i҆r.di҆-s. Enchoria 15 (1987) 11–24. Clarysse, W. 1979. Egyptian estate-holders in the Ptolemaic Period. In Lipinski, E. (ed.) State and temple economy in the ancient Near East. Proceedings of the International Conference organised by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 10th to the 14th of April 1978. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek. Clarysse, W. 1978–1979. Ptolemaic papyri from Lycopolis. In Bingen, J. and Nachtergael, E. (eds) Actes du XVe congrès international de papyrology. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. Clarysse, W. 1978. Notes de prosopographie thébaine. CdÉ 53 (1978) 232–243. Clarysse, W. and Thompson, D. 2006a. Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. Volume 1: Population registers (P. Count). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clarysse, W. and Thompson, D. 2006b. Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt. Volume 2: Historical studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clarysse, W. and Lanciers, E. 1989. Currency and the dating of Demotic and Greek papyri from the Ptolemaic Period. Ancient Society 20 (1989) 117–132. Clarysse, W. and Van der Veken, G. 1983. The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt. Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 24. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

636

bibliography

Colin, F. 2003. Le parfumeur (pꜣ ꜥnṱ). BIFAO 103 (2003) 73–109. Colin, F. 1994. Le trente-cinquième jour du mois dans le P. dém. Pavia Inv. nr. 1120. Enchoria 21 (1994) 142–145. Collombert, P. 2006. La bandelette-pyr au cou des deuillants. RdÉ 57 (2006), 235–237. Connan, J. 2005. La momification dans l’Égypte ancienne: le bitume et les autres ingrédients organiques des baumes de momies ou Les ingrédients organiques des baumes de momies égyptiennes: bitume, cire d’abeille, résines, poix, graisse, huile, vin, etc. In Aufrère, S.H. (ed.) Encyclopédie religieuse de l’univers végétal: croyances phytoreligieuses de l’Égypte ancienne. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III, 163–211. Cooney, G. 1994. Sacred and Secular neolithic landscapes in Ireland. In Carmichael, D.L., Hubert, J. Reeves, B. and Schanche, A. (eds) Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. London and New York: Routledge. Cooney, K.M. 2007. The cost of death: the social and economic value of ancient Egyptian funerary art in the Ramesside period. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Coppens, F. 2014. Designing the Sacred in Early Ptolemaic Times: a Continuum of Concepts. In Frood, E. and Raja, R. (eds) Redefining the sacred: religious architecture and text in the Near East and Egypt, 1000BC–AD300. Turnhout: Brepols. Coppens, F. 2014a. The so-called “lichthof” once more: on the transmission of concepts between the tomb and temple. In Pischikova, E., Budka, J. and Griffin, K. (eds) Thebes in the first millennium BC. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Corcoran, L.H. 1995. Evidence for the Survival of Pharaonic Religion in Roman Egypt: The Portrait Mummy. ANRW II 18.5 (1995) 3316–3332. Corcoran, L.H. 1995a. Portrait mummies from Roman Egypt. Chicago: The Oriental Institute, SAOC No. 56. Corcoran, L.H. 1992. A cult function for the so-called Fayum mummy portraits? In Johnson, J. (ed.) Life in a multi-cultural society Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and beyond. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, SAOC 51. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Cribiore, R. 1996. Writing, teachers, and students in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Cruz-Uribe, E. 2000. Two early Demotic letters from Thebes. RdÉ 51 (2000) 9–15, Pl. I–II. Cruz-Uribe, E. 1985. Saite and Persian Demotic cattle documents. California: Scholars Press. Cruz-Uribe, E. 1980. A sale of inherited property from the reign of Darius I. JEA 66 (1980) 120–126.

bibliography

637

Cruz-Uribe, E. 1979. A transfer of property during the reign of Darius I (P. Bibl. Nat. 216 and 217). Enchoria 9 (1979) 33–44. Cruz-Uribe, E. and Vinson, S. 2005/2006. Two Early Demotic Ostraca from the Valley of the Kings. JARCE 42 (2005/2006) 113–117. Crum, W.E. 1939. A Coptic dictionary (Compiled with the help of many scholars). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ćwiek, A. 2000. The stratigraphy of West Saqqara. Preliminary remarks. PAM XI (2000) 109–117. D’Auria, S., Lacovara, P. and Roehrig, C.H. 1988. Mummies and magic. The funerary arts of ancient Egypt. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Daressy, G. 1902. Inscriptions d’un cercueil ptolémaïque trouvé près des grandes pyramides. ASAE 3 (1902) 158–159. Daressy, G. 1901. Rapport sur les fouilles à Sa el-Hagar. ASAE 2 (1901) 230–239. Darnell, J.C. 1990. A note on ꜥrb.t. Enchoria 17 (1990) 83–87. Daróczi, T.-T. 2012. Death, Disposal and Social Memory—Towards a Definition of Funerary Landscapes. In Wiebke Bebermeier, W., Hebenstreit, R., Kaiser, E. and Krause, J. (eds), Landscape Archaeology. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Berlin, 6th–8th June 2012. eTopoi Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 3 (2012) 199–207. David, M. and van Groningen, B.A. 1965. Papyrological primer. Leiden: E.J. Brill. David, A.R. 2000. Mummification. In Nicholson, P. and Shaw, I. (eds) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 372–389. David, A.R. 1979. The Manchester Museum Mummy Project. Multidisciplinary Research on Ancient Egyptian Mummified Remains. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Davies, V. 2006. British Museum epigraphic expedition report on the 2005 season. ASAE 80 (2006) 133–151. Davies, Nina de Garis and Gardiner, A.H. 1915. The tomb of Amenemhēt (No. 82). The Theban Tomb Series I. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Davies, N. de G. 1927. Two Ramesside tombs at Thebes. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Davies, S. and Smith, H.S. 2005. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The Falcon Complex and Catacomb. The Archaeological Report. London: EES. Davies, S. and Smith, H.S. 1997. Sacred Animal Temples at Saqqara. In Quirke, S. (ed.) The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New Discoveries and Recent Research. London: British Museum Press, 112–131. Davies, S., Smith, H.S. and Frazer, K.J. 2006. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The Mother of the Apis and Baboon Catacomb. The Archaeological Report. London: EES. Davoli, P. 1998. L’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di età ellenistica e romana. Napoli: Generoso Procaccini.

638

bibliography

Dawson, W.R. 1927. Making a mummy. JEA 13 (1927) 40–49. Dawson, W.R. 1927a. Contributions to the history of mummification. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 20 (1927) 832–854. Delia, D. 1992. The Refreshing Water of Osiris. JARCE XXIX (1992) 181–190. Den Brinker, A.A., Muhs, B.P. and Vleeming, S.P. 2005a. A Berichtigungsliste of Demotic documents. Papyrus editions. Leuven: Peeters. Den Brinker, A.A., Muhs, B.P. and Vleeming, S.P. 2005b. A Berichtigungsliste of Demotic documents. Ostrakon editions and various publications. Leuven: Peeters. Depauw, M. 2006. The Demotic letter: a study of epistolographic scribal traditions against their intra- and intercultural background. Sommerhausen: Zauzich. Depauw, M. 2004. New light on gilding in Hellenistic Egypt. P. dem. Vindob. Barbara 58. In Harrauer, H. and Pintaudi, R. (eds) Gedenkschrift Ulrike Horak (P. Horak). Firenze: Edizioni Gonnelli. Depauw, M. 2000. The Archive of Teos and Thabis from Early Ptolemaic Thebes. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, Brepols Publishers. Depauw, M. 1999. Demotic witness-copy-contracts. RdÉ 50 (1999) 67–105. Depauw, M. 1997. A companion to Demotic studies. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. Derchain-Urtel, M.T. 1989. Priester im Tempel. Die Rezeption der Tempel von Edfu und Dendera in den Privatdokumenten aus ptolemäischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Derda, T. 1991. Necropolis workers in Greco-Roman Egypt in the light of the Greek papyri. JJP XXI (1991) 13–36. Derry, D.E. 1942. Mummification, Methods Practiced at Different Periods. ASAE 41 (1942) 240–265. Desroches-Noblecourt, C. 1947. Une coutume Égyptienne méconnue. BIFAO 45 (1947) 185–232. Devauchelle, D. 1998. Ostraca démotiques de Birbeh. BIFAO 98 (1998) 139–149. Devauchelle, D. 1998a. Notes sur quelques ostraca démotiques. À propos d’un ouvrage récent. Bibliotheca Orientalis 55 (1998) 372–387. Devauchelle, D. 1998b. Quatre nouveaux papyrus démotiques provenant de l’ancienne collection Sallier. BSÉG 22 (1998) 21–27. Devauchelle, D. 1988. Une taxe funéraire sur un ostracon demotique. BSÉG 12 (1988) 35–37. Devauchelle, D. 1987. Notes sur l’administration funéraires égyptiennes à l’époque gréco-romain. BIFAO 87 (1987) 141–160. Devauchelle, D. 1984. Rezension: Grunert, S. 1981. Demotische Papyri aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Lieferung II. Thebanische Kaufverträge des 3. und 2. Jahrunderts v. u. Z. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Enchoria 12 (1984) 197–199. Devauchelle, D. 1983. Ostraca démotiques du Musée du Louvre. Cairo: IFAO.

bibliography

639

Devauchelle, D. 1982. Quelques souscriptions démotiques sur ostraca. BIFAO 82 (1982) 151–156. Devéria, Th. 1881. Catalogue des manuscrits égyptiens du Louvre. Paris: C. de Mourgues. Dils, P. 1995. Les ṯꜣj (nꜣ) ntr.w ou Θεαγοί. Fonction religieuse et place dans la vie civile. BIFAO 95 (1995) 153–171. Dils, P. 1990. Stucco heads of crocodiles. A new aspect of crocodile mummification. Aegyptus 70 (1990) 73–85. Dodson, A., Johnston, J. and Monkhouse, W. (eds) 2014. A Good Scribe and an Exceedingly Wise Man. Studies in Honour of W.J. Tait. London: Golden House Publications. Doka, K.J. n.d. Death System. In the Online Encyclopedia of death and dying. www .deathreference.com/Da‑Em/Death‑System.html. Donadoni, S. 1976. Gli scavi dell’Università di Roma all’Asasif (1973–1974–1975). I. L’inquadramento archeologico. Oriens Antiquus 15 (1976) 209–217. Donadoni, S. 1973. Première Campagne de Fouilles de l’Université de Rome à l’Asasif (1970). Rapport préliminaire. ASAE 61 (1973) 11–20. Donadoni, S. 1973a. Relazione preliminare sulla II campagna di scavo nella tomba di Šešonq all’Asasif (1971). Oriens Antiquus 12 (1973), 19–22. Donadoni, S. 1971. Les fouilles récentes en Égypte de l’Université de Rome. BSFE 61 (1971) 7–25. Donker Van Heel, K. 2015. P. Louvre E 3228: some late cursive (abnormal) hieratic gems from the Louvre. JEA 101 (2015) 320–324. Donker Van Heel, K. 2012. Djekhy & Son. Doing business in Ancient Egypt. Cairo, New York: The American University in Cairo Press. Donker Van Heel, K. 1998. Papyrus Leiden I 379: The inheritance of the Memphite choachyte Imouthes. OMRO 78 (1998) 33–57. Donker Van Heel, K. 1995. Abnormal Hieratic and early Demotic texts collected by the Theban choachytes in the reign of Amasis. Papyri from the Louvre Eisenlohr lot. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis: Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. Donker Van Heel, K. 1994. The lost battle of Peteamonip son of Petehorresne. EVO 17 (1994) 115–124. Donker Van Heel, K. 1992. Use and meaning of the Egyptian term wꜣḥ-mw. In Demarée, R.J. and Egberts, A. (eds) Village voices. Leiden: CNWS. Donker Van Heel, K. 1990. The legal manual of Hermopolis, P. Mattha. Text and translation. Donohue, V.A. 1978. Pr-nfr. JEA 64 (1978) 143–148. Dorman, P.F. and Bryan, B.M. 2007. Preface. In Dorman, P.F. and Bryan, B.M. (eds) Sacred space and sacred function in ancient Thebes. SAOC 61. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Doresse, M. 1979. Le dieu voilé dans sa châsse et la fête du début de la decade. RdÉ 31 (1979) 36–65.

640

bibliography

Doresse, M. 1973. Le dieu voilé dans sa châsse et la fête du début de la decade. RdÉ 25 (1973) 92–135. Doresse, M. 1971. Le dieu voilé dans sa châsse et la fête du début de la decade. RdÉ 23 (1971) 113–136. Doxiadis, E. 1995. The mysterious Fayum portraits Faces from Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson. Drews, S. 2003. The Graeco-Roman cemeteries of the Fayum, Egypt. Unpublished thesis: Copenhagen University. Drexhage, H.J. 1994. Einige Bemerkungen zum Mumientransport und den Bestattungskosten im römischen Ägypten. Laverna 5 (1994) 167–175. Dreyer, G. 2006. Report on the season 2003/04 at the tomb of Ninetjer in Saqqara (Causeway of Unas). ASAE 80 (2006) 153–155. Dunand, F. 1998. «Mort avant l’heure …». In Clarysse, W. (ed.) Egyptian religion: the last thousand years. Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur. OLA 84–85 (1998) 961–974. Dunand, F. 1995. Pratiques et croyances funéraires en Égypte romaine. ANRW II 18.5 (1995) 3217–3311. Dunand, F. 1984. Pratiques funéraires en Égypte romaine: les nécrotaphes de Kysis. In: Atti del XVII congresso internazionale di papirologia, Vol. III. Napoli: Centro Internazionale per lo studio dei papiri ercolanesi. Dunand, F. 1979. L’artisanat du textile dans l’Egypte lagide. Ktema 4 (1979) 47–69. Dunham, D. and Simpson, W.K. 1974. The Mastaba of Queen Mersyankh III (G 7530– 7540). Giza Mastabas 1. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Eaton-Krauss, M. 2008. Embalming Caches. JEA 94 (2008) 288–293 Edgar, C.C. 1939: The stolistae of the Labyrinth. AfP 13 (1939) 76–77. Edgar, C.C. 1925. Records of a village club. In: Raccolta di scritti in onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (1844–1925). Milan: Aegyptus. Edwards, A.B. 1891. Pharaohs, fellahs and explorers. London: Osgood; McIlvaine. Effland, A. 1999. Zur Grabungsgeschichte der archäologischen Stätten zwischen Hager Edfu und Naga el-Hisaja al-Gharbi. Edfu-Begleitheft 5 (1999) 21–39. Effland, A., Kurth, D., Pardey, E. and Waitkus, W. 1999. Bericht über drei Surveys im Gebiet zwischen Hager Edfu und Naga el-Hisaja. Edfu-Begleitheft 5 (1999) 40– 68. Eigner, D. 1984. Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit in der thebanischen Nekropole. Mit einem Beitrag von Josef Dorner. Untersuchungen der Zweigstelle Kairo des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 6. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 8. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Elliot Smith, G. and Dawson, W.R. 1924. Egyptian Mummies. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

bibliography

641

Emery, W.B. 1962. A funerary repast in an Egyptian tomb of the archaic period. Leiden: NINO. Erichsen, W. 1959. Die Satzungen einer ägyptischen Kultgenossenschft aus der Ptolemäerzeit: nach einem demotischen papyrus in Prag. Kopenhagen: Ejnar Munsksgaard. Erichsen, W. 1956. Eine neue demotische Erzählung. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Erichsen, W. 1955. Einige demotische Urkundenvermerke. In Firchow, O. (ed.) Ägyptologische Studien. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Erichsen, W. 1954. Demotisches Glossar. Kopenhagen: Ejnar Munsksgaard. Erichsen, W. 1952. Der demotische Papyrus Berlin 3116. Aegyptus 32 (1952) 10–32. Erichsen, W. 1950. Zwei Frühdemotische Urkunden aus Elephantine. In Coptic Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum. Boston: The Byzantine Institute, Inc. Erichsen, W. 1950a. Auswahl Frühdemotischer Texte. Zum Gebrauch im Akademischen Unterricht sowie zum Selbststudium Zusammengestellt. Kopenhagen: Ejnar Munsksgaard. Erichsen, W. 1942. Ein demotischer Prozeßvertrag. ZÄS 77 (1942) 92–100. Erichsen, W. 1939. Demotische Lesestücke II. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit. 1. Heft Texte. Liepzig: J.C. Hinrichs Verlag. Facchetti, F., Ribechini, E., Betrò, M. and Perla Colombini, M. 2014. Oils and embalming balms from the tombs TT14 and M.I.D.A.N.05 at Dra Abu el-Naga (Luxor-Egypt). Journal of Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Archaeology 1 (2014) 39–50. Facchetti, F., Ribechini, E., Betrò, M. and Perla Colombini, M. 2012. Organic residues analysis: the case of a beaker Found in theban necropolis, Egypt. International journal of conservation science 3.4 (2012) 259–264 Fakhry, A. 1947. A Report on the Inspectorate of Upper Egypt. ASAE 46 (1947) 25–54. Fakhry, A. 1943. Tomb of Paser (Nº 367 at Thebes). ASAE 43 (1943) 389–414. Farid, A. 1995. Fünf demotische Stelen aus Berlin, Chicago, Durham, London und Oxford mit zwei demotischen Türinschriften aus Paris und einer Bibliographie der demotischen Inschriften. Berlin: Achet Verlag. Farid, A. 1987. Zwei demotischen Stelen. BIFAO 87 (1987) 185–198. Faulkner, R.O. 1936. The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus: I. A. The Songs of Isis and Nephthys. JEA 22 (1936) 121–140. Fischer, H.G. 2000. Egyptian women of the Old Kingdom and of the Heracleopolitan Period. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Fisher, Cl.S. 1924. A group of Theban tombs: work of the Eckley B. Coxe Jr. Expedition in Egypt. The Museum journal (University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia) 15 (1924) 28–49. Forshall, J. 1839. Description of the Greek Papyri in the British Museum. London: By order of the Trustees.

642

bibliography

Fóthi, E., Bernert, Z., Kőrösi, A. Schreiber, G. and Bács, T.A. 2010. Human and faunal remains from Theban tomb 32. Budapest: Department of Egyptology Eötvös Loránd University. Fournet, J.-L. 2004. Deux texts relatifs à des couleurs. In Harrauer, H. and Pintaudi, R. (eds) Gedenkschrift Ulrike Horak (P. Horak). Firenze: Edizioni Gonnelli. Frandsen, P.J. 1992. On the Root nfr and a ‘Clever’ Remark on Embalming. In Osing, J. and Nielsen, E.K. (eds) The Heritage of Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honour of Erik Iversen. Copenhagen: CNI Publications. Gabolde, L., Amer, H.I., Ballet, P., Chauveau, M. avec la collaboration de Laferriere, P. et une annexe de Le Fur, D. 1994. Le “Tombeau Suspendu” de la “Vallée de l’Aigle.” BIFAO 94 (1994) 173–259. Gabra, G. 1977. The Site of Hager Edfu as the New Kingdom Cemetery of Edfu. CdE 52 (1977) 207–222. Gallazzi, C. and Hadji-Minaglou, G. 2000. Tebtynis I: la reprise des fouilles et le quartier de la chapelle d’Isis-thermouthis. Cairo: IFAO. Gallo, P. 1987. Some Demotic Architectural Terms. In Vleeming, S.P. (ed.) Aspects of Demotic Lexicography. Acts of the Second International Conference for Demotic Studies. Leiden, 19–21 September 1984. Studia Demotica 1. Leuven: Peeters, 35–39. Gallo, P. 1986. A proposito del termine ꜥẖj.t e dell’eventuale corrispondenza greca i/biw/n. EVO 9 (1986) 45–48. Gardiner, A.H. 1938. The Reading of the Egyptian Word for Necropolis. JEA 24 (1938) 244–245. Gardiner, A.H. 1913. An unusual sketch of a Theban funeral. PSBA 35 (1913) 229, Pl. XLVI. Gardiner, A.H. and Sethe, K. 1928. Egyptian letters to the dead, mainly from the Old and Middle Kingdoms. London: EES. Garland, R. 2001. The Greek way of death. New York: Cornell University Press. Garstang, J. 1907. Excavations at Hierakonpolis, at Esna, and in Nubia. ASAE 8 (1907) 132–148. Garstang, J. 1905. Note upon excavations made 1904–1905. Man 5 (1905) 145–146. Gestermann, L., Gomaà, F., Heiligmann, B., Jürgens, P., Kühnel, G., Pahl, W.M. Schenkel, W., and Schlotz, J. 1989. Al-Kōm al-Ahmar/Šarūna 1989. GM 111 (1989) 7–15. Gestermann, L., Gomaà, F., Jürgens, P., Kahl, J., Kühnel, G., Schenkel, W. and Wiedler, S. 1988. Al-Kōm al-ahmar / Šāarūna 1988. GM 104 (1988), 53–69. Gestermann, L., Gomaà, F., Jürgens, P., Schenkel, W., Schlotz, J. and Wiedler, S. 1987. AlKōm al-ahmar / Šāarūna. GM 98 (1987) 23–43. Giamberardini, G. 1965. La sorte dei defunti nella tradizione Copta. Cairo: Edizioni del centro francescano di studi orientali christiani. Giron, M.N. 1922. Une nouvelle dédicace démotique de Ptolémée, le stratège. ASAE 22 (1922) 108–112.

bibliography

643

Glanville, S.R.K. 1950. Notes on a Demotic papyrus in the British Museum (B.M. 10026). In Winton, T.D. (ed.) Essays and studies presented to Stanley Arthur Cook. London: Taylor’s Foreign Press. Glanville, S.R.K. 1939. Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the British Museum. Vol. 1. A Theban archive of the Reign of Ptolemy I, Soter. London: British Museum Press. Glanville, S.R.K. 1932. A Demotic contract of the third century from the Fayum (Dem. P. Brit. Mus. 10616). In Studies presented to F.Ll. Griffith. London: EES; Milford, 152– 160. Godziejewski, Z. 2003. Conservation work, 2002. PAM XIV (2003) 128–132. Gohary, S. 2009. New evidence on the duration of mummification. In Rössler-Köhler, U. and Tawfik, T. (eds) Who will pass … When tombs, temples and statues speak: Commemorative writing for Prof. Dr. med. Sayed Tawfik Ahmed. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 103–104. Gomaà, F. 1983. Bemerkungen zur Nekropole von el-Kom el-Ahmar Sawaris. Die Welt des Orients (1983) 135–146. Goyon, J.C. 1966. Le Papyrus du Louvre N. 3279. Cairo: IFAO. Goyon, J.-C. and Josset, P. 1988. Un corps pour l’éternité. Autopsie d’une momie. Paris: Le Léopard d’Or. Graefe, E. 1990. Das Grab des Ibi, Pbervermägenverwalters der Gottesgemahlin des Amun (Thebanisches Grab nr 36), Bruxelles: Fondation égyptologique reine Elisabeth. Grandet, P. 1994. Le Papyrus Harris I: BM 9999. Cairo: IFAO. Gray, P.H.K. 1972. Notes Concerning the Position of Arms and Hands of Mummies with a View to Possible Dating of the Specimen. JEA 58 (1972) 200–204. Gray, P.H.K. 1966. Embalmers’ Restorations. JEA 52 (1966) 138–140. Gray, P.H.K. and Slow, D. 1968. Egyptian Mummies in the City of Liverpool Museums. Liverpool Bulletin 15 (1968). Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1898. The Oxyrhynchus papyri Part I. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, Trübner & Co., B. Quaritch, H. Frowde. Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1903. The Oxyrhynchus papyri Part III. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, Trübner & Co., B. Quaritch, H. Frowde. Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1902. Excavations in the Fayûm and at el-Hibeh. EEF archaeological report 1901–1902 (1902) 2–5. Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1901. The Amherst Papyri. Being an Account of the Greek papyri in the Collection of the Right Hon. Lord Amherst, Vol. II. London: H. Frowde. Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1901a. A large find of Ptolemaic papyri. AfP 1 (1901) 376– 378. Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1901b. Excavations in the Fayûm. EEF archaeological report 1900–1901 (1901) 4–7. Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, A.S. 1897. New classical fragments and other Greek and Latin papyri. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

644

bibliography

Grenfell, B.P., Hunt, A.S. and Smyly, J.G. 1902. The Tebtunis papyri. Part I. London: Henry Frowde. Grenfell, B.P., Hunt, A.S. and Goodspeed, E.J. 1907. The Tebtunis papyri. Part II. London: Henry Frowde. Grenfell, B.P., Hunt, A.S. and Hogarth, D.G. 1900. Fayûm Towns and their papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Griffith, F.Ll. 1909. Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester. Volume II Plates, and Volume III. Manchester: University Press; London: Bernard Quaritch. Griffith, F.Ll. 1909a. Herodotus II.90. Apotheosis by drowning. ZÄS 46 (1909) 132– 134. Griffith, F.Ll. 1900. Stories of the high priests of Memphis: the Sethon of Herodotus and the Demotic tales of Khamuas. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Griffith, F.Ll. 1889. The inscriptions of Siût and Dêr Rîfeh. BOR 3 (1888–1889) 121–129, 164–168, 174–184 and 244–252. Griffith, F.Ll. and Petrie, W.M.F. 1889. Two hieroglyphic papyri from Tanis. Extra Memoires of the Egypt Exploration Fund. London: Trübner & Co. Griffith, F.Ll. and Wilcken, U. 1908. A bilingual sale of liturgies in 136b.c. ZÄS 45 (1908) 103–110. Grimal, N. 1995. Travaux de l’Insitut français d’archéologie orientale en 1994–1995. BIFAO 95 (1995) 539–645. Grimal, N. 1995. Travaux de l’Insitut français d’archéologie orientale en 1993–1994. BIFAO 94 (1994) 383–480. Grimm, G. 1974. Die römischen Mumienmasken aus Ägypten. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Gronewald, M., Maresch, K. and Römer, C. 1997. Kölner Papyri (P. Köln). Papyrologica Coloniensia Vol. VII/VIII. Köln: Westdeutscher Verlag. Gronewald, M., Lundon, J., Maresch, K., Schenke, G. and Schmitz, P. 2013. Kölner Papyri (P. Köln). Sonderreihe der Abhandlungen Papyrologica Coloniensia, Volume 13. Paderborn: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh. Grunert, S. 1981. Demotische Papyri aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. Lieferung II. Thebanische Kaufverträge des 3. und 2. Jahrunderts v. u. Z. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Guéraud, O. 1931. ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣ Requêtes et plaintes adressées au roi d’Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. Cairo: IFAO. Habachi, L. 1947. A statue of Osiris made for Ankhefenamun, prophet of the house of Amun in Khapu and his daughter. ASAE 47 (1947) 261–283. Handoussa, T. 2009. A stela of god’s father Psametik. In Rössler-Köhler, U. and Tawfik, T. (eds) Who will pass … When tombs, temples and statues speak: Commemorative writing for Prof. Dr. med. Sayed Tawfik Ahmed. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 121– 124.

bibliography

645

Hannig, R. 1995. Die Sprache der Pharaonen. Großes Handwörterbuch ÄgyptischDeutsch (2800–950 v. Chr.). Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Hall, R. 1986. Stolist. In Helck, W. and Otto, E. (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Band VI. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 63–65. Hassan, S. 1944. Excavations at Giza. Vol. V. Cairo: Government Press. Hayes, W.C. 1942. Ostraka and name stones from the tomb of Sen-Mūt (no. 71) at Thebes. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Egyptian Expedition. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition; vol. xv. Hays, H.M. 2010. Funerary Rituals (Pharaonic Period). In Dieleman, J. and Wendrich, W. (eds) UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles. Hengstl, J. 1978. Griechische Papyri aus Ägypten. München: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Herbin, F.-R. 1994. Le livre de parcourir l’éternité. Leuven: Peeters. Herbin, F.-R. 1984. Une liturgie des rites décadaires de Djemê. Papyrus Vienne 3865. RdÉ 35 (1984) 105–126. Hoffmann, F. 1996. Der Kampf um den Panzer des Inaros: Studien zum P.Krall und seiner Stellung innerhalb des Inaros-Petubastis-Zyklus. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek. Wien: Hollinek in Kommission. Hoffmeier, J.K. 1981. The possible origins of the tent of purification in the Egyptian funerary cult. SAK 9 (1981) 167–177. Hölscher, U. 1912. Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Chephren. Nebst Beiträgen von L. Borchardt und G. Steindorff. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Hughes, G.R. 1973. Notes on Demotic Egyptian leases of property. JNES 32 (1973) 152– 160. Hughes, G.R. 1958. The Sixth day of the Lunar Month and the Demotic Word for “Cult Guild.” MDAIK 16 (1958) 147–160. Hughes, G.R. 1958a. A Demotic Letter to Thoth. JNES 17.1 (1958) 1–12. Hughes, G.R. 1952. Saite Demotic land leases. SAOC 28. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Hughes, G.R., Jasnow, R. and Keenan, J.G. 1997. Oriental Institute Hawara papyri. Demotic and Greek texts from an Egyptian family archive in the Fayum (Fourth to Third century BC). Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Hughes, G.R., with contributions by Muhs, B.P. and Vinson, S. 2005. Catalog of Demotic texts in the Brooklyn Museum. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Communications, No. 29. Hughes, G.R. and Nims, C.F. 1940. Some observations on the British Museum Demotic Theban archive. AJSL 57 (1940) 224–261. Hunt, A.S., Smyly, J.G. and Edgar, C.C. 1938. The Tebtunis Papyri. Vol. III part II. London: Cambridge University Press. Hunt, A.S. and Edgar, C.C. 1932. Select papyri. Vol. I. London: William Heinemann Ltd.

646

bibliography

Husson, G. 1983. OIKIA Le vocabulaire de la maison privée en Égypte d’après les papyrus grecs. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Iskander, Z. and el-Moeiz Shaheen, A. 1964. Temporary stuffing materials used in the process of mummification in ancient Egypt—Earthy stuffing materials found at Ard El-Naam Mataria. ASAE 58 (1964) 197–208. Iskander, Z. and el-Moeiz Shaheen, A. 1973. Temporary stuffing materials used in the process of mummification in ancient Egypt—Fragrant temporary stuffing materials. ASAE 61 (1973) 65–78. Jackowski, C., Bolliger, S. and Thali, M.J. 2008. Scenes from the Past. Common and Unexpected Findings in Mummies from Ancient Egypt and South America as Revealed by CT. RadioGraphics 28.5 (2008) 1477–1492. Janot, F. 2000. Les instruments d’embaument de l’Égypte ancienne. Cairo: IFAO. Janot, F. 1996. Les instruments et la pratique des prêtres-embaumers. BIFAO 96 (1996) 245–253. Janot, F., Bridonneau, C., Cotelle-Michel, L. and Decamps, C. 2001. La mission archéologique du muse du Louvre à Saqqara: une nécropole d’époque tardive dans le secteur du masta d’Akhethetep. BIFAO 101 (2001) 249–291. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 2014. Inschriften der Spätzeit, Vol. 4.1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jansen-Winkeln, K. 1997. Eine Grabübernahme in der 30. Dynastie. JEA 83 (1997) 169– 178. Janssen, J.J. 1975. Commodity prices from the Ramessid Period. An economic study of the village of necropolis workmen at Thebes. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Janssen, J.J. and Pestman, P.W. 1968. Burial and inheritance in the community of the necropolis workmen at Deir el-Medina (Pap. Bulaq X and O. Petrie 16). JESHO XI (1968) 137–170. Jasnow, R. 2004. The Dispute in the Hawara Necropolis Reopened (P. Cairo 50127). In Hoffmann, F. and Thissen, H.J. (eds) RES SEVERA VERUM GAUDIUM. Festschrift für Karl-Theodor Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004. Leuven: Peeters. Jasnow, R. 1982. Two Demotic Papyri in the Oriental Institute. Enchoria 11 (1982) 17–22. Jasnow, R. and Zauzich, K.-T. 2005. The Ancient Egyptian Book of Thoth: A Demotic Discourse on Knowledge and Pendant to the Classical Hermetica. Volume 1: Text, Volume 2: Plates. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Jeffreys, D.G. 1985. The survey of Memphis. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Jeffreys, D.G., Mathieson, I.J. and Tavares, A. 1991. National Museum of Scotland. Saqqara Project 1991. Edinburgh: National Museum of Scotland. Jeffreys, D.G., Smith, H.S. and Jessop Price, M. 1988. The Anubieion at Saqqâra I: The Settlement and the Temple Precinct. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Jelínková-Reymond, E.A.E. 1959. Sale of Inherited Property in the First Century B.C. (P. Brit. Mus. 10075, ex Salt coll. No. 418), JEA 45 (1959) 61–74. Jelínková-Reymond, E.A.E. 1957. Sale of Inherited Property in the First Century B.C. (P. Brit. Mus. 10075, ex Salt coll. No. 418). JEA 43 (1957), 45–55, Pl. V.

bibliography

647

Jelínková-Reymond, E.A.E. 1955. “Paiement” du président de la nécropole (P. Caire 50060). BIFAO 55 (1955) 33–55. Jelínková-Reymond, E.A.E. 1953. Gestion des Rentes d’Office. CdÉ 28 (1953) 228–237. Johnson, A.C. 1936. Roman Egypt to the reign of Diocletian. An economic survey of ancient Rome, Vol. II. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins press. Johnson, J.H. 2004 reprint. The Demotic verbal system. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Johnson, J.H. 1998. Women, wealth and work in Egyptian society of the Ptolemaic Period. In: Clarysse, W. (ed.) Egyptian religion: the last thousand years. Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur. OLA 84–85 (1998) 1393–1421. Johnson, J.H. 1994. “Annuity contracts” And marriage. In Silverman, D.P. (ed.) For his Ka: essays offered in memory of Klaus Baer. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, SAOC 55. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Johnson, J.H. 1992. (ed.) Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, SAOC 51. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Johnson, J.H. 1986. The Role of the Egyptian Priesthood in Ptolemaic Egypt. In Lesko, L.H. (ed.) Egyptological studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker. Presented on the Occasion of His 78th Birthday December 10, 1983. Hanover and London: University Press of New England. Johnson, J.H. 1977. Louvre E 2229: A Demotic Magical text. Enchoria VII (1977) 55–102, Pls 10–17. Johnson, J. de Monis, Martin, V. and Hunt, A.S. 1915. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, Vol. II. Manchester: University Press. Johnson, A.C. and Goodrich, S.P. 1942. Papyri in the Princeton University Collections. Vol. III. Princeton: Princeton University Press; London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press. Jonckheere, F. 1953. Considérations sur l’Auxiliarie médical pharaonique. CdÉ 28 (1953) 60–76. Jonckheere, F. 1951. A la recherche du Chirurgien Égyptien. CdÉ 26 (1951) 28–45. Jones, J., Higham, T.F.G., Oldfield, R., O’Connor, T.P. and Buckley, S.A. 2014. Evidence for Prehistoric Origins of Egyptian Mummification in Late Neolithic Burials. PLoS ONE 9(8): e103608. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103608. Josset, P. 1987. L’autopsie d’une momie Égyptienne. In: Archéologie et Médecine. VIIèmes rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes. Juan-les-Pins: A.P.D.C.A. Jouguet, P. 1902. Rapport sur deux missions au Fayoûm. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 46e année, N. 3 (1902) 346–359. Jouguet, P. 1901. Rapport sur les fouilles de Médinet-Mâdi et Médinet-Ghôran. BCH 25 (1901) 380–411.

648

bibliography

Kaczmarek, M. 2003. Assessment of growth patterns in juvenile skeletons from Saqqara. PAM XIV (2003) 155–161. Kaczmarek, M. 2000. Anthropological analysis of mummified burials from Saqqara. PAM XI (2000) 118–123. Kahl, J. 2007. Ancient Asyut. The First Synthesis after 300 Years of Research. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Kákosy, L., 1997. Twelfth preliminary report on the Hungarian excavations in Thebes. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49 (1997) 457–467. Kákosy, L., 1996. Eleventh Preliminary Report on the Hungarian Excavation in Thebes. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48 (1996) 321–331. Kákosy, L., 1995. Tenth preliminary report on the Hungarian Excavation in the Theban Tomb No. 32 (Season 1993). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47 (1995) 3–22. Kákosy, L., 1994. Ninth preliminary report on the Hungarian excavation in Thebes; Tomb No. 32 (season 1992). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 46 (1994) 21–31. Kákosy, L., 1993. Eighth preliminary report on the Hungarian excavation in Theban Tomb 32 (Season 1991). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 45 (1993) 3–10. Kákosy, L., 1992. Seventh preliminary report on the Hungarian Excavation in Theban tomb 32 (season 1990). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44 (1992) 193–212. Kákosy, L., 1987. Third preliminary report on the Hungarian excavation in Theban tomb 32. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 39 (1987) 145– 152. Kákosy, L., 1985. Second Preliminary Report on the Hungarian Excavations in Thebes, Tomb No. 32 (Season 1984). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37 (1985) 295–305. Kákosy, L. and Gaál, E. 1985. First preliminary report on the Hungarian Excavation in Thebes-West, Tomb 32. Acta Archeologica Academia Scientarum Hungaricae 37 (1985) 13–22. Kampp, F. 1996. Die thebanische Nekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie, Vol. 1 and 2. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Kanawati, N. and Woods, A. 2009. Artists of the Old Kingdom: techniques and achievements. Egypt: Supreme Council of Antiquities Press. Kaplony, P. 1986. Totenpriester. In Helck, W. and Otto, E. (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Band VI. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 679–693. Kaplony, P. 1980. Ka. In In Helck, W. and Otto, E. (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Band III. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 272–282. Kaplony-Heckel, U. 1963. Die demotischen Tempeleide. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

bibliography

649

Kastenbaum, R. n.d. Grief. Overview. In the Online Encyclopedia of death and dying. www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief.html. Kearl, M.C. n.d. Social Functions of Death. In the Online Encyclopedia of death and dying. http://www.deathreference.com/Sh‑Sy/Social‑Functions‑of‑Death.html. Kees, H. 1932. Apotheosis by Drowning. In Kees, H. (ed.) Studies presented to F.L. Griffith. London. Kiessling, E. 1958–1963. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden, VI Urkunden Nr. 8964– 9641. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Klass, D. n.d. Grief and mourning in cross-cultural perspective. In the Online Encyclopedia of death and dying. www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief‑and‑Mourning‑in ‑Cross‑Cultural‑Perspective.html. Kockelmann, H. 2003. Vier spate Leinenamlette für Mumien im Kunsthistorischen Museum Wien und im Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. SAK 31 (2003) 235–260. Koenen, L. 1972. Anweisung an die Totengräber (P. Colon. inv. nr. 3004). ZPE 9 (1972) 20–21. Kramer, B. and Hübner, R. 1976. Kölner Papyri (P. Köln). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Kuhlmann, K.P. 1983. Materialien zur Archäologie und Geschichte des Raumes von Achmim. Sonderschrift Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo, 11. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Kuhlmann, K.P. and Schenkel, W. 1972. Vorbericht über die Aufnahmearbeiten im Grab des Jbj (Theben Nr. 36). MDAIK 28 (1972) 201–211. Kurtz, D.C. and Boardman, J. 1971. Greek burial customs. London: Thames and Hudson. Landgráfová, R. and Janák, J. 2011. Texts from the embalmer’s deposits. In Bareš, L. and Smoláriková, K. (eds) Abusir XXV. The shaft tomb of Menekhibnekau. Volume I: Archaeology. Prague: Charles University in Prague. Lang, P. 2013. Medicine and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Lange, H.O. and Schäfer, H. 1902–1925. Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reiches. Catalogue général des Antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (CG 20001–20780). Berlin: Reichsdruckerei. Lansing, A. 1935. The Museum’s Excavations at Thebes. The Egyptian Expedition 1934– 1935. BMMA 30.11, Part 2 (1935) 4–16. Lapp, G. 1986. Die Opferformel des Alten Reiches, unter Berücksichtigung einiger späterer Formen. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Lauer, J.-Ph. and Iskander, Z. 1955. Données nouvelles sur la momification dans l’Egypte ancienne. ASAE 53 (1955) 167–194. Lauffray, J., Saʾad, R. and Sauneron, S. 1971. Rapport sur les travaux de Karnak. Activités du «Centre Franco-Égyptien des temples de Karnak» (Campagne de travaux 1969– 1970). KÊMI XXI (1971) 53–76.

650

bibliography

Leclant, J. 1979. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Sudan, 1977–1978. Orientalia 48 (1979) 353–356. Leclant, J. 1976. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Sudan, 1974–1975. Orientalia 45 (1976) 285–286. Leclant, J. 1973. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Sudan, 1971–1972. Orientalia 42 (1973) 398. Leclant, J. and Clerc, G. 1998. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Sudan, 1996–1997. Orientalia 67 (1998) 398. Leclant, J. and Clerc, G. 1997. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Sudan, 1995–1996. Orientalia 66 (1997) 313. Leclant, J. and Clerc, G. 1996. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Sudan, 1994–1995. Orientalia 65 (1996) 315–316. Leclant, J. and Clerc, G. 1994. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Sudan, 1992–1993. Orientalia 63 (1994) 427. Leclant, J. and Clerc, G. 1988. Fouilles et travaux en Égypte et au Sudan, 1986–1987. Orientalia 57 (1988) 328–329, Figs. 30–31. Lecuyot, G. 2000. The ramesseum (Egypt): recent archaeological research. http://www .archeo.ens.fr/IMG/pdf/ramesseum.pdf, accessed 28/01/2020. Leemans, C. 1863. Monumens égyptiens du musée d’antiquités des Pays-bas à Leide. Leiden. Leemans, C. 1840. Description raisonnée des monumens égyptiens du musée d’antiquités des Pays-bas, à Leide. Leiden. Lefebvre, G. 1912. Papyrus du Fayoum. Bulletin de la société archéologique d’Alexandrie 14 (1912) 194–196. Leibovitch, J. 1942. Stèles funéraires de Tell el-Yaoudieh. ASAE 41 (1942) 41–52. Lenger, M.-T. 1980. Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolémées (C.Ord.Ptol.). Réimpression de l’édition princeps (1964) corrigée et mise à jour. Brussels: Palais des Académies. Lepsius, K.G.R. 1853. Letters from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the peninsula of Sinai; with extracts from his chronology of the Egyptians, with reference to the exodus of the Israelites. Revised by the author, translated by Leonora and Joanna B. Horner. London: Henry G. Bohn. Lepsius, K.G.R. 1843. Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien 2. Leipzig. Letronne, J.A.F. 1838. Fragments inédits d’anciens poëtes grecs (F. Didot). Paris. Letronne, J.A.F. 1836. Nouvelles annals publiées par la section française de l’institut archéologique. Paris. Letronne, J.A.F. and Brunet de Presle, C.M.W. 1865. Notices et texts des papyrus grecs du musée du Louvre et de la bibliothèque impériale. Paris. Lewis, N. 1993. The demise of the Demotic document: when and why. JEA 79 (1993) 276–281. Lewis, N. 1986. Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

bibliography

651

Lewis, N. 1974. Papyrus in Classical Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press. Lewis, N. 1960. Leitourgia and related terms. GRBS 3 (1960) 175–184. Lexa, F. 1948. Grammaire démotique. V morphologie. 3. particules. Prague: Édition d’auteur. LiDonnici, L.R. 2001. Single-Stemmed Wormwood, Pinecones and Myrrh: Expense and Availability of Recipe Ingredients in the Greek Magical Papyri. Kernos 14 (2001) 61– 91. Lichtheim, M. 1988. Autobiographies chiefly of the Middle Kingdom. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lichtheim, M. 1980. Ancient Egyptian Literature: a book of readings. Volume III: the Late Period. Berkeley and London: University of California Press. Lichtheim, M. 1957. Demotic Ostraca from Medinet Habu. Chicago: The University Press of Chicago. Liddell, H.G. and Scott, R. 1897. A Greek–English lexicon. Eighth edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ling, R. 2000. ‘Working Practice.’ In R. Ling (ed.) Making Classical Art: Process and Practice. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd. von Lieven, A. 2017. Of Choachytes and Saints: Demotic Documentary Texts as Source for Religious Practices, in R. Jasnow and G. Widmer (eds.) Illuminating Osiris: Egyptological Studies in Honor of Mark Smith. Bristol (US) and Exeter (UK): Lockwood Press, 239–245. von Lieven, A. 2010. Deified Humans. In Dieleman, J. and Wendrich, W. (eds) UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles. Lippert, S.L. 2013. Inheritance. In Frood, E. and Wendrich, W. (eds) UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. Lippert, S.L. 2004. Ein demotisches juristisches Lehrbuch: Untersuchungen zu Papyrus Berlin P 23757 rto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lloyd, A.B. 1982. Nationalist Propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt. Historia 31 (1982) 33–55. Lucas, A. 1914. The use of natron by the ancient Egyptians in mummification. JEA 1 (1914) 119–123. Lucas, A. 1914a. The question of the use of bitumen or pitch by the ancient Egyptians in mummification. JEA 1 (1914) 241–245. Lucas, A. 1931. “Cedar-”tree products employed in mummification. JEA 17 (1931) 13– 21. Lucas, A. 1932. The use of natron in mummification. JEA 18 (1932) 125–140. Lucas, A. 1932a. To what extent did the ancient Egyptians employ bitumen for embalming? JEA 18 (1932) 177–180. Lüddeckens, E. 1998 Demotische Urkunden aus Hawara. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

652

bibliography

Lüddeckens, E. 1971. Das demotische Graffito von Tempel der Satet auf Elephantine. MDAIK 27,2 (1971) 203–206, Pl. LI. Lüddeckens, E. 1960. Ägyptische Eheverträge. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Lüddeckens, E. 1943. Untersuchungen über religiösen Gehalt, Sprache und Form der Ägyptischen Totenklagen. MDAIK 11 (1943) 15–188. Łukaszewicz, A. ΑϹΠΙΔΕΙΟΝ. ZPE 67 (1987) 109–110. Luft, U. 1973. Geschichte der Berliner Papyrus-Sammlung. AfP 22 (1973) 5–46. Lumbroso, G. 1906. Lettere al signor professore Wilcken V. AfP 3 (1906) 163–164. Lythgoe, A.M., Lansing, A. and de Garis Davies, N. 1917. The Egyptian Expedition 1915– 16. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 12.5, Supplement (1917) 3–31. Macramallah, R. 1940. Fouilles à Saqqarah. Un cimitière archaïque de la classe moyenne du peuple à Saqqarah. Cairo: Imprimerie Nationale, Boulâq. Maehler, H. 1983. Die griechische Schule im ptolemäischen Ägypten. In Van’t Dack, E., Van Dessel, P. and Van Gucht, W. (eds) Egypt and the Hellenistic world. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Leuven 24–26 May 1982. Leuven: Lovanii. Mairs, R. and Martin, C.J. 2008–2009. A Bilingual Sale of Liturgies from the Archive of the Theban Choachytes: P. Berlin 5507, P. Berlin 3098 and P. Leiden 413. Enchoria 31 (2008–2009) 22–67, Pl. 1–9. Malinine, M. 1982–1983. Transcriptions hiéroglyphiques de quatre textes of the Musée du Louvre écrits en hiératique abnormal. RdÉ 34 (1982–1983) 93–100, Pls 4–7. Malinine, M. 1975. Vente de tombes à l’époque Saïte. RdÉ 27 (1975) 164–174, Pl. 13. Malinine, M. 1974. Une vente de prébendes sous la XXXe dynastie (Pap. Moscou Nº 135). RdÉ 26 (1974) 34–51. Malinine, M. 1973. Une affaire concernant un partage. RdÉ 25 (1973) 192–208. Malinine, M. 1967. Partage testamentaire d’une propriété familiale (Pap. Moscou Nº 123). RdÉ 19 (1967) 67–85. Malinine, M. 1961. Taxes funéraires égyptiennes à l’époque gréco-romain. In Mélanges Mariette. Cairo: IFAO. Malinine, M. 1960. Texte démotique relatif à un accident de travail. Acta Orientalia 25 (1960) 250–265. Malinine, M. 1958. Deux documents égyptien relatifs au dépôt. MDAIK 16 (1958) 219– 229. Malinine, M. 1955. Une Chrestomathie des Textes Démotiques Anciens. OLZ 50 (1955) 491–501. Malinine, M. 1953. Choix de textes juridiques en hiératique «anormal» et en démotique. (Part 1). Paris: Libraire Ancienne Honoré Champion, Éditeur. Malinine, M. 1951. Un Jugement rendu à Thèbes sous la XXVe Dynastie (Pap. Louvre E. 3228 C). Revue d’Égyptologie 6 (1951) 157–178. Malinine, M. 1950. Un contrat de vente d’emplacements à construire de l’époque du roi Achoris. RdÉ 7 (1950) 107–120.

bibliography

653

Manniche, L. 2009. Perfume. In Wendrich, W. (ed.) UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles. Manniche, L. 1988. The tombs of the nobles at Luxor. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. Manniche, L. 1987. City of the Dead. Thebes in Egypt. London: British Museum Publications. Manning, J.G. 2010. The Last Pharaohs. Egypt under the Ptolemies, 305–30BC. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Manning, S.W. 1998. Changing Pasts and Socio-Political Cognition in Late Bronze Age Cyprus. World Archaeology 30.1 (1998) 39–58. Mariette, A. 1872. Les papyrus égyptiens du Musée de Boulaq II. Paris: Franck. Martin, C.J. 2009. Demotic Papyri from the Memphite Necropolis. Papers on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities. Turnhout: Brepols. Martin, C.J. 1986. Review of Devauchelle, D. Ostraca démotiques du Musée du Louvre 2 Vol. Cairo: IFAO 1983. CdÉ 61 (1986) 228–231. Martin, C.J. 1996. The Demotic texts. In: Porten, B. (ed.) The Elephantine papyri in English. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Martin, C.J. and Ryholt, K. 2006. Put My Funerary Papyrus in My Mummy, Please. JEA 92 (2006) 270–274. Martin, G.T., Van Dijk, J., Raven, M.J., Aston, B.G., Aston, D.A., Strouhal, E. and Horáčková, L. 2001. The tombs of three Memphite officials: Ramose, Khay and Pabes. With the collaboration of Schneider, H.D. and Van Walsem, R.; plans and general account of the architecture by Frazer, K.J.; photographs by Bomhof, P.J. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Martin, G.T., Raven, M.J., Aston, B.G. and Van Dijk, J. 1988. The Tomb of Maya and Meryt: Preliminary Report on the Saqqâra Excavations, 1987–8. JEA 74 (1988) 1–14. Martin, G.T. 1997. The tomb of Tia and Tia: a royal monument of the Ramesside Period in the Memphite necropolis. Translations and a chapter by Jacobus van Dijk; and contributions by David A. Aston, Maarten J. Raven with plans and general account of the architecture by Kenneth J. Frazer; photographs by Martinus Vinkesteijn, Peter-Jan Bomhof. London: Egypt Exploration Society Martin, G.T. 1989. The Memphite tomb of Horemheb commander-in-chief of Tutʿankhamūn. Volume I: The reliefs, inscriptions, and commentary; with survey, plans, and general account of the architecture by Frazer, K.J.; and photographs by Eyre, C.J. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Martin, G.T. 1985. The tomb-chapels of Paser and Raʿia at Saqqâra. With the collaboration of Hans D. Schneider; with plans by Kenneth J. Frazer; and photographs by Martinus Vinkesteijn. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Martin, G.T. 1981. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqâra: The Southern Dependencies of the Main Temple Complex. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

654

bibliography

Maspero, G. 1885. Sur les fouilles exécutées en Egypte de 1881 à 1885. Bulletin de l’Institut Egyptienne (2e série) 6 (1885) 3–91. Maspero, G. 1885a. Notes sur quelques points de Grammaire et d’Histoire. ZÄS 23 (1885) 3–13. Maspero, G. 1875. Mémoire sur quelques papyrus du Louvre. Paris: A. Franck. Mathieson, I., Bettles, E., Clarke, J., Duhig, C., Ikram, S., Maguire, L., Quie, S. and Tavares, A. 1997. The National Museums of Scotland Saqqara Survey Project 1993–1995. JEA 83 (1997) 17–53. Mathieu, B. 2017. Abréviations des périodiques et collections en usage à l’Ifao, 6e éd. Cairo: IFAO. Mattha, G. and Hughes, G.R. 1975. The Demotic legal code of Hermopolis west. Cairo: IFAO. Mattha, G. 1950. Rights and Duties of the Eldest Son According to the Native Egyptian Laws of Succession of the Third Century BC. Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Fouad I University, Cairo XII, Part II (1950) 113–118. Mattha, G. 1945. Demotic ostraka from the collections at Oxford, Paris, Berlin, Vienna and Cairo. Cairo: IFAO. Mayser, E. 1936–1970. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. Vol. I.1– 3. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Mayser, E. 1926–1934. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. Vol. II.1– 3. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. McClain, B.J. 2007. The Terminology of Sacred Space in Ptolemaic Inscriptions from Thebes. In. Dorman, P.F. and Bryan, B.M. (eds) Perspectives on Ptolemaic Thebes. Occasional proceedings of the Theban workshop 2006. SAOC 65. Chicago: the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 85–95. McDowell, A.G. 1999. Village life in ancient Egypt: laundry lists and love songs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meeks, D. and Favard-Meeks, C. 1999. Daily life of the Egyptian gods. London: Pimlico. Menu, B. 1985. Cession de services et engagements pour dette sous les rois kouchites et saïtes. RdÉ 36 (1985) 73–87. Menu, B. 1982. Déclarations d’ouverture des funérailles. BIFAO 82 (1982) 313–318. Menu, B. 1972. Un contrat de prêt démotique conclu sous le règne de Ptolémée IV Philopator (P. Marseille, Inv. Nº 297). RdÉ 24 (1972) 120–128. Menu, B. 1969. Comptes rendus: Zauzich, K.-T. 1968: Die Ägyptische Schreibertradition in Aufbau, Sprache und Schrift der Demotischen Kaufverträge aus Ptolemäischer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. RdÉ 21 (1969) 192–198. Meskell, L. 2003. Memory’s Materiality: Ancestral Presence, Commemorative Practice and Disjunctive Locales. In Van Dyke, R.M. and Alcock, S. (eds) 2003. Archaeologies of Memory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

bibliography

655

Meskell, L. 1994. Dying Young: The Experience of Death at Deir el Medina. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 13:2 (1994) 35–45. Metacalf, P. and Huntington, R. 1991. Celebrations of Death. The anthropology of mortuary ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Meulenaere, H. 1975. Balsamierer. In Helk, W. Otto, E. (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band I. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 610. De Meulenaere, H. 1975a. Choachyt. In Helk, W. Otto, E. (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band I. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 957. De Meulenaere, H. 1969. Un prêtre d’Akhmim à Abydos. CdÉ 44 (1969) 214–221. De Meulenaere, H. 1960. Les monuments du culte des rois Nectanébo. CdÉ 35 (1960) 92–107. De Meulenaere, H. 1956. Pastophores et gardiens des portes. CdÉ 31 (1956) 299–302. De Meulenaere, H. 1955. Die „Balsamierer“ des P. Berl. Dem. 3116. ZÄS 80 (1955) 80. Midant-Reynes, B. 2000. The prehistory of Egypt. From the first Egyptians to the first pharaohs. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. van Minnen, P. 1998. Boorish or bookish? Literature in Egyptian villages in the Fayum in the Greco-Roman period. JJP 28 (1998) 99–184. Mitthof, F. 2004. Liste von Pigmenten und Farbstoffen für Malfarben (P. Horak 63). In Harrauer, H. and Pintaudi, R. (eds) Gedenkschrift Ulrike Horak (P. Horak). Firenze: Edizioni Gonnelli. Monson, A. 2006. The ethics and economics of Ptolemaic religious associations. Ancient Society 36 (2006) 221–238. Montserrat, D. 1997. Death and funerals in the Roman Fayum. In Bierbrier, M.L. (ed.) Portraits and masks. Burial customs in Roman Egypt. London: British Museum Press. Montserrat, D. and Meskell, L. 1997. Mortuary archaeology and religious landscape at Greco-Roman Deir el-Medina. JEA 83 (1997) 179–197. Morenz, S. 1959. Zur Vergöttlichung in Ägypten. ZÄS 84 (1959) 132–143. De Morgan, H. 1912. Report on excavations made in Upper Egypt during the winter 1907–1908. ASAE 12 (1912) 25–50. Muhs, B.P. 2014/15. More Papyri from the Archive of Panas Son of Espemetis. Enchoria 34 (2014/15) 89–103. Muhs, B.P. in press. ‘Of Priests and Pastophoroi.’ In K.-Th. Zauzich (ed.) Akten der 8. Konferenz für Demotische Studien, 27.–30. Augustus 2002. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Muhs, B.P. 2011. Receipts, scribes, and collectors in early Ptolemaic Thebes (O. taxes 2). Leuven: Peeters. Muhs, B.P. 2010/11. P. Louvre N. 3263 Revisited. Enchoria 32 (2010/11) 125–126. Muhs, B.P. 2010. A Demotic Donation Contract from Early Ptolemaic Thebes (P. Louvre N. 3263). In Hawass, Z. and Houser Wegner, J. Millions of jubilees: studies in honor of David P. Silverman. Cairo: Conseil Suprême des Antiquites, Vol. I, 439– 455.

656

bibliography

Muhs, B.P. 2009. Two ‘Orders for Burial’ from the Valley of the Kings. JARCE 45 (2009) 393–395. Muhs, B.P. 2008. Fractions of Houses in Ptolemaic Hawara. In S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit (eds) Graeco-Roman Fayum—Texts and Archaeology, Proceedings of the Third International Fayum Symposium, Freudenstadt, May 29–June 1 2007. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Muhs, B.P. 2005. Tax receipts, taxpayers and taxes in early Ptolemaic Thebes. OIP 126. Chicago: Oriental Institute publications. Muhs, B.P. 2005a. The girls next door. Marriage patterns among the mortuary priests in Early Ptolemaic Thebes. JJP 35 (2005) 169–194. Muhs, B.P. 2003. Demotic ostraca from Ptolemaic Edfu and the Ptolemaic tax system. In Vandorpe, K. and Clarysse, W. (eds) Edfu, an Egyptian provincial capital in the Ptolemaic period. Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten. Muhs, B.P. 2002. Clear Title, Public Protests and P. Brux. Dem. 4. In Ryholt, K. (ed.) Acts of the seventh International Conference of Demotic Studies. Copenhagen, 23–27 August 1999. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Muhs, B.P. 2001. ‘Membership in Private associations in Ptolemaic Tebtunis.’ JESHO 44 (2001) 1–21. Muhs, B.P. 1996: The administration of Egyptian Thebes in the early Ptolemaic Period. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis: Chicago University. Munro, P. 1973. Die spätägyptischen Totenstelen. Ägyptologische Forschungen herausgegeben von Hans Wolfgang Müller Universität München Heft 25. Glückstadt: Verlag J.J. Augustin. Murphy, E. 1990. The antiquities of Egypt. A translation with notes of Book I of the Library of history of Diodorus Siculus. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers. Murray, M.A. 1914. The Cult of the Drowned in Egypt. ZÄS 51 (1914) 127–135. Muszynski, M. 1977. Les «associations religieus» en Égypte. OLP 8 (1977) 145–174. Mycielska-Dowgiallo, E. and Woronko, B. 1998. Analysis of mineral deposits in the northern wall of pit I. PAM IX (1998) 107–115. Myśliwiec, K. 2005. West Saqqara 2004. PAM XVI (2005) 147–160. Myśliwiec, K. 2004. West Saqqara. Archaeological activities, 2003. PAM XV (2004) 111– 122. Myśliwiec, K. 2003. West Saqqara in 2002. PAM XIV (2003) 111–127. Myśliwiec, K. 2003a. Polish-Egyptian archaeological activities in west Saqqara. In Hawass, Z., Brock, L.P. (eds) 2000. Egyptology at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Proceedings of the eighth Insternational Congress of Egyptologists, Cairo 2000. Cairo and New York: Vol. 1 Archaeology: 339–344. Myśliwiec, K. 2002. The Ptolemaic Period cemetery in West Saqqara. In Bács, T.A. (ed.)

bibliography

657

A tribute to excellence: studies offered in honor of Erno Gaál, Ulrich Luft, László Török. Budapest: Université Eötvös Lorand de Budapest, Studia Aegyptiaca XVII. Myśliwiec, K. 2002a. Excavations 1997. PAM XIII (2002) 127–142. Myśliwiec, K. 2001. West Saqqara. Excavations 2000. PAM XII (2001) 107–132. Myśliwiec, K. 2000. West Saqqara. Excavations, 1999. PAM XI (2000) 89–99. Myśliwiec, K. 1999. West Saqqara. Excavations, 1998. PAM X (1999) 81–90. Myśliwiec, K. 1998. Excavations 1997. PAM IX (1998) 90–99. Myśliwiec, K. 1997. Excavations 1996. PAM VIII (1997) 103–109. Myśliwiec, K., Herbich, T. and Niwinski, A. 1995. Polish research at Saqqara in 1987. EtTrav 17 (1995) 177–203. El-Naggar, S. 1986. Étude préliminaire d’un ciel voûté de l’hypogée de Bakenrenef (L.24) à Saqqara. EVO 9 (1986) 15–38. Needler, W. 1984. Predynastic and Archaic Egypt in the Brooklyn Museum. With a reexamination of Henri de Morgan’s excavations based on the material in the Brooklyn Museum initially studied by Walter Federn and a special zoological contribution on the ivory-handled knife from Abu Zaidan by C.S. Churcher. Wilbour Monographs 9. Brooklyn: The Brooklyn Museum. Nims, C.F. 1958. A Demotic “Document of Endowment” from the Time of Nectanebo I. MDAIK 16 (1958) 237–246. Nims, C.F. 1948. The term hp, “law, right,” in Demotic. JNES 7 (1948) 243–260. Nims, C.F. 1938. Notes on University of Mitchigan Papyri from Philadelphia. JEA 24 (1938) 73–82. Notman, D.N.H. and Aufderheide, A.C. 1995. Experimental mummification and computed imaging. In Proceedings of the First World Congree on Mummy Studies, February 1992, Vol. 2. Santa Cruz, Tenrife, Canary Islands: Archaeological and Ethnographical Museum of Tenerife, 821–828. Nowicka, M. 1984. Théophilos, peintre alexandrin, et son activité. In Bonacasa, N. and di Vita, A. (eds) Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. Studi in onore di Achille Adriani. Rome: Bretschneider. Nowicka, M. 1979. La peinture dans les papyrus grecs. Archeologia (Rocznik Instytutu Historii Kultury Materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk) 30 (1979) 21–28. Nowicka, M. 1969. La maison privée dans l’Égypte ptolémaïque. Warsaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Nunn, J.F. 1996. Ancient Egyptian medicine. London: British Museum Press. Nur el-Din, M.A.A. 1979. The proper names in Mattha’s Demotic Ostraka: a reconsideration. Enchoria IX (1979) 45–48. Nur el-Din, M.A.A. 1974. The Demotic ostraca in the National Museum of Antiquities at Leiden. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Nur el-Din, M.A.A. and Pestman, P.W. 1978. Wooden tag for the mummy of Senmenchês. In Boswinkel, E. and Pestman, P.W. (eds) Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

658

bibliography

O’Brien, A.A. 1999. Private tradition, public state: women in Demotic business and administrative texts from Ptolemaic and Roman Thebes. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis: Chicago University. Oates, J.F. 2001. Checklist of editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic papyri, ostraca, and tablets. 5th edition. Oakville, American Society of Papyrologists. Otto, E. 1975. Cheriheb. In Helk, W. Otto, E. (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band I. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 940–943. Otto, E. 1956. Eine memphitische Priesterfamilie des 2. Jh. v. Chr. ZÄS 81 (1956) 109–128. Otto, E. 1908. Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten, Band II. Leipzig and Berlin: B.G. Teubner. Otto, E. 1905. Priester und Tempel im hellenistischen Ägypten, Band I. Leipzig and Berlin: B.G. Teubner. Padró, J., Hamza, M., Marí, L., Amer, H.I. and Mascort, M.T. 1996. Informe preliminar sobre les campanyes arqueològiques de la Missió Mixta Catalano-Egípcia a Oxirrinc corresponents als anys 1995 i 1996. Nilus. Butlletí de la Societat Catalana d’Egiptologia 5 (1996) 10–12. Palanque, C. 1903. Notes de fouilles dans la nécropole d’Assiout. BIFAO 3 (1903) 119– 128. Papalexandrou, A. 2003. Memory Tattered and Torn: Spolia in the Hertland of Byzantine Hellenism. In Van Dyke, R.M. and Alcock, S. (eds) 2003. Archaeologies Of Memory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The archaeology of death and burial. Stroud: Sutton. Parker, R.A. 1964. A Property Settlement From Deir El Ballas. JARCE 3 (1964) 89– 103. Parker, R.A. 1963. A Demotic Marriage Document From Deir El Ballas. JARCE 2 (1963) 113–116. Parkes, C.M., Laungani, P. and Young, B. 1998. Death and bereavement across cultures. London and New York: Routledge. Parkinson, R. 1998. The tale of Sinuhe and other ancient Egyptian poems, 1940–1640BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pasek, S. 2012. Demotische und griechische Urkunden aus Hawara in Übersetzung. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Pasek, S. 2007. Hawara: eine ägyptische Siedlung in hellenistischer Zeit. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Peet, T. 1930. The Great Tomb-Robberies of the Twentieth Egyptian Dynasty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peet, T. 1915. The Great Tomb Robberies of the Ramesside Age. Papyri Mayer A and B. I. Papyrus Mayer A. JEA 2 (1915) 173–177. Perdrizet, P. and Lefebvre, G. 1919. Les Graffites Grecs du Memnonion d’Abydos. NancyParis-Strasbourg: Berger-Levrault.

bibliography

659

Peremans, W., van’t Dack, E. and Clarysse, W. 1981. Prosopographia Ptolemaica IX. Addenda et corrigenda au Volume III (1956). Leuven: Lovanii and Fondation Universitaire de Belgique. Pernigotti, S. 2000. Gli dèi di Bakchias e altri studi sul Fayyum di età tolemaica e romana. Imola (Bologna): La mandragora. Pernigotti, S. 1994. Bakchias: il sito e gli scavi precedenti. In Pernigotti, S. and M. Capasso (ed.) Bakchias I: rapporto preliminare della campagna di scavo del 1993. Pisa: Giardini. Pernigotti, S. 1979. Ancora sulla stele Firenze 1639 (2507). EVO 2 (1979) 21–37. Pernigotti, S. 1971. Un papiro demotico di epoca saitica nel Kunsthistorisches Museum di Vienna (Inv. 3853). Or Ant 10 (1971) 177–182, Taf. 2. Pestman, P.W. 1993. The archive of the Theban choachytes. A survey of the Demotic and Greek papyri contained in the archive. Leuven: Peeters. Pestman, P.W. 1992. Il Processo di Hermias e altri documenti dell’archivio dei choachiti (P. Tor. Choachiti). Papiri greci e demotici conservati a Torino e in altre collezioni d’Italia. Torino: Ministero Per I Beni Culturali e Ambientali, Soprintendenza al Museo Delle Antichità Egizie. Pestman, P.W. 1990. The new papyrological primer. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pestman, P.W. 1988. Il patrimonio di una societá di choachiti (Tebe, IIº secolo a. C.). In Zanardo, A. and Pugliese Carratelli, G. (eds) Stato, Economia, Lavoro nel Vicino Oriente antico. Milano: Franco Angelo Libri s.r.l. Pestman, P.W. 1987. “Inheriting” in the archive of the Theban Choachytes (2nd cent. B.C.). In Vleeming, S.P. (ed.) Aspects of Demotic Lexicography. Acts of the Second International Conference for Demotic Studies. Leiden, 19–21 September 1984. Leuven: Peeters, 57–73. Pestman, P.W. 1987a. «Public protests» in the Demotic family archive of Pchorchonsis. In Janeras, S. (ed.) Miscel·lània papirològica Ramon Roca-Puig. Barcelona: FSVC. Pestman, P.W. 1985a. Agoranomoi et actes agoranomiques. Krokodilopolis et Pathyris 145–88 av. J.-C. In Pestman, P.W. (ed.) Textes et études de papyrologie grecque, démotique et copte (P. L. Bat. 23). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pestman, P.W. 1985. Lo scriba privato Amenothes, figlio di Panas: tre documenti provenienti dall’archivio di Totoes. In Pestman, P.W. (ed.) Textes et études de papyrologie grecque, démotique et copte (P. L. Bat. 23). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pestman, P.W. 1981. L’archivio di Amenothes figlio di Horos (P. Tor. Amenothes). Testi demotici e greci relativi ad una famiglia di imbalsamatori del secondo sec. a. C. Milano: Istituto editoriale cisalpino—La Goliardica. Pestman, P.W. 1978. Papyrus des Memnoneia. In Boswinkel, E. and Pestman, P.W. (eds) Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pestman, P.W. 1969. A Greek testament from Pathyris (P. Lond. Inv. 2850). JEA 55 (1969) 129–160.

660

bibliography

Pestman, P.W. 1969a. The law of succession in ancient Egypt. In Brugman, J., David, M., Kraus, F.R., Pestman, P.W. and Van der Valk, M.H. (eds) Essays on oriental laws of succession. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pestman, P.W. 1967. Chronologie égyptienne d’après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C.– 453 ap. J.-C.). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pestman, P.W. 1963. Les documents Juridiques des “chanceliers du die” de Memphis à l’époque ptolémaïque. OMRO 44 (1963) 8–23. Pestman, P.W. 1961. Marriage and matrimonial property in ancient Egypt. A contribution to establishing the legal position of the woman. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pestman, P.W. and Vleeming, S.P. 1994. Les Papyrus Démotiques de Tsenhor (P. Tsenhor). Les archives privées d’une femme égyptienne du temps de Darius I.er Volumes I & II. Leuven: Peeters. Pestman, P.W., Quaegebeur, J. and Vos, R.L. 1977a. Recueil de textes démotiques et bilingues. Volume I, Transcriptions. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pestman, P.W., Quaegebeur, J. and Vos, R.L. 1977b. Recueil de textes démotiques et bilingues. Volume II, Traductions. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Pestman, P.W., Quaegebeur, J. and Vos, R.L. 1977c. Recueil de textes démotiques et bilingues. Volume III, Index et Planches. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Petrie, W.M.F. 1925. Tombs of the courtiers and Oxyrhynkhos. With chapters by A. Gardiner, H. Petrie and M.A. Murray. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. Petrie, W.M.F. 1911. Roman portraits and Memphis (IV). British School of Archaeology in Egypt and Egyptian Egyptian Research Account. London: School of archaeology in Egypt. Petrie, W.M.F. 1907. Gizeh and Rifeh. London: British school of archaeology in Egypt, and Quaritch. Petrie, W.M.F. 1905. Ehnasya 1904. London: Egypt Exploration Fund. Petrie, W.M.F. 1889. Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoe. London: Field & Tuer, “The Leadenhall Press,” E.C. Trübner & CO. Petrie, W.M.F., Brunton, G. and Murray, M.A. 1923. Lahun II. London: British school of archaeology in Egypt, and Bernard Quaritch. Petrie, W.M.F. and Mackay, E., with chapters by Wainwright, G.A. Engelbach, R., Derry, D.E., and Midgley, W.W. 1915. Heliopolis, Kafr Ammar and Shurafa. London: British school of archaeology in Egypt, and Bernard Quaritch. Petrie, W.M.F., Wainwright, G.A. and Mackay, E. 1912. The Labyrinth, Gerzeh and Mazghuneh. London: British school of archaeology in Egypt, and Bernard Quaritch. Petrie, W.M.F., Sayce, A.H., Hicks, D.D., Griffith, F.Ll. and Spurrel, F.C.J. 1891. Illahun, Kahun and Gurob. 1889–90. London: David Nutt. Petrie, W.M.F., Griffith, F.Ll. and Newberry, P.E. 1890. Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & CO.

bibliography

661

Peyron, A. 1827. Papyri graeci regii taurinensis musei aegyptii II. Turin: Memorie della reale accademia delle scienze di Torino, 33. Peyron, A. 1826. Papyri graeci regii taurinensis musei aegyptii I. Turin: Memorie della reale accademia delle scienze di Torino, 31. Pezin, M. 1987. Un contrat memphitique de partage de revenues liturgiques: P. B.N. 226a + P. Louvre 2412. BIFAO 87 (1987) 269–273. Piehl, K. 1886. Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques recueillies en Europe et en Égypte. Stockholm: J.C. Hinrichs. Pillet, M. 1940. Des Verrous égyptiens modèles de maisons. RdÉ 4 (1940) 27–43. Pillet, M. 1934. Structure et décoration architectonique de la nécropole antique de Deïr-Rifeh (province d’Assiout). In Mélanges Maspero Tome 1, fascicule 1, 61–75 (MIFAO 66). Cairo: IFAO. Pillet, M. 1924. Le Verrou. ASAE 24 (1924) 187–195. Pierce, R.H. 1975. Review of Reymond, E.A.E. Catalogue of the Demotic papyri in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. I Embalmers archives from Hawara. Bibliotheca Orientalis XXXII 1.2 (1975) 26–28. Pierce, R.H. 1972. Three Demotic Papyri in the Brooklyn Museum. A Contribution to the Study of Contracts and their Instruments in Ptolemaic Egypt. Symbolae Osloenses Fasc. Supplet. XXIV (1972). Polz, D. 1987. Excavation and Recording of a Theban Tomb. Some Remarks on Recording Methods. In Assmann, J., Burkard, G. and Davies, V. (eds) Problems and Priorities in Egyptian Archaeology. London: Kegan Paul Ltd. Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B. 1981. Topographical bibliography of ancient egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs, and paintings. Vol. III.2 Memphis. Saqqara to Dahshur. Assisted by Burney, E.W., second edition revised and augmented by Malek, J. Oxford: Griffith Institute and Ashmolean Museum. Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B. 1974. Topographical bibliography of ancient egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs, and paintings. Vol. III.1 Memphis. Abû Rawâsh to Abûṣîr. Assisted by Burney, E.W., second edition revised and augmented by Malek, J. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Porter, B. and Moss, R.L.B. 1964. Topographical bibliography of ancient egyptian hieroglyphic texts, reliefs, and paintings I. The theban necropolis. Part 2. Royal tombs and smaller cemeteries. Assisted by Burney, E.W., second edition revised and augmented. Oxford: Griffith Institute and Ashmolean Museum. Posener-Kriéger, P. 1981. Construire une tombe à l’ouest de mn-nfr (P. Caire 52002). RdÉ 33 (1981) 47–58. Préaux, C. 1948. A propos des Associations dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine. RIDA 1 (1948) 189–198. Préaux, C. 1939. L’économie royale des Lagides. Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

662

bibliography

Preisigke, F. 1913–1915. Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten. Herausgegeben im Auftrage der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg von Friedrich Preisigke. 1. Bd. Urkunden Nr. 1 bis 6000. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner Preisigke, F. and Spiegelberg, W. 1914. Die Prinz-Joachim-Ostraka: griechische und demotische Beisetzungsurkunden für Ibis- und Falkenmumien aus Ombos. Straßburg: Trübner. Quack, J.F. 2000. Review of Lüddeckens, E. Demotische Urkunden aus Hawara. LingAeg 7 (2000) 289–292. Quack, J.F. 1995. Zwei Handbücher der Mumifizierung im Balsamierungsritual des Apisstieres. Enchoria 22 (1995) 123–129. Quaegebeur, J. 1995. À la recherche du haut clergé thébain à l’époque gréco-romaine. In Vleeming, S.P. (ed.) Hundred-gated Thebes. Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Greco-Roman period (P. L. Bat. 27). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Quaegebeur, J. 1994. Etudes démotiques et égyptologie: quelques titres et noms de metier. EVO 17 (1994) 239–249. Quaegebeur, J. 1993. Conglomérer et modeller l’encens (śꜣḳ śnṯr). CdÉ 68 (1993) 29– 44. Quaegebeur, J. 1990. P. Brux Dem. E. 8258. Une letter de recommendation pour l’audelà. In Israelit-Groll, S. (ed.) Studies in Egyptology presented to Miriam Lichtheim. Volume II. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Quaegebeur, J. 1989. Phritob comme titre d’un haut fonctionnaire ptolémaïque. Ancient Society 20 (1989) 159–168. Quaegebeur, J. 1987. La designation (Pꜣ-) ḥry-tp: Phritob. In Osing, J. and Dreyer, G. (eds) Form und Mass Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache und Kunst des alten Ägypten. Festschrift für Gerhard Fecht zum 65. Geburstag am 6. Februar 1987. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Quaegebeur, J. 1985. On the Egyptian equivalent of the Biblical Ḥarṭummîm. In IsraelitGroll, S. (ed.) Pharaonic Egypt. The Bible and Christianity. Jerusalem: The Magness Press, The Hebrew University. Quaegebeur, J. 1984. Le terme Tnf(j) “danseur” en démotique. In: Thissen, H.J. & Zauzich, K.Th. (eds) Grammata Demotica. Festschrift für Erich Lüddeckens zum 15. Juni 1983. Würzburg: Gisela Zauzich Verlag. Quaegebeur, J. 1984a. La désignation “porteur(s) des dieux” et le culte des dieuxcrocodiles dans les textes des époques tardives. In Anonymous (ed.) Mélanges Adolphe Gutbub. Montpellier: Université de Montpellier, 161–176. Quaegebeur, J. 1983. Cultes égyptiens et grecs en Égypte hellénistique. L’exploitation des sources. In Van’t Dack, E., Van Dessel, P., and Van Gucht, W. (eds) Egypt and the Hellenistic world. Leuven: Lovanii. Quaegebeur, J. 1982. Demotic inscriptions on wood from the tomb of ‘Anch-Hor. In Bietak, M. and Reiser-Haslauer, E. (eds) Das Grab des ‘Anch-Hor, Obersthofmeister

bibliography

663

der Gottesgemahlin Nitokris. II. Mit Beiträgen von Joachim Boessneck, Angela von den Driesch, Jan Quaegebeur, Helga Liese-Kleiber und Helmut Schlichtherle und Relief- und Fundzeichnungen von Heinz Satzinger. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Quaegebeur, J. 1979a. Documents égyptiens et rôle économique du clergé en Égypte hellénistique. In Lipinski, E. (ed.) State and temple economy in the ancient Near East. Proceedings of the International Conference organised by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 10th to the 14th of April 1978. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek. Quaegebeur, J. 1978–1979. De nouvelles archive de famille thébaines à l’aube de l’époque ptolémaïque. In Bingen, J. and Nachtergael, E. (eds) Actes du XVe congrès international de papyrology. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth. Quaegebeur, J. 1978. Les papyrus démotiques des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire à Bruxelles. Enchoria 8 (1978) 25–28. Quaegebeur, J. 1978a. Mummy labels: an orientation. In Boswinkel, E. and Pestman, P.W. (eds) Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues (P. L. Bat. 19). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Quaegebeur, J. 1977. Les «saints» égyptiens préchrétiens. OLP 8 (1977) 129–143. Quaegebeur, J. 1977a. Note sur l’heresieion d’Antinoe. ZPE 24 (1977) 246–250. Quaegebeur, J. 1974. Review of Pierce, R.H. Three Demotic Papyri. CdÉ 49 (1974) 288– 291. Quaegebeur, J. 1974a. Inventaire des stèles funéraires memphites d’époque ptolémaïque. CdÉ 49 (1974) 59–79. Quaegebeur, J. and Evrard-Derriks, C. 1979. La situle décorée de Nesnakhetiou au Musée Royal de Mariemont. CdÉ 54 (1979) 26–56. Quibell, J.E. 1898. The Ramesseum. With translations and comments by W. Spiegelberg. And the tomb of Ptah-hetep. Copied by R.F.E. Paget and A.A. Pirie. With comments by F.Ll. Griffith. London: B. Quaritch. Quirke, S. 1993. Owners of funerary papyri in the British Museum. London: British Museum Publications. Rando, T.A. Mourning. In the Online Encyclopedia of death and dying. www.deathrefer ence.com/Me‑Nu/Mourning.html. Raven, M.J. 2002. Les fouilles de Leyde dans la tombe de Méryneith à Saqqara: campagnes 2001–2002. BSFE 155 (2002) 11–31. Raven, M.J. 2001. The tomb of Maya and Meryt. Volume II: Objects and skeletal remains. With contributions by Schneider, H.D., Strouhal, E., Bonani, G. and Woelfli, W.; with photographs by Bomhof, P.J., de Kemp, A. and Vinkesteyn, M.J.; and plans by Frazer, K.J. Leiden: National Museum of Antiquities; London: Egypt Exploration Society. Raven, M.J., Aston, D.A., Taylor, J.H., Strouhal, E., Bonani, G. and Woelfli, W. 1999. The date of the secondary burials in the tomb of Iurudef at Saqqara. OMRO 78 (1998) 7–32.

664

bibliography

Raven, M.J., Aston, D.A., Martin, G.T., Taylor, J.H. and Walker, R. 1991. The Tomb of Iurudef. A Memphite Official in the Reign of Ramesses II. With plans and sections by Kenneth J. Frazer and photographs by Peter Jan Bomhof. Leiden: National Museum of Antiquities / London: Egypt Exploration Society. Rawlinson, G. 1992. Herodotus. The histories. London: Everyman. Ray, J.D. 2013. Demotic ostraca and other inscriptions from the sacred animal necropolis, North Saqqara. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Ray, J.D. 2005. Saqqara, Late period and Graeco-Roman tombs. In Bard, K.A. and Shubert, S.B. (eds) Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt. London and New York: Routledge, 844–847. Ray, J.D. 1986. A threatening letter: Ostracon Reeder 1. Enchoria 14 (1986) 87–93. Ray, J.D. 1977. The complaint of Herieu. RdÉ 29 (1977) 97–116. Ray, J.D. 1976. The archive of Ḥor. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Redford, S. 1996. Preliminary report on the work in the tomb of Parennefer—TT.188. Memnonia VII (1996) 227–234. Reeves, C.N. 1985. Fragments of an embalming-Ritual Papyrus in the Oriental Museum, Durham. RdÉ 36 (1985) 121–124. Régen, I. 2009. Shfdy.t et le transport du mort. Enquête lexicographique et archéologique. BIFAO 109 (2009) 451–471. Reich, N.J. 1938. The papyrus-archive in the Philadelphia University Museum (The papyri from Dira’ Abu ‘l-Naga) I. Mizraim VII (1938) 11–19. Reich, N.J. 1938a. The papyrus-archive in the Philadelphia University Museum (The papyri from Dira’ Abu ‘l-Naga) II. Mizraim VIII (1938) 7–14. Reich, N.J. 1938b. The papyrus-archive in the Philadelphia University Museum (The papyri from Dira’ Abu ‘l-Naga) III. Mizraim IX (1938) 7–18. Reich, N.J. 1938c. The Greek deposit-notes of the record-office on the Demotic contracts of the papyrus-archive in the University Museum. Mizraim IX (1938) 19–32. Reich, N.J. 1936. A deed of gift in 317B.C. (Papyrus University Museum, Philadelphia, Jar 2; 800 d; 888; 29–86–523 B = Document I). Mizraim II (1936) 57–69. Reich, N.J. 1936a. The Field Museum Papyrus (A promissory note of the year 109/8B.C.). Mizraim II (1936) 36–56. Reich, N.J. 1936b. The legal transactions of a family: preserved in the University Museum at Philadelphia (The Demotic papyri from Drah Abu ‘l-Negga covering a century of the early Ptolemaic Period). Mizraim II (1936) 13–29. Reich, N.J. 1936c. Witness-contract-copies in the University Museum at Philadelphia (and other documents written on the same papyrus-sheet as the original text). Mizraim III (1936) 31–50. Reich, N.J. 1936d. Barter for annuity and perpetual provision of the body (Papyrus University Museum, Philadelphia, 873; Jar 1; 29–86–508 = Document II). Mizraim III (1936) 9–30.

bibliography

665

Reich, N.J. 1936e. The Elkan Adler Papyrus No. 31. JAOS 56 (1936) 258–271. Reich, N.J. 1933. New documents from the Serapeum of Memphis. Mizraim I (1933) 1– 129. Reich, N.J. 1932. A hitherto unknown term in Egyptian for ‘stone-cutter’ (The GreekEgyptian mummy-ticket 572 of the New York Historical Society). In Studies presented to F. Ll. Griffith. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 167–170, Pl. 70c. Reich, N.J. 1914. Papyri juristischen Inhalts in hieratischer und demotischer Schrift aus dem British Museum. Wien: Denkscriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 55/3. Reich, N.J. 1911. Eine Ägyptische Urkunde über den Kauf eines bebausten Grundstückes. RecTrav XXXIII (1911) 111–155. Reinach, Th., Spiegelberg, W. and De Ricci, S. 1905. Papyrus Th. Reinach. Papyrus grec et démotiques recueillis en Égypte. Paris. E. Leroux. Reisner, G.A. 1931. Mycerinus. The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza. Cambridge (Massachusetts): Harvard University Press. Rendell, D. and Rendell, K. 1979. The Ancient World 3100B.C.–800A.D.: Early Writing from Mesopotamia and Egypt. Newton: The Rendells. Revillout, E.M. 1914. Textes démotiques d’époque ptolémaïque et romaine transcript en hieroglyphs. Revue égyptologique 14 (1914) 39–69. Revillout, E.M. 1907. Quelques textes démotiques archaïques transcrits à mon cours. Revue égyptologique 12 (1907) 72–107. Revillout, E.M. 1903. Précis du droit égyptien comparé aux autres droits de l’antiquité. Paris: V. Giard and E. Briere. Revillout, E.M. 1897. La propriété ses démembrements, la possession et leur transmissions en droit égyptien. Paris: E. Leroux. Revillout, E.M. 1897a. La créance et le droit commercial dans l’antiquité: leçons professées à l’École du Louvre. Paris: E. Leroux. Revillout, E.M. 1895. Mélanges sur la métrologie, l’économie politique et l’histoire de l’ancienne Égypte: avec des nombreux textes démotiques, hiéroglyphiques, hiératiques ou grecs inédits ou antérieurement mal publiés. Paris: J. Maissonneuve. Revillout, E.M. 1891. Leçon d’overture. Revue égyptologique 6 (1891) 113–149. Revillout, E.M. 1891a. Papyrus Dogdson Nº 2. Une dénonciation contre un voleur de la nécropole. Revue égyptologique 6 (1891) 101–102. Revillout, E.M. 1889–1902. Corpus Papyrorum Aegypti: Papyrus Démotiques du Louvre. Paris: E. Leroux. Revillout, E.M. 1885. La suite d’un dossier. Revue égyptologique 4 (1885) 152–156. Revillout, E.M. 1885a. La location. Revue égyptologique 3 (1885) 126–140. Revillout, E.M. 1882–1903. Les process d’Hermias d’après les documents démotiques et grecs. Paris: E. Leroux. Revillout, E.M. 1882. Un quasi-mariage après concubinat. Revue égyptologique 2 (1882) 89–95.

666

bibliography

Revillout, E.M. 1882a. Authenticité des actes. Revue égyptologique 2 (1882) 103–124. Revillout, E.M. 1882b. La requête d’un tarichute d’ibis a l’administrateur du Sérapeum. Revue égyptologique 2 (1882) 75–78. Revillout, E.M. 1882c. Le serment décisoire chez les Égyptiens: serment pour établir la réalité d’une vente. Revue égyptologique 2 (1882) 72–74. Revillout, E.M. 1882d. Les pensions alimentaires. Revue égyptologique 2 (1882) 147– 150. Revillout, E.M. 1882e. Le roi (Anchmachis)| et le roi (Harmachis)|. Revue égyptologique 2 (1882) 145–147. Revillout, E.M. 1880. Union légitimée après séduction. Revue égyptologique 1 (1880) 117– 121. Revillout, E.M. 1880a. Chrestomathie Démotique. Paris: F. Vieweg, Libraire-Éditeur. Revillout, E.M. 1880b. Taricheutes et choachytes. ZÄS 18 (1880) 70–80, 103–120, 136– 148. Revillout, E.M. 1880c. Hypothèque légale et donations entre époux. Revue égyptologique 1 (1880) 122–136. Revillout, E.M. 1879. Une famille de paraschistes ou taricheutes thébains. ZÄS 17 (1879) 83–92. Revillout, E.M. 1878. Nouvelle Chrestomathie Démotique. Mission de 1878. Contracts de Berlin, Vienne, Leyde, etc. Paris: Ernest Leroux Éditeur. Reymond, E.A.E. 1981. From the records of a priestly family from Memphis. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Reymond, E.A.E. 1973. Catalogue of the Demotic papyri in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. I Embalmers archives from Hawara. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Reymond, E.A.E. 1968. A Dispute in the Hawara Necropolis. CdÉ 43 (1968) 55–77. Riggs, C. 2014. Unwrapping ancient Egypt. London: Bloomsbury. Ritner, R.K. 2002. Necromancy in Ancient Egypt. In Ciraolo, L. and Seidel, J. (eds) Magic and divination in the ancient world. Leiden: E.J. Brill, Styx. Ritner, R.K. 1995. A Cession Document from the Theban Archives of Amenothes Son of Harsiesis. Enchoria 22 (1995) 130–138, Pl. 43–44. Roberts, C.H. and Turner, E.G. 1952. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Documents of the Ptolemaic, Roman and Byzantine Periods, Vol. IV. Manchester: University Press. Robichon, C. and Varille, A. 1936. Le temple du scribe royal Amenhotep, fils de Hapou. Cairo: IFAO. Rosenblatt, P.C. 1998. Grief in small-scale societies. In Parkes, C.M., Laungani, P. and Young, B. (eds) Death and bereavement across cultures. London and New York: Routledge. Rowe, A. 1938. New light on objects belonging to the generals Potasimto and Amasis in the Egyptian Museum. ASAE 38 (1938) 157–195.

bibliography

667

Rowe, A. 1940. Newly-identified monuments in the Egyptian Museum showing the deification of the dead together with brief details of similar objects elsewhere. ASAE 40 (1940) 1–68, 291–296. Rubensohn, O. 1907. Elephantine-Papyri. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhndlung. Rupprecht, H.-A. 1983. Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten. Vierzehnter Band, Drittes Heft (Nr. 11938–12219). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rydström, K.T. 1994. Ḥry sštꜣ. “In charge of secrets.” The 3000-year evolution of a title. DE 28 (1994) 53–94. Ryholt, K. 2013. The illustrated herbal from tebtunis: new fragments and archaeological context. ZPE 187 (2013) 233–238. Ryholt, K. 2012. Narrative Literature from the Tebtunis Temple Library. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Rzeuska, T.I. 1997. Les nécropoles d’Edfou. In Essays in honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipińska. Warsaw: National Museum in Warsaw. Samuel, A.E. 1984. The money economy and the Ptolemaic pesantry. BASP 21 (1984) 187– 206. Sauneron, M.S. 2000. The priests of ancient Egypt. Translated by Lorton, D. Ithaca, New York, London: Cornell University Press Sauneron, M.S. 1962. Les conditions d’accès à la fonction sacerdotale à l’époque grécoromaine. BIFAO 61 (1962) 55–57. Sauneron, M.S. 1952. Le “chancelier du dieu” dans son double rôle d’embaumeur et de prètre d’Abydos. BIFAO 51 (1952) 137–171. Sauneron, M.S. 1952a. Note sur une bandelette décorée. BIFAO 51 (1952) 53–55. Sayce, A.H. Inscriptions et papyrus grecs d’Egypte. Revue des Études Grecques 7 (1894) 284–304. Schäfer, H. 1908. Priestergräber und andere Grabfunde vom Ende des Alten Reiches bis zur griechischen Zeit vom Totentempel des Ne-user-rê. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir: 1902–1904. WVDOG 8. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Scheidel, W. 2001. Death on the Nile. Disease and the demography of Roman Egypt. Leiden, Boston, Köln: E.J. Brill. Scheidel, W. 1998. The meaning of dates on mummy labels: seasonal mortality and mortuary practice in Roman Egypt. JRA 11 (1998) 285–292. Scheil, V. 1894. Tombeaux thébains de Mâi, des Graveurs, Rat’eserkasenb, Pârj, Djanni, Apoui, Montou-m-hat, Aba. MMAF 5.4 (1894) 541–656. Schenkel, W. 1965. Memphis, Herakleopolis, Theben: die epigraphischen Zeugnisse der 7.– 11. Dynastie Ägyptens. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Schmidt, C. 1896. Ein griechisches Mumienetikett aus Achmim. ZÄS 34 (1896) 79–81. Schneider, H.D. 1996. The Memphite tomb of Ḥoremḥeb, commander-in-chief of Tutʿankhamūn. Volume II: A catalogue of the finds, with contributions by Eyre, C.J. and Harpur, Y.M. London: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Egypt Exploration Society.

668

bibliography

Schneider, H.D., Martin, G.T., Aston, B.G., Van Dijk, J., Perizonius, R. and Strouhal, E. 1995. The tomb-complex of Pay and Raʿia: preliminary report on the Saqqara excavations, 1994 season. OMRO 75 (1995) 13–31. Schneider, H.D., Martin, G.T., Aston, B.G., Van Dijk, J., Perizonius, R. and Strouhal, E. 1991. The Tomb of Maya and Meryt: Preliminary Report on the Saqqara Excavations, 1990–1. JEA 77 (1991) 7–21. Schott, S. 1953. Das schöne Fest vom Wüstentale. Festbräuche einer Totenstadt. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 11. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH. Schreiber, G. 2011 Early and Middle Ptolemaic Funerary Art at Thebes (ca. 306–88BC). In Hawass, Z., Tamás, A.B. and Schreiber, G. (eds) Proceedings of the colloquium on Theban archaeology at the supreme council of Antiquities, November 5, 2009. Cairo: Consil Suprême des antiquités de l’Égypte, 105–139. Schreiber, G. 2007. The Final Acts of Embalming. An Archaeological Note on Some Rare Objects in Theban Elite Burials of the Early Ptolemaic Period. In Kata Endreffy, K. and Gulyás, A. (eds) Proceedings of the fourth Central European Conference of Young Egyptologists: 31 August–2 September 2006, Budapest. Studia Aegyptiaca 18. Budapest: NKTH. Schreiber, G. 2003. Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic painted pottery from Thebes (4th–2nd c. BC). Budapest: Institute of Archeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University. Schut, H., Stroebe, M., and Stroebe, W. n.d. Grief: Theories. In the Encyclopedia of death and dying http://www.deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief.html. Schwab, R. N.d. Grief: Family. In the Encyclopedia of death and dying. http://www .deathreference.com/Gi‑Ho/Grief.html. Seidl, E. 1969. Studien an den Hawara-Urkunden I. Aegyptus 49 (1969) 43–68. Seidl, E. 1962. Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte. Glückstadt: Verlag J.J. Augustin. Seipel, W. 1994. Das Vermächtnis der Pharaonen. 3500 Jahre ägyptische Kultur. Meisterwerke aus der Ägyptisch-Orientalischen Sammlung des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien. Zurich: Museum Rietberg Zurich. Serpico, M. and White, R. 2006. Resins, amber and bitumen. In Nicholson, P. and Shaw, I. (eds) Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sethe, K. 1929. Zwei Beiträge zu dem Bruchstück einer ägyptischen Zivilprozeßordnung in demotischer Schrift. München: Bayerische Akad. der Wissenschaften. Sethe, K. 1933. Urkunden des Alten Reich. Band I. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Sethe, K. and Partsch, J. 1920. Demotische Urkunden zum Ägyptischen Bürgschaftsrechte Vorzüglich der Ptolemäerzeit. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner. Seyfried, K.-J. 1990. Das Grab des Amonmose (TT 373). Theben IV. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Shaw, I. (ed.) 2003. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

bibliography

669

El-Shohoumi, N. 2002. Burying the Dead—Vivifying the Past: Reflections on Ancient Egyptian Funerary Rites and Their Parallels in Modern Egypt. In Wendrich, W. and van der Kooij, G. (eds) Moving Matters. Ethnoarchaeology in the Near East. Proceedings of the International Seminar held at Cairo, 7–10 Dcember 1998. Leiden. Shore, A.F. 1992. Human and divine mummification. In Lloyd, A.B. (ed.) Studies in Pharaonic religion and society in honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Shore, A.F. 1968. The sale of the house of Senkhonsis daughter of Phibis. JEA 54 (1968) 193–198. Shore, A.F. and Smith, H.S. 1960. A Demotic embalmers’ agreement. Acta Orientalia 25 (1960) 277–294. Simpson, W.K. 1976. The Mastabas of Qar and Idu. Giza Mastabas Vol. 2. Simpson, W.K. 1974. The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos: The Offering Chapels of Dynasties 12 and 13. New Haven and Philadelphia: Publications of the PennsylvaniaYale Expedition to Egypt No. 5. Skeat, T.C. 1995. Was papyrus regarded as « cheap » or « expensive » in the ancient world? Aegyptus 75 (1995) 75–93. Smelik, K.A.D. 1979. The cult of the Ibis in the Graeco-Roman Period. With Special Attention to the Data from the Papyri. In Vermaseren, M.J. (ed.) Studies in Hellenistic religions. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Smith, H.S. 1997. Uncharted Saqqâra: an Essay. In Études sur l’Ancien Empire et la nécropole de Saqqâra dédiées à Jean-Philippe Lauer, réunies par Catherine Berger et Bernard Mathieu. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry. Smith, H.S. 1995. Marriage and Family Law. In Geller, M.J., Maehler, H. and Lewis, A.D.E. (eds) Legal documents of the Hellenistic world. Papers from a Seminar arranged by the Institute of Classical Studies, the Institute of Jewish Studies and the Warburg Institute. University of London. February to May 1986. London: W.S. Maney & son Ltd. Smith, H.S. 1992. The death and life of the mother of Apis. In Lloyd, A.B. (ed.) Studies in Pharaonic religion and society in honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Smith, H.S. 1958. Another witness-copy document from the Fayyūm. JEA 44 (1958) 86– 96, Pl. 12–13. Smith, H.S. and Tait, J.W. 1981. Demotic Letter. In Parsons, P.J. and Rea, J.R. (eds) Papyri greek and egyptian edited by various hands in honour of Eric Gardner Turner on the occasion of his senventieth birthday. EES Greco-Roman memoires 68. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 75–79. Smith, H.S., Davies, S. and Frazer, K.J. 2006. The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara: The Main Temple Complex: The Archaeological Report. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

670

bibliography

Smith, H.S., Andrews, C.A.R. and Davies, S. 2011. The sacred animal necropolis at North Saqqara: the Mother of Apis inscriptions. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Smith, M. 2017. Following Osiris: perspectives on the Osirian afterlife from four millenia. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, M. 2009. Traversing Eternity: Texts for the Afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, M. 2005. Papyrus Harkness (MMA 31.9.7). Oxford: Griffith Institute. Smith, M. 1999. The provenience of Papyrus Harkness. In Leahy, A. and Tait, J. (eds) Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honour of H.S. Smith. London: The Egypt Exploration Society. Smith, M. 1993. The liturgy of Opening the Mouth for Breathing. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum. Smith, M. 1988. An abbreviated version of the Book of Opening the Mouth For Breathing (Bodl. MS Egypt. c. 9(P) + P. Louvre E 10605) (Part 2). Enchoria 16 (1988) 55– 76. Smith, M. 1987. Catalogue of Demotic papyri in the British Museum Vol. III. The mortuary texts of papyrus BM 10507. London: British Museum Publications Ltd. Smith, M. 1987a. An Abbreviated Version of the Book of Opening the Mouth for Breathing (Bodl. MS Egypt. c.9(P) + P. Louvre E 10605) (Part I). Enchoria 15 (1987) 61– 91. Smith, M. 1983. Review of Tait, J.W. Papyri from Tebtunis in Egyptian and Greek. JEA 69 (1983) 199–203. Smith, M. 1978. The Transliteration of Demotic. Enchoria 8 (1978) 33–36. Smoláriková, K. 2011. The embalmer’s deposit from the tomb of Menekhibnekau. In Bareš, L. and Smoláriková, K. (eds) Abusir XXV. The shaft tomb of Menekhibnekau. Volume I: Archaeology. Prague: Charles University in Prague. Smoláriková, K. 2000. The Greek cemetery in Abusir. In Barta, M. and Krejčí, J. (eds) Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2000. Prague: academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. Snape, S.R. 2011. Ancient Egyptian Tombs: The Culture of Life and Death. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Sottas, H. 1921. Papyrus démotiques de Lille. Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner. Spencer, A.J. 1982. Death in ancient Egypt. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Spencer, A.J. 1979. Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt. Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd. Spencer, P.A. 1981. Studies in the Lexicography of Ancient Egyptian Buildings and their parts. Doctoral Thesis: University College London. Spiegelberg, W. 1975. Demotische Grammatik. Heidelberg: C. Winter-Universitätsverlag. Spiegelberg, W. 1932. Die Demotischen Denkmäler III. Demotischen Inschriften und Papyry (50023–50165). Berlin: W. Drugulin.

bibliography

671

Spiegelberg, W. 1931. Zur Bestattung der Mumien in der römischen Kaiserzeit. ZÄS 66 (1931) 39–41. Spiegelberg, W. 1928. Demotica II. München. Spiegelberg, W. 1923. Ägyptische Verpfründungsverträge mit vermegensabtretungen. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Spiegelberg, W. 1920. Ein Bruchstück des Bestattungsrituals der Apisstiere (Demot. Pap. Wien Nr. 27). ZÄS 56 (1920) 1–33. Spiegelberg, W. 1918. Demotische Kleinigkeiten. ZÄS 54 (1918) 111–114. Spiegelberg, W. 1917. Demotische Miszellen. ZÄS 53 (1917) 116–129. Spiegelberg, W. 1914. Der Königseid des Demotischen Papyrus Berlin 3080. RecTrav XXXVI (1914) 167–174. Spiegelberg, W. 1913. Die demotischen Papyri Hauswaldt. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Spiegelberg, W. 1912. Demotic Papyri and Ostraca. In The Earl of Carnarvon and Carter, H. (eds) Five Years’ Explorations at Thebes. A Record of Work done 1907–1911. London: Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press. Spiegelberg, W. 1911. Aus der Straßburger Sammlung demotischer Ostraka. ZÄS 49 (1911) 34–41. Spiegelberg, W. 1911a. Beiträge zu den demotischen Rylands-Papyri. RecTrav XXXIII (1911) 175–179. Spiegelberg, W. 1909. Die demotischen Papyrus der Musées Royaux du Cinquantenaire. Brussels: Vromant & Co. Spiegelberg, W. 1909a. Demotische Kaufpfandverträge. RecTrav XXXI (1909) 92–106, Pl. I–V. Spiegelberg, W. 1908. Die Demotischen Denkmäler 30601–31270 50001–50022. Die Demotischen Papyrus, II. 2 Vols. Stassburg: Buchdruckerei M. Dumont Schauberg. Spiegelberg, W. 1908a. Demotische Papyrus von der Insel Elephantine. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Spiegelberg, W. 1907. Papyrus Libbey: an Egyptian marriage contract. Publication of the Toledo Museum of Art. Strassburg: M.D. Schauberg. Spiegelberg, W. 1904. Die Demotischen Denkmäler I. Demotischen Inschriften 30601– 31166. Leipzig: W. Drugulin. Spiegelberg, W. 1903. Papyrus Innsbruck. RecTrav XXV (1903) 4–6. Spiegelberg, W. 1903a. Demotische Miscellen. Zur personalbeschreibung in demotischen Kontrakten. RecTrav XXV (1903) 10–12. Spiegelberg, W. 1902. Demotische Papyrus aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Leipzig und Berlin: Giesecke & Devrient. Spiegelberg, W. 1902a. Die demotischen Papyrus der Strassburger Bibliothek. Strassburg: Schlesier and Schweikhardt. Spiegelberg, W. 1902b. Der Titel ΛΕΣΩΝΙΣ. RecTrav XXIV (1902) 187–189. Spiegelberg, W. 1901. Über einen Titel des Apisstieres. RecTrav XXIII (1901) 197–198.

672

bibliography

Spiegelberg, W. 1901a. Buchis, der heilige Stier von Hermonthis. Zu Macrob. Sat. I. SXI 20 Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete I (1901) 339–342. Spiegelberg, W. n.d. Papyrus Libbey. An Egyptian marriage contract. Toledo: Publication of the Toledo Museum of Art. Spohn, F.A.W. and Seyffarth, G. 1825. De lingua et literis veterum aegyptiorum. Liepzig: Libraria Weidmannia G. Reimer. Stadler, M.A. forthcoming. A New Version of the Beginning of the Book of Traversing Eternity. The Hieroglyphic-Demotic Funerary Stela of Pakhom, son of Lykos, from Edfu (22 March 18 BC [greg.]). In Bryan, B.M., Smith, M., and Di Cerbo, T. (eds) One who Loves Knowledge. Studies in Honor of Richard Jasnow. Atlanta, GA: Lookwood Press. Stadler, M.A. 2016. Dioskourides, Tanaweruow, Titus Flavius Demetrius et al. Or: How Appealing was an Egyptian Afterlife? In Waldner, K., Gordon, R. and Spickermann, W. (eds) Burial Rituals, Ideas of Afterlife, and the Individual in the Hellenistic World and the Roman Empire. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Stadler, M.A. 2008. Procession. In Dieleman, J. and Wendrich, W. (eds) UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology. Los Angeles. Stadler, M.A. 2001. War eine dramatische Auffiihrung eines Totengerichts Teil der agyptischen Totenriten? SAK 29 (2001) 331–348. Storch, W. and Schäfer, H. 1985. Chemische Untersuchungen an der Münchner Mumie ÄS 73B: Ein Beitrag zur Aufklarung des Mumifizierungsverfahrens. SAK Beihefte I (1985) 328–338. Strouhal, E and Bareš, L. 1993. Secondary cemetery in the Mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. With Contributions by J. Beneš, D. Březinová, J. Čejka, I. Čejková, B. Hurda, A. Němečková, J. Šilar, Z. Urbanec. Prague: Charles University. Strouhal, E. 1976. Secondary burials in the area of the mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. In Verner, M. (ed.) Preliminary Report on Czechoslovak Excavations in the Mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. Prague: Charles University. Strudwick, N.C. 2009–2010. Use and re-use of tombs in the Theban Necropolis: patterns and explanations. CRIPEL 28 (2009–2010) 239–261. Strudwick, N.C. 2005. Texts from the Pyramid Age. Edited by R.J. Leprohon. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Strudwick, N.C. 2003. Some aspects of the archaeology of the Theban necropolis in the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. In Strudwick, N. and Taylor, J.H. (eds) The Theban necropolis, Past, Present and Future. London: The British Museum Press. Strudwick, N.C. and Strudwick, H.M. 1996. The Tombs of Amenhotep, Khnummose, and Amenmose at Thebes (Nos. 294, 253, and 254). With contributions by Jeffrey Burden, Günter Heindl, Carol Meyer, Pamela Rose, Stuart Tyson Smith and Tony Waldron. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum Struve, V.V. 1955. The significance of certain Demotic papyri of the State Museum of Fine

bibliography

673

Arts named after A.S. Puskin for the history and culture of Ptolemaic Egypt. Reports of the Soviet delegations at the X International Congress of historical science in Rome. Świderek, A. 1949. Les etiquettes des momies de la collection de Varsovie. JJP 3 (1949) 143–146. Tait, J.G. 1930. Greek ostraca in the Bodleian Library at oxford and various other collections. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Tait, J.W. 1984. A Demotic List of Temple and Court Occupations: P. Carlsberg 23. In: Thissen, H.J. and Zauzich, K.-T. (eds) Grammata Demotika. Festschrift für Erich Lüddeckens zum 15. Juni 1983. Würzburg: Gisela Zauzich Verlag. Tait, J.W. 1977. Papyri from Tebtunis in Egyptian and Greek. London: Egypt Exploration Society. Taubenschlag, R. 1950. The Law of Associations in Greco-Roman Egypt. RIDA 5 (1950) 509–514. Taylor, J.H. 2004. Mummy: the inside story. London: The British Museum Press. Taylor, J.H. 2001. Death and the afterlife in ancient Egypt. London: The British Museum Press. Taylor, J.H. 1992. Aspects of the History of the Valley of the Kings in the Third Intermediate Period. In Reeves, C.N. (ed.) After Tutʾankhamūn. Research and Excavation in the Royal Necropolis at Thebes. London: Kegan Paul International. Theis, C. 2011. Deine Seele zum Himmel, dein Leichnam zur Erde: zur idealtypischen Rekonstruktion eines altägyptischen Bestattungsrituals. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. Théodoridès, A. 1969. Le serment terminal de “Vérité-Mensonge” (P. Chester Beatty II, 11, 1–3). Revue d’égyptologie 21 (1969) 85–105. Thissen, H.-J. 1994. Zwei demotische Prozeßprotokolle. EVO 17 (1994) 283–288. Thissen, H.-J. 1984. Ziegelfabrikation nach demotischen Texten. Enchoria 12 (1984) 51– 55. Thissen, H.-J. 1982. Paraschist. In Helk, W. and Westendorf, W. (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band IV. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 910. Thissen, H.-J. 1978. Demotische Texte der Kölner Sammlung. Enchoria 8 (1978) 39–40. Thissen, H.-J. 1973. Zu den demotischen Graffiti von Medinet Habu II. Enchoria 3 (1973) 37–46. Thissen, H.-J. 1971. Bemerkungen zur Prosopographie von Theben-West. Enchoria 1 (1971) 19–28. Thiessen, H.-J. and Zauzich, K.-T. 2018. Ein thebanisches Grab und seine Restaurierung. In Donker van Heel, K., Hoogendijk, F.A.J. and Martin, C.J. (eds) Hieratic, Demotic and Greek studies and text editions: of making many books there is no end. Festschrift in honour of Sven P. Vleeming (P. L. Bat. 34). Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill. Thompson, D.J. 1988: Memphis under the Ptolemies. Princeton: University Press. Thompson, Sir Herbert 1941. Two Demotic self-dedications. JEA 26 (1940) 68–78.

674

bibliography

Thompson, Sir Herbert 1934. A family archive from Siut. From papyri in the British Museum including an account of a trial before the Laocritae in the year B.C.170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, Sir Herbert 1907. The Demotic papyri. In Petrie, W.M.F. (ed.) Gizeh and Rifeh. London: British school of archaeology in Egypt. Tilley, C.Y. 1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths and monuments. Oxford: Berg. Tiradritti, F. 2006. Italian archaeological mission to Luxor: Researches in the tomb of Harwa (TT37) and Ankhimenru (TT40). ASAE 80 (2006) 563–569. Tiradritti, F. 2005. Archaeological activities of the museum of Milan in the tomb of Harwa (TT37) and Ankhimenru (TT40). October–December 2001. ASAE 79 (2005) 169–186. Töpfer, S. 2011. Bemerkungen zu einigen Gefäßaufschriften der saitisch-persischen Zeit. GM 229 (2011) 113–119. Töpfer, S. 2015. Das Balsamierungsritual: eine (Neu-)Edition der Textkomposition Balsamierungsritual (pBoulaq 3, pLouvre 5158, pDurham 1983.11 + pSt. Petersburg 18128). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Traunecker, C. 1992. Coptos. Hommes et dieux sur Late Egyptian parvis de Geb. Leuven: Peeters. Traversa, A. 1951. I papiri Peyron del museo egiziano di Torino. Aegyptus 31 (1951) 235– 245. Ucko, P.J. 1969. Ethnography and Archaeological Interpretation of Funerary Remains. World Archaeology 1.2 (1969) 262–280. Uytterhoeven, I. 2009. Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period. Life and Death in a Fayum Village. Leuven: Peeters. Uytterhoeven, I. 2001. Hawara (Fayum): Tombs and Houses on the Surface. A preliminary report of the K.U. Leuven Site Survey. Ricerche di Egittologia e di Antichità Copte 3 (2001) 45–83. Uytterhoeven, I. and Blom-Böer, I. 2002. New light on the Egyptian Labyrinth: evidence from a survey at Hawara. JEA 88 (2002) 111–120. Van Dyke, R.M. and Alcock, S. 2003. Archaeologies of memory: An Introduction. In Van Dyke, R.M. and Alcock, S. (eds) 2003. Archaeologies Of Memory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Van Landuyt, K. 1995. The Soter family: genealogy and onomastics. In Vleeming, S.P. (ed.) Hundred-gated Thebes. Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Greco-Roman period (P. L. Bat. 27). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Van Minnen, P. 1994. House-to-House Enquiries: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Roman Karanis. ZPE 100 (1994) 227–251. Vandier, J. 1962. Le papyrus Jumilhac. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

bibliography

675

Vandorpe, K. 1995. ‘The Dockyard Workshop’ or the Toachris Village. Enchoria 22 (1995) 158–168. Vandorpe, K. 1995a. City of many a gate, harbour for many a rebel. Historical and topographical outline of Greco-Roman Thebes. In Vleeming, S.P. (ed.) Hundred-gated Thebes. Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Greco-Roman period (P. L. Bat. 27). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vandorpe, K. and Waebens, S. 2009. Why Tax Receipts on Wood? On Wooden Tablet Archives from Ptolemaic Egypt (Pathyris). In van Nuffelen, P. (Ed.) Faces of Hellenism. Studies in the History of the Eastern Mediterranean (4th Century B.C.–5th Century A.D.). Studia Hellenistica 48. Leuven, Paris, Walpole: Peeters. Vassalli, L. 1867. I monumenti istorici egizi, il museo e gli scavi d’antichità eseguiti per ordine di S. A. il Vicerè Ismail Pascia: notizia sommaria. Milano: Guglielmini. Venticinque, P.F. 2010. Family Affairs: Guild Regulations and Family Relationships in Roman Egypt. GRBS 50 (2010) 273–294. Vercoutter, J. 1962. Textes biographiques du Sérapéum de Memphis: contribution à l’étude des stèles votives du Sérapéum. Paris: Librairie Ancienne H. Champion. Verhoogt, A.M.F.W. 1998. Menches, komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris: the doings and dealings of a village scribe in the late Ptolemaic period (120–110B.C.). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vermeersch, P., Paulissen, E., Stokes, S., Charlier, C., van Peer, P., Stringer, C. and Lindsay, W. 1998. A Middle Palaeolithic Burial of a Modern Human at Taramsa Hill, Egypt. Antiquity 72 (1998), 475–484. Vermeersch, P., Gijselings, G. and Paulissen, E. 1984. Discovery of the Nazlet Khater Man, Upper Egypt. Journal of Human Evolution 13 (1984) 281–286. Verner, M. 2000. Who was Shepseskara, and when did he reign? In Barta, M. and Krejčí, J. (eds) Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2000. Prague: academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. Verner, M. 1995. Abusir III. The Pyramid Complex of Khentkaus. With contributions by Paule Posener-Kriéger, P. and Jánosi, P. Prague: Universitas Carolina Pragensis, Academia. Verner, M. 1981. Les recherches archéologiques de l’Institut tchécoslovaque d’Égyptologie à Abousir. BSFE 91 (1981) 6–21. Verner, M. (ed.) 1976. Preliminary Report on Czechoslovak Excavations in the Mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. Prague: Charles University. Verner, M. 1976a. The mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. Report No. 7, the season of 1974. In Verner, M. (ed.) Preliminary Report on Czechoslovak Excavations in the Mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. Prague: Charles University. Vinson, S. 2000. The Demotic Dictionary Project, 1998–99 annual report, Oriental Institute 1998–99 annual report (http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/ar/98‑99/) Chicago, 1– 4. Vinson, S. 1998. The Nile boatman at work. Mainz: von Zabern.

676

bibliography

Vittmann, G. 2009. Rupture and continuity. On priests and officials in Egypt during the Persian period. In Briant, P. and Chauveau, M. (eds) Organisation des pouvoirs et contacts culturels dans les pays de l’empire achéménide. Persika 14 (2009) 89–121 Vittmann, G. 1999. Review of Lüddeckens, E. Demotische Urkunden aus Hawara. WZKM 89 (1999) 277–282. Vittmann, G. 1998. Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9. Teil I: Text und Übersetzung. Teil II: Kommentare und Indizes. Ägypten und Altes Testament Band 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Vittmann, G. 1997. Das demotische Graffito von Satettempel auf Elephantine. MDAIK 53 (1997) 263–281, Pl. 37. Vittmann, G. 1996. Semitisches Sprachgut im Demotischen. WZKM 86 (1996) 435–447. Vittmann, G. 1987. Drei thebanische Urkunden aus dem Jahre 175 v. Chr. (Papyri Louvre E 3440 A + B und Berlin P. 3112). Enchoria 15 (1987) 97–45. Vittmann, G. 1986. Taricheut. In Helk, W. and Westendorf, W. (eds) Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band VI. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 233–236. Vittmann, G. 1982. Eine demotische Teilungsurkunde aus dem Jahr 230 v. Chr (P. Berlin 3089). ZÄS 109 (1982) 166–171. Vittmann, G. 1982a. Eine demotischer Ehevertrag aus dem 12. Jahr des Ptolemaios VI. Philometor (P. Bibliothèque Nationale 236). Enchoria 11 (1982) 77–84. Vittmann, G. 1980. Ein thebanischer Verpfründungsvertrag aus der Zeit Ptolemaios’ III. Euergetes (P. Marseille 298+299). Enchoria 10 (1980) 127–139. Vleeming, S.P. 2004. A Hieroglyphic-Demotic stela from Akhmim. In Hoffmann, F. and Thissen, H.J. (eds) RES SEVERA VERUM GAUDIUM. Festschrift für Karl-Theodor Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004. Leuven: Peeters. Vleeming, S.P. 2001. Some coins of Artaxerxes and other short texts in the Demotic script found on various objects and gathered from many publications. Leuven: Peeters. Vleeming, S.P. 1999. Hawara Papyri Studies. Enchoria 25 (1999) 128–140. Vleeming, S.P. 1998. A Demotic Doppelurkunde. In Verhoogt, A.M.F.W. and Vleeming, S.P. (eds) The two faces of Greco-Roman Egypt. Greek and Demotic and Greek-Demotic texts and studies presented to P.W. Pestman (P. L. Bat. 30). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vleeming, S.P. 1995. The Office of a Choachyte in the Theban Area. In Vleeming, S.P. (ed.) Hundred-gated Thebes. Acts of a colloquium on Thebes and the Theban area in the Greco-Roman period (P. L. Bat. 27). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vleeming, S.P. 1994. Ostraka Varia. Tax receipts and legal documents on Demotic, Greek, and Greek-Demotic ostraka chiefly of the early Ptolemaic Period, from various collections (P. L. Bat. 26). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vleeming, S.P. 1994a. Minima Demotica from Theban Tomb 32. In Eyre, C., Leahy, A. and Montagno Leahy, L. (eds) The unbroken reed. Studies in the culture and heritage of ancient Egypt in honour of A.F. Shore. Occasional Publications 11. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

bibliography

677

Vleeming, S.P. 1993. Papyrus Reinhardt. An Egyptian Land List from the Tenth Century B.C. Hieratische Papyri aus den staatlichen Museen zu Berlin—Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Vleeming, S.P. 1992. The tithe of the Scribes (and) Representatives. In Johnson, J. (ed.) Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, SAOC 51. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Vleeming, S.P. 1985. The Reading of the Title “Man Receiving Pay.” In Pestman, P.W. (ed.) Textes et etudes de papyrology grecque, démotique et copte (P. L. Bat. 23). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vleeming, S.P. 1980. The sale of a slave in the time of pharaoh Py. OMRO 61 (1980) 1– 17. Vogelsang-Eastwood, G. 2000. Textiles. In Nicholson, P. and Shaw, I. (eds) Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vos, R.L. 1978. Demotic mummy labels containing permission to bury, addressed to Totoês, a ḥry sšt of the sacred Buchi at Hermonthis. In Boswinkel, E. and Pestman, P.W. (eds) Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues (P. L. Bat. 19). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vos, R.L. 1993. The Apis embalming ritual: P. Vindob. 3873. Leuven: Peeters. Wagner, G. 1998. Le concept de «Ḥsy» à la lumière des inscriptions grecques. In Clarysse, W. (ed.) Egyptian religion: the last thousand years. Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur. OLA 84–85 (1998) 1393–1421. Wagner, G. 1970. Inscriptions grecques du temple de Karnak (I). BIFAO 70 (1970) 1–38. Wagner, G., Leblanc, C., Lecuyot, G. and Loyrette, A.-M. 1990. Documents grecs découverts dans la Vallée des Reines. BIFAO 90 (1990) 365–380. Wahid El-Din, S.M. 2004. The Chief of the Necropolis Tax. In Hoffmann, F. and Thissen, H.J. (eds) RES SEVERA VERUM GAUDIUM. Festschrift für Karl-Theodor Zauzich zum 65. Geburtstag am 8. Juni 2004. Leuven: Peeters. Walker, S. and Bierbrier, M.L. 1997. Ancient faces: mummy portraits from Roman Egypt. London: Published for the Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Press Van Walsem, R., Martin, G.T. and Aston, B.G. 1999. Preliminary report on the Saqqara excavations, season 1998. OMRO 79 (1999) 9–17. Wångstedt, S.V. 1981. Demotische Ostraka. Varia II. Orientalia Suecana 30 (1981) 5–36. Wångstedt, S.V. 1980. Demotische Quittungen über Ölsteuer. Orientalia Suecana 29 (1980) 5–26. Wångstedt, S.V. 1978–1979. Demotische Quittungen über Salzsteuer. Orientalia Suecana 27–28 (1978–1979) 5–27. Wångstedt, S.V. 1974–1975. Demotische Bescheinigungen über Begräbnissteuer. Orientalia Suecana 23–24 (1974–1975) 7–43. Wångstedt, S.V. 1969. Demotische Ostraka aus ptolemäisch-römischer Zeit. Orientalia Suecana 18 (1969) 69–100.

678

bibliography

Wångstedt, S.V. 1968. Demotische Steuerquittungen aus ptolemäischer Zeit. Orientalia Suecana 17 (1968) 28–60. Wångstedt, S.V. 1967. Demotische Steuerquittungen nebst Texten andersartigen Inhalts. Orientalia Suecana 16 (1967) 22–56. Wångstedt, S.V. 1965–1966. Eine demotische Rechtsurkunde aus Gebelên. Orientalia Suecana 14–15 (1965–1966) 45–50. Wångstedt, S.V. 1963. Einige demotische Urkunden der Ostrakonsammlung im “British Musem.” Orientalia Suecana 12 (1963) 37–59. Wångstedt, S.V. 1961. Aus der demotischen Ostrakonsammlung zu Uppsala. V. Orientalia Suecana 10 (1961) 13–21. Watson, J.L. 1988. The Structure of Chinese Funerary Rites. In Watson, J.L. and Rawski, E.S. (eds) Death Ritual in Late Imperial and Modern China. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Watzinger, C. 1905. Griechische Holzsarkophage aus der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir 1902–1904, 3. WVDOG 6. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Wegner, J.W. 1996. The Mortuary Complex of Senwosret III. A Study of Middle Kingdom State Activity and the Cult of Osiris at Abydos. Michigan: Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Weigall, A.E.P. 1913. A guide to the antiquities of Upper Egypt: from Abydos to the Sudan frontier. London: Methuen. Wente, E.F. 1967. Late Ramesside Letters. SAOC 33. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Werning, D.A. 2004. The Sound Values of the Signs Gardiner D1 (Head) and T8 (Dagger). LingAeg 12 (2004) 183–204. Wessely, K. 1881. Der Wiener Papyrus Nr. 26 und die Überreste Griechischer Tachygraphie in den Papyri von Wien, Paris und Leiden, sammt Nachtrag zu diesem Aufsatze von J. Krall. Wiener Studien. Zeitschrift für Classische Philologie 3 (1881) 1–23. Westermann, W.L. 1932. Entertainment in the villages of Graeco-Roman Egypt. JEA 18 (1932) 16–27. Westermann, W.L., Keyes, C.W. and Liebesny, H.J. 1940. Zenon Papyri: Business Papers of the Third Century b.c. Dealing with Palestine and Egypt, Volume II. New York: Columbia University Press. Whitehouse, H. 2010. Mosaics and Painting in Graeco-Roman Egypt. In Lloyd, A. (ed.) A Companion to Ancient Egypt (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Wilcken, U. 1935–1953. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (Ältere Funde). Zweiter Band (Papyri aus Oberägypten). Berlin und Leipzig: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co. Wilcken, U. 1927. Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (Ältere Funde). Erster Band (Papyri aus Unterägypten). Berlin und Leipzig: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co.

bibliography

679

Wilcken, U. 1908. Aus der Strassburger Sammlung. Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete IV (1908) 115–365. Wilcken, U. 1899. Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien. Leipzig and Berlin: Giesecke & Devrient. Wilhelm, A. 1937. Zu den “Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit” und anderen papyri. Wien: Anzeiger Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 74, 69–71. Willems, H. 1997. The Embalmer Embalmed. Remarks on the Meaning of the Decoration of Some Middle Kingdom Coffins. In J. van Dijk (ed.) Essays on ancient Egypt in honour of Herman te Velde. Groningen: Styx Publications. Wilkinson, J.G. 1830. Topographical survey of Thebes. London. Wilson, N.G. (ed.) 2006. Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece. New York and London: Routledge Wilson, P. 1997. A Ptolemaic lexikon: a lexicographical study of the texts in the temple of Edfu. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 78. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, Winkler, A. 2014. On the Longevity of the χοαχύται in Thebes and elsewhere. JAC 29 (2014) 50–62. Winlock, H.E. 1914. Excavations at Thebes in 1912–13, by the Museum’s Egyptian Expedition. BMMA 9.1 (1914) 1, 10–23. Winnicki, J.K. 1992. Demotische Stelen aus Terenuthis. In Johnson, J.H. (ed.) Life in a Multi-Cultural Society: Egypt from Cambyses to Constantine and Beyond. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, SAOC 51. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Winter, J.G. and Youtie, H.C. 1944. Cotton in Graeco-Roman Egypt. The American Journal of Philology 65.3 (1944) 249–258. Worp, K.A. 2012. A New Survey of Greek, Coptic, Demotic and Latin Tabulae Preserved from Classical Antiquity. Version 1.0 February 2012. Leuven: Trismegistos Online Publications 6. Yacoub, F. 1988. Excavations at Tûra El-Asmant. From the Old Kingdom till the GrecoRoman Period, Seasons 1965–1966. ASAE 67 (1988) 193–211. Yacoub, F. 1983. Excavations at Tûra El-Asmant. SSEA 13 (1983) 103–106. Young, T. 1823. Hieroglyphics, collected by the Egyptian society, arranged by T. Young. London: Howlett and Brimmer. Youtie, H.C. 1958. Notes on Papyri and Ostraca. TAPA 89 (1958) 374–407. Youtie, H.C. 1943. Review of Westermann, W.L. Keyes, C.W. and Liebesny, H. Zenon Papyri. Vol. II. Business Papers of the Third Century b.c. Dealing with Palestine and Egypt. The American Journal of Philology 64. 2 (1943) 211–217. Youtie, H.C. 1933. A Note on P. Turin 13. Aegyptus 13.1 (1933) 89–94. Yoyotte, J. 1972. La localisation de Ouenkhem. BIFAO 71 (1972) 1–10. Žába, Z. 1976a. The mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. Report No. 5, the season of 1968

680

bibliography

(March 1–December 12). In Verner, M. (ed.) Preliminary Report on Czechoslovak Excavations in the Mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. Prague: Charles University. Žába, Z. 1976b. The mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. Report No. 6, the season of 1970 (December 12–June 18). In Verner, M. (ed.) Preliminary Report on Czechoslovak Excavations in the Mastaba of Ptahshepses at Abusir. Prague: Charles University. Žabkar, L.V. 1968. A Study of the Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts. SAOC 34. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Zaghloul, el-Hussein 1991. An agreement for sale from the reign of Ptolemy IX Soter II in the Museum of Mallawi. BIFAO 91 (1991) 255–263. Zaghloul, el-Hussein 1988. Find of Demotic documents in El-Kôm el-Aḥmar Sawâris— Sharona. In Mandilaras, B.G. (ed.) Proceedings of the XVIII international congress of Papyrology: Athens 25–31 May 1986, 25–31. Athens: Greek Papyrological Society, 137– 139. Zaghloul, el-Hussein 1986. Hinweis auf die wissenschaftliche Arbeit über eine demotische Teilungsschrift aus dem Museum von Mallawi. OrAnt 25 (1986) 129. Zandee, J. 1960. Death as an enemy: according to ancient Egyptian conceptions. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Zauzich, K.-T. 2000. Ein antikes demotisches Namenbuch. In Frandsen, P.J. and Ryholt, K. (eds) The Carlsberg papyri 3: A Miscellany of Demotic texts and Studies. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. Zauzich, K.-T. 1998. Ein vieldiskutiertes Wort im Titel des Hieros Polos der Königin Kleopatra III. In Clarysse, W. (ed.) Egyptian religion: the last thousand years. Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur. OLA 84–85 (1998) 745–750. Zauzich, K.-T. 1996. Anchscheschonqi—eine Lehre für den Schreiber? In SchadeBusch, M. (ed.) Wege öffnen: Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Zauzich, K.-T. 1988. Miszelle—Wie maß-voll war Amasis? Enchoria 16 (1988) 139–140. Zauzich, K.-T. 1987. Verteidigung eines Mumienschildes. ZÄS 114 (1987) 95–100. Zauzich, K.-T. 1984. Zwischenbilanz zu den demotischen Ostraka aus Edfu. Enchoria 12 (1984) 69–86. Zauzich, K.-T. 1980. Ein demotisches Darlehen vom Ende der 30. Dynastie. Serapis 6 (1980) 241–243. Zauzich, K.-T. 1980a. In Jaritz, H. (ed.) Elephantine III: die Terrassen vor den Tempeln des Chnum und der Satet. Architektur und Deutung. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo 32. Mainz: Zabern. Zauzich, K.-T. 1979. Einige bemerkungen zu den demot. Papyri Louvre E. 3333 und E. 3334. Enchoria 9 (1979) 121–124. Zauzich, K.-T. 1976. Die schlimme Geschichte von dem Mann der Gottesmutter de rein Gespenst war. Enchoria VI (1976) 79–82. Zauzich, K.-T. 1975. Die demotische Schreibung von ẖnm. Enchoria 5 (1975) 123–126.

bibliography

681

Zauzich, K.-T. 1973. Korrekturvorschläge zur Publikation des demotischen Archivs von Deir el-Medineh. Enchoria 3 (1973) 63–70. Zauzich, K.-T. 1972. Korrekturvorschläge zur Publikation des demotischen Archivs von Deir el-Medineh. Enchoria 2 (1972) 85–95. Zauzich, K.-T. 1968. Die Ägyptische Schreibertradition in Aufbau, Sprache und Schrift der Demotischen Kaufverträge aus Ptolemäischer Zeit. Band I and II. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Zauzich, K.-T. 1963. Zur Herkunft und Datierung des Papyrus 8699 verso des Museo Egizio di Firenze. JEA 49 (1963) 178–179. Zimmerman, M.R., Brier, B., Wade, R.S. 1998. Twentieth-century replication of an Egyptian mummy: implications for paleopathology. Am J Phys Anthropol 107.4 (1998) 417–420. Zivie, A.P. 2000. La résurrection des hypogées du Nouvel Empire à Saqqara. In Barta, M. and Krejčí, J. (eds) Abusir and Saqqara in the year 2000, 305–316. Prague: academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. Zivie-Coche, C.M. 1991. Giza au premier millénaire. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts.

List of the Main Primary Sources Analysed (Arranged by Necropolis and Category) Table of the Primary Sources Analysed

Document contents

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

P. Louvre E 2412 + P. Bibl. Nat. 226 P. Brussels E 6033 P. BM EA 10381 P. Leiden I 379 P. Leiden I 373 b P. Leiden I 373 c P. Louvre E 2408 P. Louvre E 3266 P. Louvre E 2409 P. Wien ÄS 3874 P. Hermitage 1122 UPZ 127 P. BM EA 10384 P. BM EA 10398

305–304BC

Dem.

276–275BC 276–256BC 256BC 204–203BC 204–203BC 197BC 197BC 184BC 149–148BC 135BC 135BC 132BC 119BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Dem. Dem.

P. Pavia 1120 P. Leiden I 374 I–II P. Florence 8698 P. Wien ÄS 9479 UPZ 136 P. Louvre E 3268 P. Louvre E 3264ter P. Louvre E 3264 UPZ 139 P. Louvre E 2411 UPZ 140 P. Leiden I 380 a P. Leiden I 380 b

118BC 78BC 77–76BC 75BC 75BC 73BC 73BC 65BC 65BC 65BC 65BC 64BC 64BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Dem. Gr. Dem. Dem.

P. O.I. 25262 P. BM EA 10616 P. Rendell

292BC 244–243BC 232BC

Dem. Dem. Dem.

Documents from the Memphite area 1

Sale of funerary endowments

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Cession of liturgies Cession of funerary endowments Division document Sale of properties Cession of properties Cession of properties Cession of properties and liturgies Cession of properties and liturgies Donation document Cession of funerary endowments Docket Lease of funerary endowments Cession of properties donated in P. Vienna 3874 Cession of funerary endowments Cession of burial endowments Donation(?) of properties and endowments Cession of properties and burial endowments Docket Cession of properties and burial endowments Cession of properties and burial endowments? Sale of properties and endowments Docket Cession of properties and endowments Docket Sale of properties Cession of properties

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Documents from the Fayum 24 25 26

Donation document Sale and cession of house Donation document

683

list of the main primary sources analysed (cont.) Document contents

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Regulations of priests’ association Request of payment for burial expenses Confirmation of repayment of loan Sẖ n ꜥš Withdrawal of complaint Request of payment for burial expenses Sale of tomb and annex Cession of tomb and annex Transfer of tomb Official notification on tax Contract

38 39 40

Sale of tomb and annex Cession of tomb and annex Letter to the stolistai

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Letter of a tax-farmer Regulations of priests’ association Regulations of priests’ association Regulations of priests’ association Petition to the strategos Regulations of priests’ association Regulations of priests’ association Cession deed

P. Fayum XIII P. Cairo 30606 P. Cairo 31179 P. Cairo 30605 P. Rylands 577 P. Prague P. Cairo 30619 P. Ashmolean D. 1+2

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Alimony contract Cession of funerary endowment Cession of a share of endowments Accounts relating to a funeral repast Accounts relating to a funeral repast(?) Accounts relating to a funeral repast Letter to the stolistai of the Labyrinth Cession deed

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

Marriage document Agreement concerning god’s sealer’s property Sale of burial place Marriage document Marriage document Donation of properties Donation of properties Donation of properties Donation of properties

P. Cairo 50128 P. Ashmolean D. 3 P. Cairo 50126 P. Tebtunis 118 P. Tebtunis 224 P. Tebtunis 177 S.B. 1 5216 P. Ashmolean D. 4 + 5+6 P. BM EA 10603 P. Ashmolean D. 9 P. Ashmolean D. 10 P. BM EA10605 P. BM EA10606 P. Hamburg 4 P. Hamburg 8 P. Hamburg 5 P. Hamburg 6

223BC 221BC 221BC 220BC 220BC 219–218BC 217BC 217BC 211–210BC 183–182 or 159– 158BC 183–182 or 159– 158BC 183BC 183BC 196–195 or 172– 171BC 170BC 157BC 147BC 145BC 146 or 135BC 137BC 137BC 138–137 or 117– 116BC 114BC 116–115BC 116–107BC Late 2nd cent. BC Late 2nd cent. BC 1st century BC 1st century BC 102–101BC

Dem. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr.

37

P. Lille 29 P. εντευξεισ 20 P. O.I. 25261 P. Carlsberg 37a P. Carlsberg 37b P. εντευξεισ 21 P. Carlsberg 38a P. Carlsberg 38b P. Cairo 30622 P. Vindob. Barbara 58 (P. Harrauer 30) P. Vindob. Barbara Dem. 58 (P. Horak 83) P. Carlsberg 39a P. Carlsberg 39b PSI 857

100BC 100–90BC 99–98BC 98BC 93BC 92BC 92BC 92BC 92BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Gr. Gr. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

684

list of the main primary sources analysed

(cont.) Document contents

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Sale of properties Cession of properties Loan doc. and oath concerning mummies Sale deed Cession deed Oath Oath Sale of liturgical days Cession of liturgical days Letter of complaint Accounts

85BC 85BC 84BC 83BC 83BC 79BC 70–60BC 69–68BC 69–68BC 1st century BC 30? BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

77 78

Sale or Cession deed Sale or Cession deed

P. BM EA 10604 P. BM EA 10604 P. Hamburg 13 P. Hamburg 2 P. Hamburg 2 P. Hamburg 9 P. Ashmolean D. 18–19 P. Ashmolean D. 16 P. Ashmolean D. 17 P. Cairo 50127 P. Ashmolean D. 12 + 13 P. Ashmolean D. 20 P. Ashmolean D. 21

Late 1st cent. BC Late 1st cent. BC

Dem. Dem.

P. Louvre E 3334 P. BM EA 10591 P. BM EA 10561 P. UC 55875 P. Mallawi Mus. 602/10 P. Mallawi Mus. 602/7 P. Mallawi Mus. 602/9 P. Mallawi Mus. 602/1– 5 P. Rylands 65

198BC? 170BC 157BC 153BC 111BC 101BC 100BC 79BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

67BC

Gr.

324BC 314BC 306BC 302BC 302BC 301BC 292BC 282BC 277BC 273BC 273–272BC 267BC 265–264BC 251BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

Documents from Middle Egypt 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

Complaint from an ibis-embalmer Trial proceedings Agreement concerning embalming Sale and cession of land in/by the necropolis Judicial sentence Sale of burial endowment Deed of not hindering Agreement between god’s seal-bearers

87

Judicial sentence

Documents from the Theban area (choachytes’ documents) 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

Donation of properties Will(?) styled as a sale of a house Letter Donation of tombs List of expenses for tomb building Cession of tombs Marriage doc. pledge of house & liturgies Cession of house and tomb liturgies Cession of property pledged on marriage deed Marriage doc. pledge of house & liturgies Donation of tombs as a share in inheritance Will styled as a sale Will styled as a sale Will styled as a sale of house & liturgies

P. Strasbourg 1 P. Philadelphia 2 P. Brussels 8255d P. Philadelphia 5 P. Philadelphia 30 P. Philadelphia 6 P. Louvre E 2429bis P. Philadelphia 10 P. Louvre E 2428 P. Philadelphia 13 P. BM EA 10827 P. Louvre E 2424 P. BM EA 10026 P. Philadelphia 16

685

list of the main primary sources analysed (cont.)

102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144

Document contents

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

Loan Cession of property Sale of properties Cession of house and tomb liturgies Donation of tomb liturgies Sale of tombs Sale of a mꜣꜥ-structure Cession of tombs Sale of liturgies Cession of liturgies Divorce agreement and cession of liturgies Oath of non-interference with liturgies Division of tombs Division of tombs Witnesses’ list Hire of choachyte’s services Sale of house and liturgies Hire of choachyte’s services Sale of liturgies Sale of plot of land in the necropolis Sale of house and liturgies Sale of house and liturgies Sale of tombs Donation Cession of tombs and necropolis property Division of tombs Sale of tombs List of tombs Sale and cession of tombs Cession of tombs Sale of tombs Sale of part of a house Cession of part of a house Cession of tombs Cession of tombs and necropolis lands Agreement concerning tomb division Sale of houses, tombs and revenues Cession of houses, tombs and revenues Copy of sale document (P. Louvre E 3440 B) Transfer of tombs Sale of part of a house List of liturgies List of liturgies List of liturgies

P. Louvre E 2443 P. Louvre E 2438 P. Louvre E 2431 P. Philadelphia 17 P. Philadelphia 18 P. Philadelphia 19 P. Wien ÄS 6052 P. Philadelphia 20 P. Marseilles 299 P. Marseilles 298 P. BM EA 10074 P. BM EA 10079 P. BM EA 10227 P. Berlin P. 3089 P. BM EA 10426 P. BM EA 10240 P. Louvre E 2425 P. Philadelphia 24 P. Louvre E 2415 P. BM EA 10388 P. Berlin P. 3096 P. BM EA 10073 P. Philadelphia 26 P. Louvre N 3263 P. BM EA 10377 P. BM EA 10829 P. Florence 3678 P. BM EA 10532 A–B P. BM EA 10830 P. BM EA 10839 P. BM EA 10226 P. Berlin P. 3114 P. Berlin P. 3140 P. BM EA 10614 P. BM EA 10615 P. BM EA 10612 P. Louvre E 3440 B P. Louvre E 3440 A P. Berlin P. 3112 P. BM EA 10223 P. Louvre E 3440 II P. Brussels E 6037 P. Amherst 58a P. Amherst 58b

249BC 245BC 243BC 241BC 241BC 240BC 239BC 237BC 235BC 235BC 230BC 230BC 230BC 230BC (230BC) 228–227BC 227BC 227BC 225BC 223BC 222BC 217BC 217BC 215BC 214BC 209BC 204–181BC 2nd cent. BC 198BC 198–186BC 185BC 182BC 182BC 175BC 175BC 175BC 175BC 175BC 175BC 171? BC 155BC 153BC 153BC 153BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

686

list of the main primary sources analysed

(cont.) Document contents 145 List of liturgies 146 Sale of part of a building plot 147 Sale of part of a building plot 148 Copy of sale document (P. Louvre E 2416) 149 Cession of part of a building plot 150 List of liturgies 151 Sale of a share of liturgies 152 Cession of a share of liturgies 153 Sale of part of a building plot 154 Sale mortis causa(?) of liturgies 155 Translation of sale document (P. Berlin P. 3119) 156 Copy of sale mortis causa(?) of liturgies Witnesses’ list 157 Acknowledgment of legal decision 158 Division of an inheritance 159 Sale of liturgies 160 Translation of sale document (P. Berlin P. 5507) 161 Cession of liturgies 162 Legal decision about a dispute between choachytes and necrotaphoi 163 hn-agreement 164 Complaint of tomb robbery 165 Sale of liturgies and emoluments 166 Request to serve a summons 167 Request to serve a summons 168 Settlement after dispute 169 Waiver of claim 170 Official notification about end of dispute 171 Division of an inheritance (bꜣk n hn) 172 Division of an inheritance 173 Division of an inheritance 174 Copy of division document (P. BM EA10413) 175 Acknowledgment of receipt of inheritance 176 Promise to comply with cession deed 177 Donation of share of liturgies 178 Donation of share of liturgies 179 Donation of share of liturgies 180 Division of an inheritance

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

P. Amherst 60b P. Bodleian MS.Egypt. c.4(P) (P. Grey A) P. Louvre E 2416 P. Bodleian MS.Egypt. c.4(P) (P. Grey B) P. Louvre E 2417 P. Amherst 50 P. Amherst 46+55 P. Amherst 2, no. 52 P. Amherst 53+54 P. Bodleian MS.Egypt. c.4(P) (P. Grey C) P. Berlin P. 3119 P. London Gr. 3

153BC 153BC

Dem. Dem.

153BC 153BC

Dem. Dem.

153BC 150BC 150BC 150BC 150BC 146BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Dem. Dem.

146BC 146BC

Dem. Gr.

P. Bibl. Nat. 218 P. BM EA 10396 P. Berlin P. 3113 P. Amherst 51 P. Berlin P. 5507 P. Leiden Gr. 413

146BC 146BC 141BC 140BC 136BC 136BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

P. Berlin P. 3098 P. Louvre Gr. 2339

136BC 134BC

Dem. Gr.

P. Amherst 62b P. Louvre Gr. 2330 P. Naples 8414 P. Turin Gr. 2149 P. Louvre Gr. 2337 P. Turin Gr. 2150 P. Turin 2145 P. Leiden 404 P. Amherst 60a P. Amherst 57 P. BM EA10413 P. Leiden 375 P. Amherst 62e P. Amherst 62c P. Berlin P. 3099 P. Berlin P. 3100 P. Berlin P. 5508 P. BM EA 10402

127BC 127–126BC 126BC 126BC 126BC 126BC 126BC 126–125BC 125BC 125BC 124BC 124BC 124BC 124BC 124BC 124BC 124BC 123BC

Dem. Gr. Dem. Gr. Gr. Gr. Dem. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

687

list of the main primary sources analysed (cont.)

181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193

194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208

Document contents

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

Division of an inheritance Division of rooms in the Theban houses hn-agreement Sale of a room in the Theban house Cession document (P. Louvre E 2140) Petition about ownership of Theban house Legal decision of the epistates Legal decision of the epistates hn-agreement between heirs Legal decision about a dispute Division of liturgies between heirs Oath concerning a share of liturgies Division of an inheritance Last will of party A in P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC) Copy of part of division document (P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715) Request to serve a summons List of embalming and burial expenses Petition against tax-official Copy of petition (P. Turin Gr. 2152) Petition Regulations of choachytes’ Association Sale of plot of land and liturgies Sale of liturgies and emoluments Sale of liturgies and emoluments Sale of liturgies and emoluments Sale of liturgies and emoluments Document concerning a pledge Sale of liturgies and emoluments Novation of a debt

P. Turin 2137 P. Wien ÄS 3872 P. Amherst 62f + g P. Louvre E 2410 P. Louvre E 2418 P. Turin Gr. 2148 P. Louvre Gr. 2338 P. Turin Gr. 2147 P. Berlin P. 3118 P. Kölner 7676 P. Berlin P. 3116 P. Amherst 61 P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715

123BC 121BC 121BC 120BC 120BC 119BC 119BC 117BC 116BC 114BC 114BC 114BC 113BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Gr. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr.

P. Leiden Gr. 416

113BC

Gr.

P. Turin Gr. 2157 P. Florence 3667 P. Turin Gr. 2153 P. Turin Gr. 2151 P. Turin Gr. 2152 P. Berlin P. 3115 P. Leiden 377 P. Berlin P. 3107 P. Turin 2130 P. Berlin P. 3106 P. Berlin P. 3139 P. Berlin P. 3108 P. Turin 2132 P. Louvre Gr. 2331

After 112BC 111BC 111BC 110BC 110BC 109–106BC 102BC 99BC 99BC 98BC 98BC 98BC 98BC 98BC

Gr. Dem. Gr. Gr. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr.

291BC 284BC 2nd cent. BC 158–157BC 153–142BC 145BC circa 131BC 119BC 119BC 119–116BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Gr. Gr. Gr.

Documents from the Theban area (lector-priests and embalmers’ documents) 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218

Tax-farming agreement Marriage document Oath concerning ownership of revenues Oath concerning ownership of revenues Oath concerning ownership of revenues Maintenance agreement Memorandum Division of territorial competence Legal decision about a dispute Petition

P. BM EA10528 P. Rylands XI O. BM EA 25669 O. BM EA 25775 O. BM EA 26206 P. Turin 2131 P. Turin 2141 (No document) P. Turin Gr. 2155 P. Turin Gr. 2160

688

list of the main primary sources analysed

(cont.) Document contents 219 Petition 220 Oath concerning ownership of revenues

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

P. Turin Gr. 2154 O. BM EA 25477

116BC 101BC

Gr. Dem.

P. Brussels 6032 + BM EA fragments P. BM EA 10077 a–b

301BC

Dem.

270BC

Dem.

P. Florence 7127 P. Florence 3667 P. Turin Suppl. 6083 P. Cairo 30960 P. Turin Suppl. 6071

264BC 111BC 105BC 104BC 103BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

O. Leiden 96 [Inv. No. F 1897/6.24.]

Ptolemaic

Dem.

310BC 299–250BC 277–276BC 271BC 270BC 270BC 270BC 267BC 267? BC 266BC 266BC 265BC 264BC 264BC 264BC 263BC 263BC 263BC 263BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

263BC 263BC 263BC 263BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

Documents from the Theban area (documents concerned with embalming) 221 Sale of house as payment for embalming 222 Agreement concerning provision of embalming materials 223 Embalmers oath 224 List of embalming and burial expenses 225 Acknowledgment of receipt of burial expenses 226 Petition to request payment of burial expenses 227 Receipt for payment of lease and burial expenses 228 Accounts relating to burial expenses

Documents from the Theban area (burial-tax receipts) 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

245 246 247 248

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

P. Brussels 8255c O. BM EA 5782 O. BM EA 5779 O. BM EA 5749 O. Brooklyn E 37.1862 O. Brooklyn E 37.1860 O. BM EA 5725 O. Brooklyn E 37.1859 OIM 19348 O. Brooklyn E 37.1865 OIM 19312 OIM 19319 O. BM EA 5781 O. Brooklyn E 37.1858 TT32 O. BM EA 5686 Wilkinson MS e61a Wilkinson MS e61b O. BM EA 5709+5717+ 5731 O. Berlin 19976 O. BM EA 5783 O. BM EA 5685 O. BM EA 5780

689

list of the main primary sources analysed (cont.) Document contents

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

249 250 251 252 253

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

263BC 262BC 262BC 262BC 261BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

261BC 261BC 261BC 261BC 261BC 261BC 261BC 260BC 260BC 260BC 260BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

260BC 260BC 260BC 259BC 259BC 259BC 259BC 258BC 257? BC 257BC 257BC 255BC 255BC 255BC 255BC 255BC 255BC 254BC 254BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

284 285 286 287 288

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

O. BM EA 5785 O. BM EA 5788 O. Brooklyn E 37.1856 OIM 19382 O. BM EA 5703+5710+ 5716 O. BM EA 5775 O. BM EA 5776 O. Brooklyn E 37.1861 O. Wilkinson MS e61c O. BM EA 5784 O. BM EA 5766 O. Louvre 74 O. BM EA 5787 O. BM EA 5730 O. Brooklyn E 37.1864 O. Brooklyn E 37.1882–37.1857 OIM 19296 O. BM EA 5718 O. BM EA 5772 O. Bod. Eg. Inscr. 371 O. BM EA 5684 O. Brooklyn E 37.1863 O. BM EA 5744 O. BM EA 5687 O. Botti 2 O. BM EA 5734 O. BM EA 5697 O. BM EA 5778 O. Cairo 12469–12476 O. BM EA 5732 O. BM EA 5773 O. BM EA 5742 O. Louvre 303 O. BM EA 5737 O. BM EA 5700–5704– 5706–5733–5746– 5750–5758 O. Berlin 9474 O. BM EA 5677 O. BM EA 5727 O. Berlin 9699 O. Cairo 12470–12477

254BC 253BC 253BC 253BC 253BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

690

list of the main primary sources analysed

(cont.) Document contents

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

289 290 291 292

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

254–253BC 253BC 253BC 253–252BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

293 294 295 296 297

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

O. BM EA 5755 T. Wångstedt 49 recto O. Cairo 12470–12478 O. BM EA 14083+ 17949 O. BM EA 5729 O. BM EA 5738 O. Birbeh 2 O. Cairo 12469–12479 Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 114 Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 120 O. BM EA 5723 O. Cairo 12469–12480 Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 112 O. Geneva Privée O. BM EA 5753 O. BM EA 5740 O. BM EA 5767 O. Cairo 12469–12481 O. BM EA 5756 O. Bod. Eg. Inscr. 920 O. Cairo 12536–12582 Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 111 O. BM EA 25285 OIM 19336 OIM 19349 O. BM EA 20244 O. Birbeh 4 Kaplony-Heckel MSS DO GMi 113 OIM 19298 OIM 19316 O. Birbeh 3 recto O. Birbeh 3 verso OIM 19333 recto OIM 19333 verso O. TT373 doc. 2367

252BC 251BC 250BC 247BC 247BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

247BC

Dem.

285–246BC 285–246BC 285–222BC

Dem. Dem. Dem.

245BC 245BC 245BC 245BC 244BC 244BC 242BC 242BC 242BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

241BC 239BC 234BC 231BC 227BC 225BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

3rd century BC 225? BC 224BC 224BC – – Last quarter 3rd century BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

298 Burial-tax receipt 299 Burial-tax receipt 300 Burial-tax receipt 301 Burial-tax receipt 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

311 312 313 314 315 316

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt (unclear if burial tax) Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

317 318 319 320 321 322 323

Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

691

list of the main primary sources analysed (cont.) Document contents

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

O. BM EA 14026 O. Strasbourg D 2037 O. BM EA 66383 O. Louvre 92 Kaplony-Heckel MSS, DO GMi 121 O. Pontif. Bibl. Inst. O. TT373 doc. 2369 P. E. Adler 31 O. Louvre 93 O. Louvre 314 P. Brussels 8256b T. BN 1892 P. Brussels 8256a P. BM EA 10078 OIM 19317 BM EA 66402

255BC c. 243BC 241? BC 241BC 229BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

227BC 227BC 178–177? BC Ptolemaic Ptolemaic 315? BC 315–314BC 310? BC 271BC 260BC 242BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

P. Elephantine gr. 8 O. IFAO 212 O. IFAO 228 O. IFAO 203 O. IFAO 241 O. IFAO 220 O. IFAO 207 O. IFAO 231 O. Cairo inv. TR 7/11/ 30/1 O. IFAO 240 O. IFAO 230 O. IFAO 223 O. IFAO 250 O. IFAO 209 O. IFAO 210 O. IFAO 260 O. IFAO 208 O. IFAO 221+202 O. IFAO 211 O. IFAO 253+261 O. IFAO 215

225–224BC 234BC 234BC 234BC 234BC 234BC 234BC 234BC 234BC

Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

234BC 234BC 234BC 234BC 234BC 234BC 234BC 233BC 233BC 233BC 233BC 233BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

Documents from the Theban area (transfer tax receipts) 324 325 326 327 328

Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot

329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339

Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on necropolis building plot Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb Transfer tax on tomb

Documents from Edfu 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348

Letter concerning collection of burial-tax Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?)

349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360

Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?)

692

list of the main primary sources analysed

(cont.)

361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372

Document contents

Museum inventory n.

Date

Script

Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Payment of farmed out burial-tax (?) Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt Burial-tax receipt

O. IFAO 239 O. IFAO 254 O. IFAO 882 O. IFAO 883 O. IFAO 884 O. IFAO 205 O. IFAO 130 O. IFAO 255 O. IFAO 623 O. IFAO 81 O. IFAO 781 O. BM EA 25886

233BC 233BC 144BC 144BC c. 144BC 120BC 117BC 110BC 107BC Ptolemaic Ptolemaic Late Ptolemaic

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

P. Brussels 8256e P. Brussels 8256d OIM 19295 O. Brooklyn 37.1821 E O. BM EA 5695 O. TT373 doc. 2368 P. Brooklyn 35.1462 (P. Brooklyn 14) O. VOK 1 O. VOK 2 O. Reeder 1 O. Uppsala 611 O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 704 O. Florence 8089 P. Strasbourg 12 P. Rylands 580 OIM 19301 P. UC O. IFAO-Deir elMédineh 1 and 2 O. Wångstedt 69 O. BM EA 29703 O. Leiden 288 [Inv. No. F 1897/6.70.] O. Louvre 288 O. Uppsala 624 O. Strasbourg 189

315BC 312BC 271BC 266BC 263BC 232BC 225? BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

152BC or 141BC 151BC or 140BC 144BC? 117–116BC 116–115BC

Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem. Dem.

97–96BC 88–87BC 78BC 3rd century BC Ptolemaic Ptolemaic

Dem. Dem. Gr. Dem. Dem. Dem.

Ptolemaic Ptolemaic Ptolemaic

Dem. Dem. Dem.

Ptolemaic Ptolemaic Roman Period

Dem. Dem. Dem.

Miscellaneous documents 373 374 375 376 377 378 379

Tax exemption (?) Tax exemption (?) Receipt for the money Petition Receipt for the money Salt tax and Income of a server tax payment Tax exemption (?)

380 381 382 383 384

Order for burial Order for burial Letter Oath Oath

385 386 387 388 389 390

Oath Oath Sale of burial benefit Order for (re)burial(?) Document concerning embalming Funerary tax receipt

391 Funerary tax receipt 392 Oath 393 Oath concerning a coffin and some copper 394 Temple receipt 395 Choachyte’s accounts (?) 396 Shipping contract

Bibliographical Details of the Primary Sources Cited (Arranged Alphabetically and by Museums’ Inventory Number) Papyrus Documents1 P. E. Adler 31 (178–177? BC) P. Amherst 2 Gr., no. 49 (112 BC)

Reich 1936e, 258–271. Grenfell and Hunt 1901, no. 31; Pestman 1993, 187– 189. P. Amherst 2 Gr., no. 52 (150 BC) Grenfell and Hunt 1901, no. 52; Pestman 1993, 66–68, 119 note f, 342, 457, 476. P. Amherst 46 + 55 (150 BC) Pestman 1993, 66–68, 342, 476. P. Amherst 47 + 56 (114 BC) Pestman 1993, 170–171. P. Amherst 48 + 52 (113 BC) Pestman 1993, 183–186. P. Amherst 50 (150 BC) Pestman 1993, 229, 484. P. Amherst 51 (140 BC) Pestman 1987, 57–73; Pestman 1993, 85–86. P. Amherst 53 + 54 (150 BC) Pestman 1993, 66–68, 342, 476. P. Amherst 57 (125 BC) Pestman 1993, 118–119, 479. P. Amherst 58a (153 BC) Pestman 1993, 50–52, 475. P. Amherst 58b (153 BC) Pestman 1993, 50–51, 53–54, 476. P. Amherst 60a (125 BC) (Formerly Reinach et al. 1905, 187; Pierce 1972, 46 no. 11; Pestman 1987, P. Amherst 39) 57–73; Pestman 1993, 116–117. P. Amherst 60b (153 BC) Pestman 1993, 50–51, 55, 476. P. Amherst 61 (114 BC) Nims 1948, 257; Pestman 1993, 177–179. P. Amherst 62a (before 126 BC) Pestman 1993, 231–232. P. Amherst 62b (127 BC) Pestman 1993, 98. P. Amherst 62c (124 BC) Pestman 1993, 125–126. P. Amherst 62d (136 BC) Pestman 1993, 92. P. Amherst 62e (124 BC) Pestman 1993, 123–124. P. Amherst 62f+g (121 BC) Pestman 1993, 143. P. Amherst 125 (Late 1st cent. AD) Grenfell and Hunt 1901, 150. P. Ashmolean D. 1 + 2 [1968.1] + Reymond 1973, 44–55, Pl. I, IV; Pasek 2007, 319–332. [1968.2] (138–137/117–116 BC) P. Ashmolean D. 3 [1968.3] (116– Reymond 1973, 55–67, Pl. II–III. 115 BC) P. Ashmolean D. 4 + 5+6 [1968.4, Reymond 1973, 67–77, Pl. IV–V; Clarysse 2005; Pasek 2007, 1968.5, 1968.6] (102–101 BC) 401–412.

1 The following is not meant to be an exhaustive bibliography of the sources mentioned, rather to give an indication of their main or initial publication. For additional information of these sources see https://www.trismegistos.org/daht/. For corrections to some of the following papyri and ostraca see Den Brinker et al. 2005a–b.

694

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

P. Ashmolean D. 7 [1968.7] + 8 [1968.8] + 11 [1968.7] + 12 [1968.8] + 13 [1968.11] (187–186/ 30? BC) P. Ashmolean D. 9 [1968.9] (100– 90 BC) P. Ashmolean D. 10 [1968.10] (99– 98 BC) P. Ashmolean D. 16 [1968.12] (69– 68 BC) P. Ashmolean D. 17 [1968.12] (69– 68 BC) P. Ashmolean D. 18 + 19 [1968.13] (70–60 BC) P. Ashmolean D. 20 [1968.15] (Late 1st cent. BC) P. Ashmolean D. 21 [1968.16] (Late 1st cent. BC) P. Berlin P. 3076 (513 BC) P. Berlin P. 3077 (488 BC) P. Berlin P. 3078 (493–492 BC) P. Berlin P. 3089 (230BC) (partial witness list recorded in P. BM EA 10426) P. Berlin P. 3090–3091 (140 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3096 (222 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3097–3070 (150 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3098 (136 BC) P. Berlin P. 3099 (124 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3100 (124 BC) P. Berlin P. 3101A–B (118 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3102 (119 BC) P. Berlin P. 3103 (114 BC)

Reymond 1973, 77–81, 92–97, 137–138, Pl. V–VII, XV; Clarysse 2005; Pasek 2007, 269–301.

Reymond 1973, 82–84, Pl. VI. Reymond 1973, 84–92, Pl. VIII; Pasek 2007, 391–400. Reymond 1973, 112–125, Pl. XII–XIII. Reymond 1973, 112–125, Pl. XII–XIII. Reymond 1973, 126–136, Pl. XIV. Reymond 1973, 137–138, Pl. XV. Reymond 1973, 138–140, Pl. XV. Spiegelberg 1902. Spiegelberg 1902. Lüddeckens 1960. Vittmann 1982, 166–171, pl. V–VIII; Spiegelberg 1902, 6, pl. 4; Andrews 1990, 50–52 cat. 15, 59 cat. 20; Erichsen 1939, 91– 92. Spiegelberg 1902, 12, Pl. 21–22, 26; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 58 and 133; Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3090–3091; Devauchelle 1984; Pestman 1993, 87–88. Revillout 1885, 152–156; Spiegelberg 1902, 6, Pl. 5; Reich 1914, 63–68; Hughes 1958, 153; Nims 1958, 246; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 21; Luft 1973, 40; Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3096. Spiegelberg 1902, 9–10, Pl. 15–16, 10; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 39 and 121; Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3097–3070; Devauchelle 1984; Pestman 1993, 64–65. Spiegelberg 1902, 11, Pl. 18, 32; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 124; Pestman 1993, 89–91, 478. Revillout 1880a, 312–329 no. 1, 494–495; Spiegelberg 1902, 12–13, Pl. 23, 26; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 178; Erichsen 1939, 95–98; Pestman 1993, 127–130, 479. Spiegelberg 1902, 12–13, Pl. 24, 26; Pestman 1993, 131–132, 479. Spiegelberg 1902, 13, Pl. 27–28; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 48 and 128; Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3101A–B; Devauchelle 1984; Pestman 1993, 157–160. Spiegelberg 1902, Pl. 30; Pestman 1993, 155–156. Revillout 1878, 121–125; Spiegelberg 1902, 15, Pl. 30, 28; Erichsen 1939, 170–174; Pestman 1993, 172–174.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited P. Berlin P. 3104 (103 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3105 (103 BC) P. Berlin P. 3106 (98 BC) P. Berlin P. 3107 (99 BC) P. Berlin P. 3108 (98 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3109 (225 BC) P. Berlin P. 3110 (487 BC) P. Berlin P. 3112 (175 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3113 (141 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3114 (182 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3115 (109–106 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3116 (114 BC) P. Berlin P. 3118 (116 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3119 (146 BC) P. Berlin P. 3139 (98 BC) P. Berlin P. 3140 (182 BC)

P. Berlin P. 3146 (194 BC)

P. Berlin P. 5507 (136 BC)

695

Revillout 1878, 20–31; Spiegelberg 1902, 16, Pl. 32; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 135; Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3104; Devauchelle 1984; Pestman 1993, 204–206. Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3105. Spiegelberg 1902, 16, Pl. 33, 32; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 52; Pestman 1993, 219–220. Spiegelberg 1902, 16, Pl. 31–32; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 60; Pestman 1993, 215–216. Spiegelberg 1902, 17, Pl. 33; Revillout 1880a, lxxxii–lxxxiii, 123–124, 435; Pestman 1993, 221–223; Sethe in Spiegelberg 1913, 19. Revillout 1878, 1–3; Spiegelberg 1902, 7; Lüddeckens 1960. Cruz-Uribe 1985. Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 118; Vittman 1987, 97–145, Pl. 13– 23; Spiegelberg 1902, 8, Pl. 11–12; Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3112; Pestman 1993, 234–236. Revillout 1878, 79–86; Revillout 1882–1903, 131–132 no. 113b; Spiegelberg 1902, 11–12, Pl. 19–20, 26; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 167a; Erichsen 1942, 92–100, Pl. III–VII; Pestman 1993, 80–84. Revillout 1878, 66–78, no. 159; Revillout 1882–1903, 8–14; Spiegelberg 1902, 7–8, Pl. 7–10; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 163; Erichsen 1955, 78; Zauzich 1968, 31; Luft 1973, 6–25, 27; Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3114; Devauchelle 1982, 199; Pestman 1993, 45–47. Spiegelberg 1902, 18–19, Pl. 38–41; Sethe et al. 1920, Urkunden 19, Pl. 54–55; De Cenival 1972, 103–135, Pl. VIII; Pestman 1993, 196–201. Spiegelberg 1902, 19, Pl. 42–44; Erichsen 1952, 10–32; Clarysse 1978, 232–234; Pestman 1993, 175–176, 480–482. Revillout 1878, 7–19; Revillout 1882–1903, 196–200; Spiegelberg 1902, 14, Pl. 29; Pestman 1987, 57–73; Pestman 1993, 166–169, 480. Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 41; Spiegelberg 1902, 10–11, Pl. 17– 18; Pestman 1993, 72–76; Erichsen 1939, 18–24. Spiegelberg 1902, 16, Pl. 32, 34; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 53; Pestman 1993, 219–220. Revillout 1878, 66–78, no. 114; Revillout 1882–1903, 22–26; Spiegelberg 1902, 7–8, Pl. 7–10; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 116; Luft 1973, 6–25, 27; Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3140; Devauchelle 1982, 199; Pestman 1993, 45–47. Revillout 1882e, 146 n. 1, Pl. 50–51; Spiegelberg 1902, 17, Pl. 34; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 27 and 112; Grunert 1981, P. Berlin P. 3146. Spiegelberg 1902, 11, Pl. 19; Spiegelberg 1903a, 10–12; Griffith et al. 1908, 103–110; Erichsen 1939, 71–72; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 45; Pestman 1993, 89–91, 478.

696

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

P. Berlin P. 5508 (124 BC)

P. Berlin P. 8351 (1st century AD) P. Berlin P. 13539 (493–492 BC) P. Berlin P. 13543 (219BC) P. Berlin P. 13588 (1st century BC) P. Berlin P. 23757A P. BL 1200 (192 BCE) P. Bibl. Nat. 216 (517 BC) P. Bibl. Nat. 217 (517 BC) P. Bibl. Nat. 218 (146 BC)

P. Bibl. Nat. 223 (516 BC) P. Bibl. Nat. 224–225 (68 BC) P. Bibl. Nat. Gr. 715 (113 BC)

P. BM EA DCCVIII (AD 247) P. BM EA DCCX (AD 267) P. BM EA DCCXI (AD 244–248) P. BM EA DCCXIII (c. AD 127) P. BM EA DCCXV (AD 308) P. BM EA DCCXVI (AD 295) P. BM EA DCCXVII (c. AD 498) P. BM EA 9999 (P. Harris I) (New Kingdom) P. BM EA 10026 (265–264 BC)

P. BM EA 10052 (New Kingdom) P. BM EA 10053 (New Kingdom) P. BM EA 10054 (New Kingdom) P. BM EA 10068 (New Kingdom) P. BM EA 10073 (217 BC) P. BM EA 10074 (230 BC) P. BM EA 10075 (64 BC) P. BM EA 10077 a–b (270 BC)

P. BM EA 10078 (271 BC) P. BM EA 10079 B–C (230 BC)

Brugsch 1855, Pl. VII; Revillout 1880a, 312–329 no. 1, 494– 495; Spiegelberg 1902, 12–13, Pl. 25–26; Erichsen 1939, 81–90; Pestman 1993, 133–134, 479. Smith 1993. Martin 1996, 294–295, C3. Martin 1996, 311–312, C11. Erichsen 1956; Ryholt 2012, 136 n. 101. Lippert 2004. Muhs 2014/15, 91; Pestman 1993, 24, 85 [text 15], 292 and 294. Pestman and Vleeming 1994 Pestman and Vleeming 1994 Young 1823, Pl. 31–33; Spohn et al. 1825, tab. 3; Brugsch 1848, 880–885 (Papyrus Casati); Revillout 1880a, 62–84, 422–425; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 175 c; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 42; Andrews 1990, 63–64, cat. 23; Pestman 1993, 77–79, 344. Pestman and Vleeming 1994. Lüddeckens 1960. Letronne 1838, 32; Brugsch 1850; Letronne et al. 1865, 129– 151, Pl. 13–16, no. 5; Revillout 1880a, Pl. 53; Griffith 1909, 132–134; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 180a; Pestman 1993, 180– 182, 345. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 68, 104–105; Bagnall 2017. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 70, 108–109; Bagnall 2017. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 71, 110–114; Bagnall 2017. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 73, 115–116; Bagnall 2017. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 75, 118–119; Bagnall 2017. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, 119–121; Bagnall 2017. Grenfell and Hunt 1897, № 77, 121–123; Bagnall 2017. Grandet 1994; Muhs in press. Andrews 1990, 16–22, cat. 1; Glanville 1950, 59–65; Revillout 1880, 6 pl. 2; Pestman 1961, 220 index; Quaegebeur 1979, 47 note 1; Seidl 1962, 21; Depauw 1999. Peet 1930; Donker Van Heel 1992, 25 and Tables III and IV. Peet 1930; Donker Van Heel 1992, 25 and Tables III and IV. Peet 1930; Donker Van Heel 1992, 25 and Tables III and IV. Donker Van Heel 1992, 25 and Tables III and IV. Reich 1914, 60–68; Vleeming 1998, 165 note e. Revillout 1880, 117–119; Reich 1914, 43–51; Vleeming 1998, 155–170. Jelínková-Reymond 1957 and 1959; Cannata 2006. Revillout 1880b, 79–80; Reich 1914, 38–42, Pl. XI–XII; Spiegelberg 1918, 111–114; Erichsen 1939, 186; Shore et al. 1960, 277 and note 1; Shore 1992, 229. Reich 1914, 82; Depauw 2000, 203. Revillout 1880, 117–119; Reich 1914, 51–56; Vleeming 1998, 155–170.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited P. BM EA 10098 (Late PeriodPtolemaic Period) P. BM EA 10113 (570 BC) P. BM EA 10120 A–B (517 BC) P. BM EA 10188 (P. BremmerRhind) (305 BC) P. BM EA 10208 (305 BC) P. BM EA 10209 (c. 305 BC) P. BM EA 10221 (New Kingdom) (Abbott Dockets) P. BM EA 10223 (171? BC) P. BM EA 10226 (185 BC) P. BM EA 10227 (230 BC) P. BM EA 10229 (78 BC) P. BM EA 10240 (228–227 BC) P. BM EA 10377 (214 BC) P. BM EA 10380a (231 BC) P. BM EA 10381 (276–256 BC) P. BM EA 10384 (132 BC)

P. BM EA 10386 (210 BC) P. BM EA 10388 (223 BC)

P. BM EA 10390 (136 BC) P. BM EA 10395 (227 BC) P. BM EA 10396 (146 BC) (modern tracing of witness list of P. Bibl. Nat. 218 (146 BC)) P. BM EA 10398 (119 BC)

697

Quirke 1993, 111. Pestman and Vleeming 1994; Donker van Heel 1995. Pestman and Vleeming 1994. Faulkner 1936; Smith 2009, 120–123. Smith 2009, 104–119. Martin and Ryholt 2006; Smith 2009, 178–192 and note 4. Théodoridès 1969; Donker Van Heel 1992, 25 and Tables III and IV. Andrews 1990, 45, cat. 11. Reich 1914, 73–77. Andrews 1990, 50–52, cat. 15; Revillout 1880, 135 note and pl. 8; Vittmann 1982. Pestman 1963. Revillout 1880b, 111–112; Reich 1914, 56–59; Vleeming 1995, 246 note 15, 248 notes 27–28. Andrews 1990, 52–53, cat. 16; Vittmann 1982; Revillout 1880, 135 note, Pl. 8. Andrews 1990, 102–104, cat. 45. Andrews 2004, 27–32, Pl. I; Thompson 1988, 280; Martin 2009, 68–74, Pl. 1–5. Revillout 1883, 139–140; Revillout 1897, 356–358; Revillout 1914, 59–63, Pl. I–III; Thompson 1988, 163, 280; Martin 2009, 110–135, Pl. 24–32. Andrews 1990, 87–88, cat. 39. Andrews 1990, 22–24, cat. 2; Revillout 1880, 112–113, pl. II.4; el-Amir 1959, 67 (wrongly identified as one of the Turin papyri); Bataille 1952, 256; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 172 §43; Hughes et al. 1940, 247–248; Vleeming 1994, 116 note 15; Depauw 2000, 69. Andrews 1990, 78–81, cat. 33. Andrews 1990, 104–106, cat. 47. Andrews 1990, 63–64, cat. 23; Pestman 1993, 77–79, 344.

Revillout 1897, 526–527, 557; Reymond 1973, 37; Thompson 1988, 280; Brunsch 1990, 71–77. P. BM EA 10402 (123 BC) Young 1823, Pl. 36; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 188; Pestman 1993, 135–137, 346. P. BM EA 10407 (224 BC) Andrews 1990, 83–85, cat. 35. P. BM EA 10410 (224 BC) Andrews 1990, 83–85, cat. 36. P. BM EA 10413 (124 BC) (P. BM Revillout 1880a, 303–307, 492–493; Revillout 1882–1903, EA 10397 is a copy of this docu- 205–207; Andrews 1990, 60–62, cat. 21; Pestman 1993, 120– ment) 122 and note b; Pestman 1981, 122 note s; Pestman 1972, 33–34.

698

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

P. BM EA 10426 (230 BC) (partial witness list of contract in P. Berlin P. 3089 (230 BC)) P. BM EA 10432 (556 BC) P. BM EA 10446 (230 BC) P. BM EA 10450 (491 BC) P. BM EA 10507 (Late Ptolemaic— Early Roman Period) P. BM EA 10523 (295–294 BC) P. BM EA 10524 (290–289 BC) P. BM EA 10525 (284 BC) P. BM EA 10526 (288 BC) P. BM EA 10527 (288 BC) P. BM EA 10528 (291 BC)

Andrews 1990, 59 cat. 20; Vittmann 1982, 166–171.

Donker van Heel 1995. Andrews 1990, 66–67, cat. 25. Cruz-Uribe 1980. Smith 1987.

Glanville 1939, 9–14. Glanville 1939, 20–27. Glanville 1939, 30–38. Glanville 1939, 29–33. Glanville 1939, 30–33. Glanville 1939, 15–19, Pl. 8, 10, 11; Hughes and Nims 1940, 254–257; Vleeming 1995; Depauw 2000, 70–74. P. BM EA 10530 (281 BC) Glanville 1939, 41. P. BM EA 10532 A–B (2nd cent. BC) Andrews 1990, cat. 31. P. BM EA 10535 (277 BC) Glanville 1939, 43. P. BM EA 10556 (170–157 BC) Muhs 2014/15. P. BM EA 10557 (180–170 BC) Muhs 2014/15. P. BM EA 10561 (157 BC) Shore and Smith 1960, 277–294, Pl. V. P. BM EA 10575 (181 BC) Thompson 1934. P. BM EA 10591 (170 BC) Thompson 1934. P. BM EA 10593 (172 BC) Thompson 1934. P. BM EA 10594 (172 BC) Thompson 1934. P. BM EA 10599 (169 BC) Thompson 1934. P. BM EA 10603 (100 BC) Lüddeckens 1998, 126–134, Pl. 17; Pasek 2007, 376–383. P. BM EA 10604 (85 BC) Lüddeckens 1998, 205–210, Pl. 26. P. BM EA 10605 (98 BC) Lüddeckens 1998, 143–157, Pl. 19; Pasek 2007, 413–422. P. BM EA 10606 (93 BC) Lüddeckens 1998, 158–168, Pl. 20; Pasek 2007, 423–432. P. BM EA 10612 (175 BC) Andrews 1990, 73–74, cat. 30. P. BM EA 10613 (160 BC) Muhs 2014/15. P. BM EA 10614 (175 BC) Andrews 1990, 29–30, cat. 5. P. BM EA 10615 (175 BC) Andrews 1990, 31–34, cat. 6. P. BM EA 10616 (244–243 BC) Glanville 1932, 152–160, Pl. 15–20. P. BM EA 10622 (137 BC) Thompson 1941, 69–71, Pl. XII. P. BM EA 10670 (170–157 BC) Muhs 2014/15. P. BM EA 10678 (170 BC) Andrews 1990, 45–46, cat. 12. P. BM EA 10679A+10721 + 10727 Andrews 1990, 37–41, cat. 9. (182 BC) P. BM EA 10679B+10722 + 10723 Andrews 1990, 41–44, cat. 10. (181 BC) P. BM EA 10750 (213 BC) Smith 1958. P. BM EA 10782 (119 BC) Andrews 1990, 62–63, cat. 22. P. BM EA 10823/P. BL 1201 (162 BC) Muhs 2014/15. P. BM EA 10824/P. BL 1202 (160 BC) Muhs 2014/15. P. BM EA 10827 (273–272 BC) Andrews 1990, 48–50, cat. 14. P. BM EA 10828 (212 BC) Andrews 1990, 54–55, cat. 17.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited P. BM EA 10829 (209 BC) P. BM EA 10830 (198 BC) P. BM EA 10831 (194 BC) P. BM EA 10387 (212 BC) P. BM EA 10839 (198–186 BC) P. Bodleian MS.Egypt.a.41(P) (64 BC) P. Bodleian MS.Egypt.c.4(P) (P. Grey A) (153 BC) right side

P. Bodleian MS.Egypt.c.4(P) (P. Grey B) (153 BC) central side P. Bodleian MS.Egypt.c.4(P) (P. Grey C) (146 BC) left side P. Bodleian MS.Egypt.c.9(P) (1st century AD) P. Boulaq 3, P. Louvre E 5158, P. St. Petersburg 18128 and P. Durham O.M. 1983.11 (1st– 2nd century AD) P. Brooklyn 35.1462 (P. Brooklyn Museum 14) (225? BC) P. Brooklyn 37.1796 (108 BC) P. Brooklyn 37.1802 (108 BC) P. Brooklyn 37.1803 (108 BC) P. Brooklyn 37.1839B (201 BC) P. Brussels 6032 + BM EA fragments (301 BC) P. Brussels E 6033 (276–275 BC)

P. Brussels E 6037 (153 BC) P. Brussels 8252 (327–326 BC) P. Brussels 8253 (313 BC) P. Brussels 8254 (311 BC) P. Brussels 8255c (310 BC) P. Brussels 8255d (306 BC) P. Brussels 8256a (310? BC) P. Brussels 8256b (315? BC) P. Brussels 8256d (312 BC) P. Brussels 8256e (315 BC) P. Cairo 30602 (116–115 BC) P. Cairo 60603 (116–115 BC)

699

Andrews 1990, 55–57, cat. 18; Zauzich 1986, 161–162. Andrews 1990, 25–28, cat. 3. Andrews 1990, 57–59, cat. 19. Andrews 1990, 85–87, cat. 38. Andrews 1990, 28–29, cat. 4. Cannata 2006. Young 1823, Pl. 34; Brugsch 1848, pl. III (lines 1–13); Revillout 1882–1903, 64–71; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 165; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 57; Pestman 1993, 56–60; Cannata in preparation a. Young 1823, Pl. 34; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 166 B; Pestman 1993, 56–64; Cannata in preparation a. Young 1823, Pl. 35; Revillout 1882–1903, 74–85; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 167; Pestman 1993, 69–71, 343; Cannata in preparation a. Smith 1987a. Töpfer 2015; Smith 2009; Maspero 1875, plate II; Reeves 1985; Schreiber 2007, 338 and fig. 2.

Jasnow 1982, 22; Hughes et al. 2005, 7–8. Pierce 1972; Pestman et al. 1977a and 1977b. Pierce 1972; Pestman et al. 1977a and 1977b. Pierce 1972; Pestman et al. 1977a and 1977b. Reich 1933, 45, 108–117; Pestman et al. 1977a, 25–30; Pestman et al. 1977b, 29–35; Martin 2009, 48–49 §2. Spiegelberg 1909, 3–9, Pl. II–III; Shore 1968, 193–198, Pl. XXXI; Glanville 1939, xxxvii–xxxix. Spiegelberg 1909, 9–15, Pl. 4–5; Sethe et al. 1920, 720–721; Quaegebeur 1978, 26; Thompson 1988, 282; Donker van Heel 1998, 33–34. Spiegelberg 1909, 19–25, Pl. VII; Pestman 1993, 50–51, 475. Depauw 2000, 77–109, Pl. 6–11. Depauw 2000, 110–125, Pl. 12–15. Depauw 2000, 126–161, Pl. 17–24. Depauw 2000, 189–193, Pl. 26. Quaegebeur 1978, 25–28; Quaegebeur, J. 1978–1979, 40–48; Depauw 2000, 209–224. Depauw 2000, 198–200, Pl. 27. Depauw 2000, 201–204, Pl. 27. Quaegebeur 1978, 25–28; Depauw 2000, 205–208, Pl. 27. Quaegebeur 1978, 25–28; Depauw 2000, 194–197, Pl. 26. Spiegelberg 1908, 3–8, Pl. III–V; Martin 2009, 48–49. Spiegelberg 1908, 8–14, Pl. VI–VIII; Martin 2009, 48–49.

700

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

P. Cairo 30605 (145 BC)

Spiegelberg 1908, 18–25, Pl. X–XII; De Cenival 1972, 73–81, Pl. VI, XII. P. Cairo 30606 (157 BC) Spiegelberg 1908, 26–29, Pl. XIII–XV; De Cenival 1972, 45– 58, Pl. IV, X. P. Cairo 30619 (137 BC) Spiegelberg 1908, 66–71, Pl. XXXII–XXXV; De Cenival 1972, 93–102, Pl. VII, XIII. P. Cairo 30620 (100–99 BC) Spiegelberg 1908, 71–73, Pl. XXXVI. P. Cairo 30622 (211–210 BC) Spiegelberg 1908, 74–75, Pl. XXXVII. P. Cairo 30623 (246–222? BC) Spiegelberg 1908, 75–76, Pl. XXXVIII. P. Cairo 30646 (Ptolemaic Period) Griffith 1900. P. Cairo 30657 (546 BC) Malinine 1958 P. Cairo 30665 (543 BC) Spiegelberg 1908 P. Cairo 30692 (Ptolemaic Period) Spiegelberg 1908, 112–115, Pl. LI, line 11; Zauzich 1976, 79–80 and note a. P. Cairo 30758 (Ptolemaic Period) Spiegelberg 1908, 145–148, Pl. LVIII, line 5; Zauzich 1976, 79–80 and note a. P. Cairo 30907/9 (676 BC) Lüddeckens 1960. P. Cairo 30960 (104 BC) Spiegelberg 1908, 198–199, Pl. LXX; Shore et al. 1960, 278 and note 3. P. Cairo 31178 (180–179 BC) Spiegelberg 1908, 286–290, Pl. CXVI, CXVII, CXX; De Cenival 1972, 39–40, 215–218. P. Cairo 31179 (147 BC) Spiegelberg 1908, 290–295, Pl. CXVII–CXIX; De Cenival 1972, 63–72, Pl. V, XI. P. Cairo 50060 (Persian Period) Jelínková-Reymond 1955; Malinine 1961, 138–139; De Cenival 1972, 158; Devauchelle 1987, 151; Muhs 2005, 103. P. Cairo 50119 + 50133 (65 BC) Spiegelberg 1932, 83, 96, Pl. 50 and 58; Lüddeckens 1998, 243–244; Vleeming 1999, 139, 143; Pasek 2007, 553–555. P. Cairo 50120 (66–65 BC) Spiegelberg 1932, 83–84, Pl. 50; Lüddeckens 1998, 245–246; Pasek 2007, 551–552. P. Cairo 50122 (64 BC) Spiegelberg 1932, 85, Pl. 51; Lüddeckens 1998, 249–250; Pasek 2007, 556–557. P. Cairo 50123 (51 BC) Spiegelberg 1932, 84, Pl. 50; Lüddeckens 1998, 247–248; Pasek 2007, 608–610. P. Cairo 50126 (116–107 BC) Spiegelberg 1932, 88–89, Pl. 53, 55; Lüddeckens 1998, 121– 125, Pl. 16; Pasek 2007, 367–371. P. Cairo 50127 (1st cent. BC) Spiegelberg 1932, 89–91, Pl. LIV; Reymond 1968, 55–57; Vleeming 1999, 129, 131, 133; Jasnow 2004, 261–281, Pl. XX– XXI; Pasek 2007, 570–607; Depauw 2006, 342–343. P. Cairo 50128 (114 BC) Spiegelberg 1932, 91–92, Pl. 55; Lüddeckens 1998, 113–120, Pl. 15; Pasek 2007, 360–364. P. Cairo 50129 (86 BC) Spiegelberg 1932, 93–94, Pl. 55–56; Lüddeckens 1998, 134– 137, Pl. 15; Pasek 2007, 474–482. P. Cairo 50131 (90–88BC) Spiegelberg 1932, 95–96, Pl. 57; Lüddeckens 1998, 200–204, Pl. 27; Pasek 2007, 468–473. P. Cairo 50132 (198 BC) See P. Hamburg 10. P. Cairo 52002 (New Kingdom) Posener-Kriéger 1981. P. Cairo 58092 (P. Boulaq X) (New Mariette 1872, Pl. 1; Allam 1973, 289–293, n. 268; McDowell Kingdom) 1999, 167–168, 259, n. 122.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited P. Cairo Zenon III 59445 (PSI IV 407) (263–229 BC) P. Carlsberg 34 (239 BC) P. Carlsberg 35 (235 BC) P. Carlsberg 37a (220BC) P. Carlsberg 37b (220 BC) P. Carlsberg 38a (217 BC) P. Carlsberg 38b (217 BC) P. Carlsberg 39a (183 BC) P. Carlsberg 39b (183 BC) P. Carlsberg 46 (239 BC) P. Carlsberg 47 (237 BC) P. Carlsberg 48 (236 BC) P. Col. Zenon II 73 (258 BC) P. Count. 2.91 and 10.56 P. CtYBR 3598 (181–180 BC) P. Detroit Institute of Arts 1988.10 P. Elephantine Dem. 9 (before 223 BC) P. Elephantine Dem. 8 (224– 223 BC) P. Elephantine Dem. 12 (245– 244 BC) P. Elephantine Gr. 8 (225–224 BC) P. εντευξεισ 20 (221 BC) P. εντευξεισ 21 (219–218 BC) P. Fayum XIII (170 BC) P. Fayum 23a (2nd century AD) P. Fayum 103 (3rd century AD) P. Fayum 246 (1st–2nd century AD) P. Florence 3667 (111 BC)

P. Florence 3678 (204–181 BC) P. Florence 7127 (264 BC) P. Florence 8698 (77–76 BC) P. Forshall 41 (124 BC) P. Forshall 42 (97–96? BC) P. Fouad 75 (AD 64) P. Hamburg 2 (83 BC) P. Hamburg 3 (67 BC) P. Hamburg 4 (92 BC) P. Hamburg 5 (92 BC) P. Hamburg 6 (92 BC)

701

Nowicka 1984, 259; Whitehouse 2010, 11; Łukaszewicz 1987; Nowicka 1979, 23. Lüddeckens 1998, 2–11, Pl. 1; Pasek 2007, 170–179. Lüddeckens 1998, 13–20, Pl. 2; Pasek 2007, 183–192. Lüddeckens 1998, 37–45, Pl. 4; Pasek 2007, 237–242. Lüddeckens 1998, 46–54, Pl. 5; Pasek 2007, 243–248. Lüddeckens 1998, 55–62, Pl. 6; Pasek 2007, 249–253. Lüddeckens 1998, 63–69, Pl. 7; Pasek 2007, 254–260. Lüddeckens 1998, 77–81, Pl. 9; Pasek 2007, 302–305. Lüddeckens 1998, 82–88, Pl. 10; Pasek 2007, 306–312. Bülow-Jacobsen 1982, 12–14, Pl. 1a; Pasek 2007, 180. Bülow-Jacobsen 1982, 15, Pl. 1b; Pasek 2007, 181. Bülow-Jacobsen 1982, 15–16, Pl. 2; Pasek 2007, 182. Westermann et al. 1940; Youtie 1943, 214; Winter and Youtie 1944, 255–256. Clarysse and Thompson 2006a. Ritner 1995. Smith 2009, 96–97. Spiegelberg 1908a; Clarysse 2003. Spiegelberg 1908a; Clarysse 2003. Spiegelberg 1908a. Rubensohn 1907, 41–42; Muhs 2003, 87–88; Clarysse 2003, 17–27. Guéraud 1931, 53–56. Guéraud 1931, 57–58, Pl. V. Grenfell et al. 1900, 105–106. Grenfell et al. 1900, 130–131. Grenfell et al. 1900, 250. Grenfell et al. 1900, 305. Revillout 1880b, 110–111 note, Pl. 1 bis no. 2; Botti 1949, 23– 32 no. 4, Pl. V; Pestman 1992, 207–221, Pl. LX–LXI; Pestman 1993, 191–192. Botti 1949, 35–38, Pl. VII. Botti 1949, 38–43, Pl. VIII. Botti 1969, 73–77, Pl. VIII–IX. Forshall 1839. Forshall 1839. Youtie 1958, 374–376; Bataille 1952, 216; Montserrat 1997, 37. Lüddeckens 1998, 221–230, Pl. 28; Pasek 2007, 500–510. Lüddeckens 1998, 237–242, Pl. 30; Pasek 2007, 546–550. Lüddeckens 1998, 169–175, Pl. 21; Pasek 2007, 439–446. Lüddeckens 1998, 184–190, Pl. 23; Pasek 2007, 454–460. Lüddeckens 1998, 191–199, Pl. 24; Pasek 2007, 461–467.

702

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

P. Hamburg 7 (99 BC) P. Hamburg 8 (92 BC) P. Hamburg 9 (79 BC) P. Hamburg 10 + P. Cairo 50132– 50134a–50136a (198 BC) P. Hamburg 11 (129 BC) P. Hamburg 12a–b (118 BC) P. Hamburg 13 (84 BC) P. Hamburg 14 + P. Cairo 50134c (129 BC) P. Hamburg 74 (Roman Period) P. Harkness (MMA 31.9.7) (61 AD) P. Hermitage 1122 (135 BC) P. Köln I 52 (AD 263) P. Köln VIII 347 (193? BC) P. Kölner 7676 (114 BC) P. Krall P. Leiden 371 (19th dynasty) P. Leiden 373a (129 BC)

P. Leiden I 373b–c (204–203 BC)

P. Leiden I 374 I–II (78 BC)

P. Leiden 375 (124 BC) (Copy of P. BM EA 10413 (124 BC)) P. Leiden 376 (127 BC) P. Leiden 377 (102 BC)

P. Leiden I 378 (160 BC)

P. Leiden I 379 (256 BC)

P. Leiden I 380a–b (64 BC)

Lüddeckens 1998, 135–141, Pl. 18; Pasek 2007, 384–390. Lüddeckens 1998, 176–183, Pl. 22; Pasek 2007, 447–453. Lüddeckens 1998, 231–235, Pl. 29; Pasek 2007, 511–515. Spiegelberg 1932, 96–97, Pl. 58; Lüddeckens 1998, 71–76, Pl. 8; Pasek 2007, 261–268. Lüddeckens 1998, 98–103, Pl. 13; Pasek 2007, 337–342. Lüddeckens 1998, 104–112, Pl. 14; Pasek 2007, 343–349. Lüddeckens 1998, 216–220, Pl. 27; Pasek 2007, 492–495. Lüddeckens 1998, 94–97, Pl. 12; Vleeming 1999, 137–138; Pasek 2007, 333–336. Bataille 1952, 240; Marzagora 1929, 120; Drexhage 1994, 172. Smith 2005. Martin 2009, 100–109, Pl. 21–23; Wilcken 1927, 617 no. 127; Thompson 1988. Kramer and Hübner 1976; Depauw 2004, 235. Gronewald et al. 1997. Thissen 1978, 39–40; Thissen 1994, 283–288. Bresciani 1964; Hoffmann 1996; Colin 2003. Gardiner and Sethe 1928. Leemans 1863, Pl. 185–186; Revillout 1903, 1025–1026; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 731–733; Wilcken 1927, 617 no. 128; Lüddeckens 1960, 92–95; Martin 2009, 137–142. Leemans 1863, Pl. 187–192; Revillout 1880c, 122–136; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 724–726; Reymond 1973, 37; Martin 2009, 76–90, Pl. 6–16. Leemans 1863, 193–194; Revillout 1882, 91 note 2; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 735–737; Pestman 1963, 8–23, Pl. 7–8; Thompson 1988, 281; Donker van Heel 1998, 47; Martin 2009, 143–152, Pl. 37–39. Leemans 1863 II, Pl. 195; Andrews 1990, 60–62 cat. 21; Pestman 1972, 33–34; Pestman 1981, 122 note s; Pestman 1993, 120–122 and note b. Pestman 1993, 95–97. Leemans 1863, Pl. 197–200; Revillout 1882–1903, 201– 203; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 184; Pestman 1993, 211–212, 345. Leemans 1863, Pl. 201–202; Revillout 1878, 113–120; Revillout 1897, 527–529; Glanville 1939, 25; Cannata 2007a, Figs. 8–10; Cannata 2006; Martin 2009, 92–99. Leemans 1863, Pl. 203–207; Revillout 1880c, 122–136; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 712–720; Wilken 1927, 616–617 no. 126; Donker van Heel 1998, 33–50; Martin 2009, 170–184, Pl. 49– 56. Leemans 1840, 119; Leemans 1863, 208–211; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 745–747; Wilcken 1927, 621 no. 141; Thompson 1988, 281; Donker van Heel 1998, 47; Martin 2009, 153–169, Pl. 40–48.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited P. Leiden 381 (226 BC)

703

Leemans 1863, Pl. 212–213; Revillout 1880c, 135–136 n. 2; Revillout 1882, 94 n. 1; Revillout 1903, 2, 1009–1010; Lüddeckens 1960, 146–149; Pestman 1961, 197, C5; Martin 2009, 68–74, Pl. 1–5. P. Leiden 404 (126–125 BC) Leemans 1863, Pl. II; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 172; Pestman 1993, 114–115, 343. P. Leiden Gr. 413 (136BC) Berger 1889; Spiegelberg 1903a, 10–12; Griffith et al. 1908, 103–110; Boswinkel et al. 1968, Pl. 7; Pestman 1993, 89–91, 344, 478. P. Leiden Gr. 414 (UPZ 181) (105 BC) Pestman 1993, 202–203 P. Leiden Gr. 416 (113 BC) Letronne 1838, 32; Brugsch 1850; Letronne et al. 1865, 129– 151, Pl. 13–16, no. 5; Revillout 1880a, Pl. 53; Griffith 1909, 132–134; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 180b; Pestman 1993, 180– 182, 345. P. Leiden F1942/5.15 (727 BC) Vleeming 1980. P. Leiden T 32 Herbin 1994, 61, 208, Collombert 2006, 236–237. P. Leopold II/P. Amherst Capart et al. 1936; Donker Van Heel 1992, 25 and Tables III and IV. P. Libbey (337 BC) Spiegelberg 1907; Depauw 2000, 235–236. P. Lille 29 (223 BC) Sottas 1921, 57–70, Pl. 15–16; Pestman 1967, 35; De Cenival 1972, 3–38, Pl. I–II. P. Lille II Dem. 64 (226 BC) De Cenival 1973, 11–13, 162, 189–196; Depauw 2004, 245. P. Lille Dem. 98 (245 BC) Monson 2006, 228. P. London Gr. 3 (146 BC) Wilcken 1935–1953, 175 a–b; Revillout 1880a, 62–84; Pestman 1993, 72–76, 344. P. Louvre E 2229 (Roman Period) Johnson 1977, 60, 67, 78 note 2/11, Pl. 11, col. 2 line 19. P. Louvre E 2408 (197 BC) Revillout 1880a, 336; Sethe et al. 1920, 727–728; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 157; Reymond 1973, 38; Thompson 1988, 280. P. Louvre E 2409 (184 BC) Revillout 1880b, 115–116, Pl. IV; Thompson 1988, 280. P. Louvre E 2410 (120BC) Letronne et al. 1865, Pl. 49 no. 15 bis; Revillout 1880a, 85– 109; Devéria 1881, XII 19–20; Revillout 1882–1903, 170–176; Chardon et al. 1893, Pl. 9–12, 13–14; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 169; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 47; Pestman 1993, 144– 146. P. Louvre E 2411 (65 BC) Revillout 1882, 95 note 1; Revillout 1882a, 121 note 2; Sethe et al. 1920, 747–748; Wilcken 1927, 621, no. 140; Thompson 1988, 281. P. Louvre E 2412 + P. Bibl. Nat. 226 Revillout 1889–1902, No. 5, Pl. IV; Spiegelberg 1909, 14–15; (305–304 BC) Zauzich 1968, 69–71, Urkunden 94; Pezin 1987, 269–273, Pl. XLVIII–L; Thompson 1988, 281; Donker van Heel 1998, 33–34. P. Louvre E 2415 (225BC) Revillout 1880a, 364; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 20. P. Louvre E 2416 (153 BC) Young 1823, Pl. 34; Brugsch 1848, pl. III (lines 1–13); Devéria 1881, XII 17–18; Revillout 1880a, 343–350; Revillout 1882–1903, 41–48; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 166 A; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 56; Pestman 1993, 56–63, 343.

704

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

P. Louvre E 2417 (153 BC)

P. Louvre E 2418 (120 BC)

P. Louvre E 2424 (267 BC) P. Louvre E 2425 (227 BC) P. Louvre E 2428 (277 BC) P. Louvre E 2429bis (292 BC)

P. Louvre E 2430 (334 BC) P. Louvre E 2431 (243BC) P. Louvre E 2432 (636 BC) P. Louvre E 2433 (252 BC) P. Louvre E 2434 (276 BC) P. Louvre E 2436a (102 BC) P. Louvre E 2436b (103 BC) P. Louvre E 2437 (275 BC) P. Louvre E 2438 (245 BC)

P. Louvre E 2439 (330 BC) P. Louvre E 2440 (304 BC) P. Louvre E 2443 (249 BC) P. Louvre N 3168 (675 BC) P. Louvre E 3228b (703 BC) P. Louvre E 3228c (685 BC) P. Louvre E 3228e (705 BC) P. Louvre E 3228f (676–675 BC) P. Louvre E 3231a (497 BC) P. Louvre E 3231b (497 BC) P. Louvre E 3231c (497 BC) P. Louvre N 3263 (215 BC)

P. Louvre E 3264 (65 BC)

P. Louvre E 3264ter (73 BC)

Young 1823, Pl. 34; Brugsch 1848, pl. III (lines 1–13); Devéria 1881, XII 17–18; Revillout 1880a, 351–357; Revillout 1882– 1903, 56–61; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 166 A; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 132; Pestman 1993, 56–63, 343. Revillout 1880a, 425–431; Devéria 1881, XII 19–20; Revillout 1882–1903, 170–176; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 127; Pestman 1993, 144–146. Revillout 1880a, 231, 482; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 11; Andrews 1990, cat. 1. Revillout 1880a, 278–287. Revillout 1880a, 214, 476; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 108; Muhs 1996, 300. Revillout 1880a, 229, 481; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 5; Spiegelberg 1923, 7 ff.; Vittmann 1980, 127, 138 note 15; Muhs 1996, 301. De Cenival 1966. Revillout 1880a, 265, 487; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 15. Malinine 1953, text 15. Lüddeckens 1960. Revillout 1880a, 209–214. Revillout 1880a, 110–122; Pestman 1993, 213–214. Pestman 1993, 209–210. Revillout 1880a, 209–214; Erichsen 1939, 99–102; Muhs 2002, 269–271 no. 7. Revillout 1880a, 257, 486; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 109; Pestman 1961, 131–133, 137, 152,186–187, 191; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 693–694. Zauzich 1968, 10–12. Revillout 1880a, 222–224; Glanville 1939, 53; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 4. Revillout 1880a, 246, 485; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 14; Pestman 1961, 131–133, 152, 186–187, 191. Malinine 1982–1983. Malinine 1953, text 1. Malinine 1951. Malinine 1953, text 6. Menu 1985; Donker van Heel 2015. Pestman and Vleeming 1994 Cruz-Uribe 2000. Cruz-Uribe 2000. Revillout 1880a, 369–374; Sethe and Partsch 1920, 701– 702; Pestman 1963, 136 note 2; Pestman 1967, 39; Clarysse and Van der Veken 1983, 16 no. 75; Muhs 2010; Muhs 2010/11. Revillout 1882, 95 note 1; Revillout 1882a, 121 note 2; Sethe et al. 1920, 747–748; Wilcken 1927, 620–621, no. 139; Thompson 1988, 281. Revillout 1882, 92 note 2; Thompson 1988, 281.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited P. Louvre E 3265 + P. Louvre E 2419 (102 BC) P. Louvre E 3266 (197 BC) P. Louvre E 3268 (73 BC) P. Louvre N 3279 (Late 1st century BC–1st century AD) P. Louvre E 3334 (198? BC) P. Louvre E 3440 A (175 BC)

P. Louvre E 3440 B (175 BC)

P. Louvre E 3440 II (155 BC)

P. Louvre E 7128 (510 BC) P. Louvre E 7450 (532 BC) P. Louvre E 7832 (539 BC) P. Louvre E 7834 (536 BC) P. Louvre E 7835 (537 BC) P. Louvre E 7836 (536 BC) P. Louvre E 7838 (536 BC) P. Louvre E 7839 (534 BC) P. Louvre E 7840 (538 BC) P. Louvre E 7842 (540 BC) P. Louvre E 7843 (536 BC) P. Louvre E 7844 (555 BC) P. Louvre E 7845A (554 BC) P. Louvre E 7846 (549 BC) P. Louvre E 7847 (552 BC) P. Louvre E 7848 (559 BC) P. Louvre E 7849 (590 BC) P. Louvre E 7850 (533 BC) P. Louvre E 7855 (559 BC) P. Louvre E 7861 (568 BC) P. Louvre E 9294 (491 BC) P. Louvre E 10605 (1st cent. AD) P. Louvre E 10935 (556 BC) P. Louvre AF9761 (494 BC) P. Louvre Gr. 2330 (126–127 BC)

705

Revillout 1903, 1008–1009; Revillout 1882, 92 n. 1, 94 n. 1. Devéria 1872, 217 no. XII, 16; Revillout 1882, 91, Pl. 33–40; De Cenival 1972, 11–65, Pl. I–XII; Thompson 1988, 280. Revillout 1882, 91–92 note 2; Thompson 1988, 281. Goyon 1966. Revillout 1881, 75–78; Ray 1977, 97–116; Zauzich 1979, 121– 124. Revillout 1880a, 375–388; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 118; Vittman 1987, 97–145, Pl. 13–23; Spiegelberg 1902, 8, Pl. 11– 12; Grunert 1981; Pestman 1993, 234–236. Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 118; Vittman 1987, 97–145, Pl. 13– 23; Spiegelberg 1902, 8, Pl. 11–12; Grunert 1981; Pestman 1993, 234–236. Letronne et al. 1865, 214–217, Pl. 50 no. 15 ter; Devéria 1881, XII, 35; Revillout 1882–1903, 34–40; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 164; Pestman 1993, 48–49, 343, 361–374. Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 71–73. Cruz-Uribe 1985. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 2012, 77; Donker van Heel 1995; Pestman and Vleeming 1994, 16–18, 159. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Lüddeckens 1960. Donker van Heel 1995. Donker van Heel 1995. Malinine 1958; Donker van Heel 1995. Malinine 1953. Smith 1987a. Pestman and Vleeming 1994. Pestman and Vleeming 1994. Letronne 1836, 273–285; Letronne 1838, no. 12; Brugsch 1850, 61–62; Letronne et al. 1865, Pl. 12 no. 6; Devéria 1881, XIV, 3; Revillout 1882–1903, 196 note 2; Revillout 1891, 101– 102; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 187; Hengstl 1978, 148–151; Pestman 1993, 101–102, 346; Vleeming 1995, 247.

706

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

P. Louvre Gr. 2331 (98 BC) P. Louvre Gr. 2338 (119 BC)

P. Louvre Gr. 2337 (126 BC)

P. Louvre Gr. 2339 (134 BC)

P. Mallawi Museum 602/1–5 (79 BC) P. Mallawi Museum 602/6 (92 BC) P. Mallawi Museum 602/7 (101 BC) P. Mallawi Museum 602/8 (no date given) P. Mallawi Museum 602/9 (100 BC) P. Mallawi Museum 602/10 (111 BC) P. Mallawi Museum 602/11 (109 BC) P. Marseilles 296 (186 BC) P. Marseilles 298–299 (235 BC) P. Mich. Inv. 6051 (74 BC) (= SB V 7532) P. Moscow 115 (293 BC) P. Moscow 116 (293 BC) P. Naples 8414 (126 BC)

P. O.I. 17481 (365–364 BC) P. O.I. 25255 A–B (245 BC) P. O.I. 25256 (243 BC) P. O.I. 25257 (331 BC) P. O.I. 25258 (285–246 BC) P. O.I. 25259 (310 BC) P. O.I. 25260 (245 BC) P. O.I. 25261 (221 BC) P. O.I. 25262 (292 BC) P. O.I. 25263 (239 BC) P. O.I. 25338 (259 BC) P. Oxy. I 51 (AD 173) P. Oxy. I 52 (AD 325) P. Oxy. III 475 (AD 182)

Letronne et al. 1865, Pl. 17 no. 7; Devéria 1881, XIV 4; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 190; Pestman 1993, 226–227. Letronne et al. 1865, Pl. 19–20 no. 15; Devéria 1881, XIV no. 63; Bond et al. 1884–1894, Pl. 181; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 161; Traversa 1951, 237; Pestman 1992, 141–154, Pl. XXXI– XXXIII; Pestman 1993, 151–154, 342. Letronne et al. 1865, 214–217, Pl. 19 no. 14; Devéria 1881, 238, XIV, 11; Wilcken 1935–1953, 113–118; Pestman 1992, 87–91, Pl. XXII; Pestman 1993, 106–108, 343, 361–374. Letronne et al. 1865, Pl. 21 no. 16; Devéria 1881, XIV, 10; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 185; Derda 1991, 27–28; Pestman 1993, 93–94, 345. Abd el-Aal 2003, 18–22. Zaghloul 1988, 139. Zaghloul 1991, 255–263, Pl. 75–76. Zaghloul 1988. El-Aguizy 1989, 89–99, Pl. XI–XII. El-Aguizy 1988, 51–62, Pl. V. Zaghloul 1988. Revillout 1882d, 148 n. 7; Revillout 1880a, 395–396 no. 2; Lüddeckens 1960. Revillout 1880, 134 note 1, Pl. 7–8; Spiegelberg 1923, 7 ff.; Vittmann 1980, 127–139, Pl. 12–15. Boak 1933. Struve 1955. Struve 1955. Botti 1949, 65–73, Pl. XIV; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 46; Zauzich 1975, 124 and note 11; Pestman 1992, 199–206, Pl. XLV; Pestman 1993, 103–105, 337, 339, 342. Hughes et al. 1997, 9–15, Pl. 1–7; Pasek 2007, 50–71. Hughes et al. 1997, 38–45, Pl. 38–41; Pasek 2007, 133–146. Hughes et al. 1997, 49–51, Pl. 45–48; Pasek 2007, 149–154. Hughes et al. 1997, 16–18, Pl. 8–13; Pasek 2007, 72–83. Hughes et al. 1997, 27–32, 25–29; Pasek 2007, 107–119. Hughes et al. 1997, 19–22, Pl. 14–19; Pasek 2007, 84–96. Hughes et al. 1997, 46–48, Pl. 42–44; Pasek 2007, 147–148. Hughes et al. 1997, 59–61, Pl. 56–57; Pasek 2007, 231–236. Hughes et al. 1997, 23–26, Pl. 20–24; Pasek 2007, 97–106. Hughes et al. 1997, 52–58, Pl. 49–55; Pasek 2007, 155–169. Hughes et al. 1997, 33–37, Pl. 30–37; Pasek 2007, 120–132. Grenfell and Hunt 1898. Grenfell and Hunt 1898. Grenfell and Hunt 1903.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited P. Oxy. III 476 (c. AD 159–161) P. Oxy. III 496 (AD 127) P. Oxy. III 528 (2nd century AD) P. Pavia 1120 (118 BC) P. Philadelphia 2 (314 BC)

P. Philadelphia 5 (302 BC)

P. Philadelphia 6 (301 BC) P. Philadelphia 7–8 (287 BC) P. Philadelphia 10 (282 BC)

P. Philadelphia 12 (277 BC) P. Philadelphia 13 (273 BC)

P. Philadelphia 14 (264 BC) P. Philadelphia 16 (251 BC)

P. Philadelphia 17 (241 BC) P. Philadelphia 18 (241 BC) P. Philadelphia 19 (240 BC)

P. Philadelphia 20 (237 BC)

P. Philadelphia 24 (227 BC)

P. Philadelphia 25 (223 BC) P. Philadelphia 26 (217 BC) P. Philadelphia 30 (302 BC)

707

Grenfell and Hunt 1903. Grenfell and Hunt 1903. Grenfell and Hunt 1903. Botti 1939, 17–36, Pl. I–II; Thompson 1988, 281; Colin 1994, 142–145. Reich 1936b, 15, 24; Reich 1936d, 9–30, Pl. 1–2; Reich 1936c, 34, 45; Reich 1938, 13–14; el-Amir 1959, 7–12; Thissen 1971, 19–28; Muhs 1996, 300, 313. Reich 1936b, 16; Reich 1936c, 40–41; Reich 1938, 15–16, Pl. 5– 6; el-Amir 1959, 22–27; Thissen 1971, 19–28; Depauw 2000, 69, 87 note m; Vleeming 1995, 246, 248–250, note 42; Muhs 1996, 300. Reich 1936b, 16; Reich 1936c, 40–41; Reich 1938, 15–16, Pl. 5– 6; el-Amir 1959, 28–32; Thissen 1971, 19–28; Muhs 1996, 301. Reich 1938, Pl. 7–10; el-Amir 1959, 33–41; Reich 1936b, 17, 27; Reich 1936c, 43; Reich 1938, 18; Reich 1938a, Pl. 11–12, 13–14; Reich 1938b, 13, 16–17; el-Amir 1959, 45–49; Thissen 1971, 19–28; Muhs 1996, 302, 315. Reich 1938a, Pl. 19–20; el-Amir 1959, 53–55; Reich 1936b, 18, 27; Reich 1936c, 47; Reich 1938a, 11, Pl. 15– 16; el-Amir 1959, 56–60; Thissen 1971, 19–28; Muhs 1996, 302, 316. Reich 1938, Pl. 9–10; el-Amir 1959, 61–64; Reich 1936b, 19, 28; Reich 1938a, 12–13, Pl. 17–18; Reich 1938c, 20–21, 25–26; el-Amir 1959, 70–76; Thissen 1971, 19– 28. Reich 1936b, 19, 25; Reich 1938a, 13, Pl. 19–20; el-Amir 1959, 77–81; Thissen 1971, 19–28. Reich 1936b, 19–20, 26; Reich 1938a, 13–14, Pl. 17–18; el-Amir 1959, 82–85; Thissen 1971, 19–28. Reich 1936b, 20, 28; Reich 1938a, 14, Pl. 19–20; Reich 1938c, 20–21, 25–26; el-Amir 1959, 86–90; Thissen 1971, 19–28; Zauzich 1968, 264 note 284 for the word ꜣtrꜣ.t. Reich 1936b, 20, 23; Reich 1936c, 48; Reich 1938a, 12, 14, Pl. 13–14; Reich 1938c, 20–21, 26; el-Amir 1959, 86–90; Thissen 1971, 19–28. Reich 1936b, 21, 27; Reich 1938b, 10, Pl. 25–26; el-Amir 1959, 110–114; Seidl 1962, 129; Thissen 1971, 19–28; Hughes 1973, 158; Clarysse 1978, 234–239; Depauw 2000, 68; Vleeming 1995, 249 note 30. Reich 1938b, Pl. 23–24; el-Amir 1959, 115–119. Reich 1936b, 22, 28; Reich 1938b, 11, Pl. 23–24; el-Amir 1959, 120–124; Thissen 1971, 19–28, Zauzich 1968, 309 note 925. Reich 1936b, 16; Reich 1936c, 32, 40–41; Reich 1938, 15–16; Reich 1938b, 12, Pl. 25–26; el-Amir 1974, 112–113; Quaegebeur 1979a, 711; Hughes et al. 1940, 247–248; Thissen 1984, 51–55; Vleeming 1995, 246, 250; Depauw 2000, 68; Den Brinker et al. 2005a, 319–320; Thiessen and Zauzich 2018.

708 P. Prague (137 BC)

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

Erichsen 1959, 1–62; Pestman 1967, 57; De Cenival 1972, 84– 91. P. Princeton III 166 (2nd–3rd cent. Johnson and Goodrich 1942. AD) Rendell et al. 1979, 98; Hughes et al. 1997, 63–70, Pl. 58–62; P. Rendell (232 BC) Pasek 2007, 207–221. P. Rhind 1 (P. Edinburgh 908 + Smith 2009 504) (9 BC) P. Rhind 2 (P. Edinburgh 909) Smith 2009 (9 BC) Johnson et al. 1915, 6–7, Pl. 1; Derda 1991, 19 note 30, 27–28 P. Rylands 65 (67 BC) and note 80. P. Rylands 577 (146 or 135 BC) Roberts et al. 1952, 27–29; Derda 1991, 21–22; Pasek 2007, 498–499. P. Rylands 580 (78 BC) Roberts et al. 1952, 31–33, Pl. 2. P. Rylands II 153 (AD 169) Johnson et al. 1915. P. Rylands III (610? BC) Griffith 1909. P. Rylands IX (513 BC) Griffith 1909; Vittmann 1998. P. Rylands XI (284 BC) Griffith 1909, 122–124, 257–260, Pl. XLIX–LII, LX; Vittman 1980, 127, 138 note 15. P. Rylands XII–XIII (281 BC) Griffith 1909; Depauw 2000, 195 note (a); Vleeming 1994a, 360–361 note (cc). P. Rylands XIV (281–280 BC) Griffith 1909, 128–129, 263–264, Pl. LXI. P. Sallier 3 (186–185 BC) Devauchelle 1998b. P. Saqqara 71/2 DP 136 (350– Smith and Tait 1981. 275 BC) P. Société Fouad inv. 99 (2nd–3rd Fournet 2004. century AD) P. Sorbonne inv. 331 (second half Boyaval 1973, 240; Derda 1991, 27 note 76; Clarysse and of 3rd century BC) Thompson 2006a, 180. P. Strasbourg 1 (324 BC) Spiegelberg 1902a, 18–20, Pl. III; Glanville 1939, xxvii–xxxi. P. Strasbourg 3 (1st century AD) Smith 1993. P. Strasbourg 12 (88–87 BC) Spiegelberg 1902a, 34, Pl. VIII; Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 85–89 no. 36. P. Strasbourg 56 (117 BC) Spiegelberg 1907, 10, Pl. II and III; Lüddeckens 1960, 96–99; Pestman 1993, 161–162. Tanis Sign Papyrus (Roman Griffith and Petrie 1889, 16 and Pl. III–IV. Period) (P. BM EA 10672) P. Tebtunis 118 (Late 2nd cent. BC) Grenfell et al. 1902, 491–492. P. Tebtunis 177 (1st century BC) Grenfell et al. 1902, 525. P. Tebtunis 224 (Late 2nd cent. Grenfell et al. 1902, 532. BC) P. Tebtunis 313 (AD 210–211) Grenfell et al. 1902, 110–112; Derda 1991, 21–22; Colin 2003, 83 note 64. Malinine 1953. P. Turin 2121 (618 BC) P. Turin 2123 (512 BC) Pestman and Vleeming 1994. P. Turin 2124 (507 BC) Pestman and Vleeming 1994. P. Turin 2125 (506 BC) Pestman and Vleeming 1994.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited P. Turin 2126 (498 BC) P. Turin 2127 (491 BC) P. Turin 2128 (487 BC) P. Turin 2129 (171 BC) P. Turin 2130 (99 BC) P. Turin 2131 (145 BC)

P. Turin 2132 (98 BC) P. Turin 2133 (118 BC) P. Turin 2134 (118 BC) P. Turin 2135 (118 BC) P. Turin 2136 (126 BC) P. Turin 2137 (123 BC) P. Turin 2138 (117 BC) P. Turin 2139 (118 BC) P. Turin 2141 (c. 131 BC) P. Turin 2142 (after 129 BC) P. Turin 2143a (124 BC) P. Turin 2144 (118 BC) (copy of P. Berlin P. 3101A) P. Turin 2145 (126 BC)

P. Turin 2146 (125 BC)

P. Turin Gr. 2147 (117 BC)

P. Turin Gr. 2148 (119 BC)

P. Turin Gr. 2149 (126 BC)

P. Turin Gr. 2150 (126 BC)

709

Pestman and Vleeming 1994. Pestman and Vleeming 1994. Pestman and Vleeming 1994. Pestman 1981. Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 55; Pestman 1992, 65–76, Pl. XVI; Pestman 1993, 217–218. Revillout 1879, 87–88; Revillout 1880a, LXXVI; Revillout 1882a, 109; Revillout 1883, 137 note, Pl. 7; Revillout 1897, 555, 647; Revillout 1897a, 218–219; Revillout 1903, 1072, 1319–1320; Spiegelberg 1908, P. Cairo 30713; Spiegelberg 1925, § 546; Bonneau 1971, 49–50; Pestman 1981, 31–39, Pl. I. Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 54; Pestman 1992, 77–85, Pl. XIX; Pestman 1993, 224–225. Pestman 1981. Pestman 1981. Pestman 1981. Pestman 1981. Revillout 1897, 577; Revillout 1903, 734; Pestman 1992, 3–17, Pl. III; Pestman 1993, 138–139. Pestman 1981. Pestman 1981. Revillout 1903, 1311–1313; Pestman 1981, 47–51, Pl. VI. Pestman 1981. Pestman 1981. Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 49; Pestman 1992, 18–36, Pl. VII; Pestman 1993, 157–160. Letronne et al. 1865, 215–216; Revillout 1878, 103–108, 154– 155; Wilcken 1935–1953, 125–127; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 125; Pestman 1992, 101–109, Pl. XXIII–XXIV; Pestman 1993, 111–113, 344, 361–374. Revillout 1879, 88 no. 5, Pl. IV no. 18; Revillout 1880a, XXXV; Revillout 1880c, 179; Revillout 1882a, 110; Revillout 1882c, 72; Revillout 1897, 400–401; Spiegelberg 1911, 177; Zauzich 1968, Urkunden 126, 297 n. 759–761; Pestman 1981, 76–85, Pl. XIII. Peyron 1826, Pl. II no. I; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 162; Traversa 1951, 237; Pestman 1992, 155–197, Pl. XXXIV–XLIV; Pestman 1993, 163–165, 343. Peyron 1826, Pl. II no. II; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 160; Traversa 1951, 237; Pestman 1992, 122–139, Pl. XXIX, XXX; Pestman 1993, 147–148, 342. Peyron 1827, 1–24, Pl. 1 no. III; Wilcken 1935–1953, 113–118; Pestman 1992, 87–91, Pl. XXI; Pestman 1993, 106–108, 343, 361–374. Peyron 1827, 25–33, Pl. 1 no. IV; Wilcken 1935–1953, 118–122; Traversa 1951, 237–238; Pestman 1992, 101–109, Pl. XXIII– XXIV; Pestman 1993, 109–110, 343, 361–374.

710

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

P. Turin Gr. 2151 (110 BC) P. Turin Gr. 2152 (110 BC) P. Turin Gr. 2153 (111 BC)

P. Turin Gr. 2154 (116 BC)

P. Turin Gr. 2155 (119 BC) P. Turin Gr. 2157 (After 112 BC) P. Turin Gr. 2160 (119–116 BC)

P. Turin Suppl. 6071 (103 BC)

P. Turin Suppl. 6074 (143 BC) P. Turin Suppl. 6077 a–b–c (108 BC) P. Turin Suppl. 6083 (105 BC)

Peyron 1827, 34, Pl. II no. V; Wilcken 1935–1953, 196–197; Pestman 1992, 55–63, Pl. XIV; Pestman 1993, 194–195. Peyron 1827, 35–36, Pl. II no. VI; Wilcken 1935–1953, 197– 199; Pestman 1992, 55–63, Pl. XV; Pestman 1993, 194–195. Peyron 1827, 36–37, Pl. II no. VII; Wilcken 1935–1953, 194– 196; Pestman 1992, 45–52, Pl. XII–XIII; Pestman 1993, 193. Peyron 1827, 45–60 no. 8, Pl. III; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 196; Wilhelm 1937, 71–81; Traversa 1951, 238–239; Pestman 1981, 66–75, Pl. IX–XI. Peyron 1827, 61–62 no. 9, Pl. V; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 194; Traversa 1951, 239, Pl. I; Pestman 1981, 56–59, Pl. VII. Peyron 1827, 65–67, Pl. II no. XI; Wilcken 1935–1953, 190– 191; Pestman 1992, 37–43, Pl. X, XI; Pestman 1993, 190. Peyron 1827, 74–75 no. 14, Pl. V; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 195; Wilhelm 1937, 69–71; Traversa 1951, 241–245, Pl. II; SB 6 9497; Den Brinker et al. 2005a, 3, 251; Pestman 1981, 60–65, Pl. VIII. el-Amir 1960, 206; Botti 1967, 164–167, Pl. XXXIX–XL; Shore et al. 1960, 277 and note 2; Zauzich 1973, 63–64; Pestman 1985, 178. Botti 1967, 65–74, Pl. XI and XII. Botti 1967, 135–144, Pl. XXX–XXXII.

el-Amir 1960, 209; el-Amir 1959 (part II), 31 note 1; Botti 1967, 153–154, Pl. XXXV; Zauzich 1972, 94–95; Shore et al. 1960, 277 and note 2; Pestman 1985, 1985, 177–180, 189. P. Turin Suppl. 6087 (101 BC) Botti 1967, 184–187, Pl. XLV. P. Turin Suppl. 6103 (111 BC) Botti 1967, 120–121, Pl. XXIV. P. Turin Suppl. 6107 (107 BC) Botti 1967, 197–200, Pl. XLVIII–XLIX. P. UC 32223 (2nd cent. BC) Thompson 1907, 33 item E1; Clarysse and Thompson 2006a. P. UC 55871 (2nd cent. BC) Clarysse and Thompson 2006a. Thompson 1907, 35–36; Petrie Museum Digital Database P. UC 55875 (153 BC) (UCL). P. UC (Ptolemaic) Thompson 1907, 36, number 92 papyrus B3; and sale document number 91 papyrus B2 A–B page 35–36. P. Vindob. Barbara 58 (P. Harrauer Clarysse 2001; Depauw 2004. 30) (183–182 or 159–158 BC) P. Vindob. Barbara dem. 58 Depauw 2004. (P. Horak 83) (183–182 or 159– 158 BC) P. Vindob. G 29843 (6th–7th cen- Mitthof 2004; Kramer and Hübner 1976, 132–133. tury AD) P. Warsaw 148.288 (119 BC) Pestman et al. 1977a, 94–101; Pestman et al. 1977b, 100–110; Pestman 1969, 147–148. P. Wien ÄS 3853 (P. Vindob. Pernigotti 1971. KM 3853) (536–526 BC)

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited P. Wien ÄS 3865 (1st–2nd century AD) P. Wien ÄS 3872 (121 BC)

P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Ptolemaic) P. Wien ÄS 3874 (149–148 BC) P. Wien ÄS 6052 (239BC) P. Wien ÄS 9479 (75 BC)

P. Wien D12003 (647 BC) P. Wien D12004 (660 BC) PSI 857 (196–195/172–171 BC)

SB I 1195 (2nd–3rd century AD) SB I 4651 (AD 250) SB I 4653 (AD 244) SB I 4654–4655 (AD 244) SB 1 5216 (1st century BC)

SB I 5538 (2nd–3rd century AD) SB I 5766 (2nd–3rd century AD) SB I 5767 (2nd–3rd century AD) SB VI 9211 (2nd century AD) SB XII 11078 = SB VI 9629 (100 BC) SB XIV 11939 (Roman Period) SPP XXII 183 (AD 138) SPP XXII 56 (2nd century AD) UPZ 106–109 (99–98 BC) UPZ 117 (86–83 BC) UPZ 118 (P. Turin 13) (83 BC) UPZ 125 (P. Leiden 0) (89 BC) UPZ 127 (see P. Hermitage 1122) UPZ 136 (see P. Wien ÄS 9479) UPZ 139 (see P. Louvre E 3264 + 2411) UPZ 140 (P. Louvre N 2464 (65 BC) unpublished) UPZ II 157 (P. Louvre N 2338 bis)

711

Herbin 1984, 107, 109; Donker van Heel 1992, 21 note 8. Wessely 1881, 1–23, Pl. I–II; Revillout 1878, 87–102; Revillout 1882–1903, 142–146; Wilcken 1935–1953, no. 168; Pestman 1993, 140–142. Vos 1993. Revillout 1897, 525; Reymond 1973, 37; Brunsch 1990, 75 note o; Martin 2009, 58 note 252. Bresciani 1969, 35–42; Pestman 1993, 31. Spiegelberg 1903, 4–6; Wilcken 1927, 620, no. 136; Sethe et al. 1920, 737–740; Reymond 1973, 29–30; Thompson 1988, 281. Malinine 1973. Malinine 1973 Anonymous 1925, 163–164; Edgar 1939, 76–77; Bottigelli 1942, 182–183; Roberts et al. 1952, 27–29; Derda 1991, 21–22; Pasek 2007, 365–366. Preisigke 1913–1915; Montserrat 1997, 38. Preisigke 1913–1915; Bagnall 2017, text 13. Preisigke 1913–1915. Preisigke 1913–1915; Bingen 1964, 163–164; Sayce 1894, 301– 304. Lefebvre 1912, 194–196, Pl. X; Preisigke 1913–1915; Hunt et al. 1932, 104; David et al. 1965, 130; Pestman 1990, 94–95; Derda 1991, 21–22; Pasek 2007, 544–545. Spiegelberg 1901a, 340; Wilcken 1908, 254; Preisigke 1913– 1915, 589. Preisigke 1913–1915. Preisigke 1913–1915. Kiessling 1958–1963. Kiessling 1958–1963; Lewis 1974, 124–125 Rupprecht 1983, 361; Montserrat 1997. Johnson 1936, 656, 659. Johnson 1936, 324, Nr. 192; Montserrat 1997, 40. Wilcken 1927, 453–472; Thompson 1988, 186–187. Wilken 1927. Wilken 1927; Youtie 1933. Wilken 1927. Wilken 1927. Wilken 1927. Wilken 1927. Wilken 1927. Wilcken 1935–1957, 15–22, No. 157.

712

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

Ostraca, Tablets and Mummy Labels O. Berlin 9699 (254–253 BC) O. Berlin 9474 (254 BC) O. Berlin 19976 (264–263 BC) O. Birbeh 2 (250 BC) O. Birbeh 3 (223 BC) O. Birbeh 4 (228? BC) O. BM EA 14026 (255 BC) O. BM EA 14083 + 17949 (252 BC) O. BM EA 20244 (231 BC) O. BM EA 25281 (249–248 or 134– 133 BC) O. BM EA 25285 (241 BC) O. BM EA 25287 (246 BC) O. BM EA 25477 (101 BC)

Mattha 1945, 112 no. 89; Muhs 2005, 88, 94, 127. Muhs 2011, 164 no. 122. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 36–37 no. XXIII. Devauchelle 1998, 142–143. Devauchelle 1998, 143–144. Devauchelle 1998, 145–146. Muhs 2011, 176–178 no. 134. Muhs 2011, 167–168 no. 125. Muhs 2011, 172–173 no. 130. Wångstedt 1980, 14, 19; Muhs 1996, 291, 298 note 15.

Muhs 2011, 171–172 no. 129. Wångstedt 1980, 14, 19; Muhs 1996, 291, 298 note 15. Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 97–100; Pestman 1993, 321–322 notes 5–7. O. BM EA 25669 (2nd cent. BC) Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 92–94; Pestman 1993, 321–322 notes 5–7. O. BM EA 25775 (158–157 BC) Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 96–97; Pestman 1993, 321–322 notes 5–7. O. BM EA 25886 (Late Ptolemaic) Wångstedt 1964, 50 no. VII; Muhs 2003, 104. O. BM EA 26206 (153–142 BC) Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 94–96; Pestman 1993, 321–322 notes 5–7. O. BM EA 29703 (Ptolemaic) Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 315. O. BM EA 5634 (Ramesside Period) Donker Van Heel 1992, 27; Cooney 2007, 261–262 note 6. O. BM EA 5677 (253 BC) Muhs 2011, 165–166 no. 123. O. BM EA 5684 (259 BC) Muhs 2011, 157–158 no. 117. O. BM EA 5685 (263 BC) Spiegelberg 1916, 120–121. O. BM EA 5686 (263 BC) Spiegelberg 1916, 120–121. O. BM EA 5687 (258 BC) Muhs 2011, 158–160 no. 118. O. BM EA 5695 (263 BC) Muhs 2011, 186–188 no. 138. O. BM EA 5697 (257 BC) Muhs 2011, 160–161 no. 119. O. BM EA 5700–5704–5706–5733– Wångstedt 1974–1975, 24–25 no. XIII. 5746–5750–5758 (254 BC) O. BM EA 5703 + 5710 + 5716 Muhs 2011, 153 no. 113. (261 BC) O. BM EA 5709 + 5717 + 5731 Wångstedt 1974–1975, 25–26 no. XIV. (263 BC) O. BM EA 5718 (260 BC) Muhs 2011, 155 no. 115. O. BM EA 5723 (285–246 BC) Muhs 2011, 174 no. 132. O. BM EA 5725 (270 BC) Muhs 2011, 150 no. 110. O. BM EA 5727 (253 BC) Muhs 2011, 167–168 no. 124. O. BM EA 5729 (252 BC) Wångstedt 1974–1975, 34–36 no. XXI. O. BM EA 5730 (260 BC) Wångstedt 1974–1975, 27–29 no. XVI. O. BM EA 5732 (255 BC) Muhs 2011, 161–162 no. 120. O. BM EA 5734 (257 BC) Wångstedt 1974–1975, 30–31 no. XVIII; Vleeming 1994, 125 note ii.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited O. BM EA 5737 (254 BC) O. BM EA 5738 (251 BC) O. BM EA 5740 (245 BC) O. BM EA 5742 (255 BC) O. BM EA 5744 (259 BC) O. BM EA 5749 (271 BC) O. BM EA 5753 (245 BC) O. BM EA 5755 (254–253 BC) O. BM EA 5756 (244 BC) O. BM EA 5766 (261 BC) O. BM EA 5767 (245 BC) O. BM EA 5772 (260 BC) O. BM EA 5773 (255 BC) O. BM EA 5775 (261 BC) O. BM EA 5776 (261 BC) O. BM EA 5778 (255 BC) O. BM EA 5779 (277–276 BC) O. BM EA 5780 (263 BC) O. BM EA 5781 (264 BC) O. BM EA 5782 (299–250 BC) O. BM EA 5783 (263 BC) O. BM EA 5784 (261 BC) O. BM EA 5785 (263 BC) O. BM EA 5787 (260 BC) O. BM EA 5788 (262 BC) O. BM EA 66383 (241? BC) O. BM EA 66402 (242 BC) O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 371 (259 BC)

713

Wångstedt 1974–1975, 31–33 no. XIX. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 34–36 no. XXII. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 39–40 no. XXV; Muhs 2011, 276 note 31. Muhs 2011, 163 no. 121. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 29–30, no. XVII. Spiegelberg 1916, 122. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 40–41 no. XXVI. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 33–34 no. XX. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 42–43 no. XXVIII. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 17–18 no. IX. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 41–42, no. XXVII. Muhs 2011, 155–157 no. 116. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 22–24 no. XII. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 15–16 no. VII. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 14–15 no. VI. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 21–22 no. XI. Spiegelberg 1916, 122. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 10–11 no. III. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 8–9 no. I. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 26–27 no. XV. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 9–10 no. II. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 16–17 no. VIII. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 12–13 no. IV. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 19–21 no. X. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 13–14 no. V. Andrews 1990, 46–47 cat. 13; Vleeming 1994, 113–119; Muhs 1996, 390; Depauw 2000, 66–67 and note 201. Muhs 2011, 180–181 no. 136. Wångstedt 1974–1975, 38–39 no. XXIV; Vleeming 1994, 125 note ii. Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 313–314.

O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 704 (116– 115 BC) O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 920 (242 BC) Mattha 1945, 112, no. 90; Nur el-Din 1979, 47; Muhs 2005, 43, 89, 94, 96, 100, 127, 132. O. Bodleian Eg. Inscr. 1116 (Ptole- Mattha 1945, 156, no. 190; Malinine 1961, 141; Devauchelle maic) 1987, 142; Muhs 2003, 105. Botti 1960, 195–196, Pl. II.3; Pestman 1967, 21. O. Botti 2 (257? BC) O. Brooklyn 37.1821 E (266 BC) Malinine 1960, 250–265. O. Brooklyn 37.1856 E (262 BC) Malinine 1961, 149 no. 5; Muhs 2005, 88, 92, 116, 152, 179. O. Brooklyn 37.1858 E (264 BC) Malinine 1961, 146–147 no. 1; Muhs 2005, 87, 91, 101–102, 116, 159. O. Brooklyn 37.1859 E (267 BC) Malinine 1961, 148 no. 3; Muhs 2005, 87, 90, 101–102, 112, 158. O. Brooklyn 37.1860 E (269– Malinine 1961, 147–148 no. 2; Muhs 2005, 90, 99, 112, 176. 268 BC) O. Brooklyn 37.1861 E (262 BC) Malinine 1961, 149–150 no. 6; Muhs 2005, 92, 116, 152. O. Brooklyn 37.1862 E (270 BC) Malinine 1961, 152 no. 10; Muhs 2005, 88, 90, 141, 154. O. Brooklyn 37.1863 E (259 BC) Malinine 1961, 151–152 no. 9; Muhs 2005, 93, 101, 116.

714

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

O. Brooklyn 37.1864 E (260 BC) O. Brooklyn 37.1865 E (266 BC) O. Brooklyn 37.1882 E + 37.1857 E (260 BC) O. Cairo 12469–12476 (255 BC) O. Cairo 12469–12479 (247 BC) O. Cairo 12469–12480 (285– 246 BC) O. Cairo 12469–12481 (244 BC) O. Cairo 12470–12477 (253 BC) O. Cairo 12470–12478 (253 BC) O. Cairo 12536–12582 (242 BC) O. Cairo inv. TR 7/11/30/1 (234 BC) O. Florence 8089 (97–96 BC) O. Geneva Privée (245 BC) O. IFAO 130 (117 BC) O. IFAO 203 (234 BC) O. IFAO 205 (120 BC) O. IFAO 207 (234 BC) O. IFAO 208 (233 BC) O. IFAO 209 (234 BC) O. IFAO 210 (234 BC) O. IFAO 211 (233 BC) O. IFAO 212 (234 BC) O. IFAO 215 (233 BC) O. IFAO 220 (234 BC) O. IFAO 221 + 202 (233 BC) O. IFAO 223 (234 BC) O. IFAO 228 (234 BC) O. IFAO 230 (234 BC) O. IFAO 231 (234 BC) O. IFAO 239 (233 BC) O. IFAO 240 (234 BC) O. IFAO 241 (234 BC) O. IFAO 250 (234 BC) O. IFAO 253 + 261 (233 BC) O. IFAO 254 (233 BC) O. IFAO 255 (110 BC) O. IFAO 260 (234 BC) O. IFAO 623 (107 BC) O. IFAO 781 (Ptolemaic) O. IFAO 81 (Ptolemaic) O. IFAO 882 (144 BC)

Malinine 1961, 151 no. 8; Muhs 2005, 93, 101, 116. Malinine 1961, 148–149 no. 4; Muhs 2005, 87, 90, 101–102, 112, 157–158. Malinine 1961, 150 no. 7; Muhs 2005, 92, 100–101, 116. Wahid El-Din 2004, 640–642, Pl. LIX. Wahid El-Din 2004, 644–645, Pl. LIX. Wahid El-Din 2004, 645–647, Pl. LX. Wahid El-Din 2004, 647–648, Pl. LX. Wahid El-Din 2004, 642–643, Pl. LIX. Wahid El-Din 2004, 643–644, Pl. LIX. Wahid El-Din 2004, 648–649, Pl. LX. El-Aguizy 1990, 135–139; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Botti 1949, 53–56; Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 309–311; Muhs 2005, 52. Devauchelle 1988, 35–37. Devauchelle 1987, 156, Pl. 24; Muhs 2003, 103–104. Malinine 1961, 159 no. 16, Pl. 3; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Menu 1982, 315–316, Pl. LVII no. 2; Zauzich 1984, 74; Devauchelle 1987, 156–157, Pl. 26; Muhs 2003, 103–104. Malinine 1961, 160 no. 17, Pl. 4; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 165 no. 26, Pl. 5; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 164–165 no. 25, Pl. 5; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 160–161 no. 18, Pl. 4; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 165–166 no. 27, Pl. 6; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 155 no. 12, Pl. 3; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 167 no. 30, Pl. 6; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 162 no. 21, Pl. 4; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 155 no. 11, Pl. 3; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 163–164 no. 23, Pl. 5; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 157 no. 13, Pl. 3; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 161 no. 19, Pl. 4; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 159 no. 16, Pl. 3; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 157–158 no. 14, Pl. 3; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 162–163 no. 22, Pl. 5; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 158 no. 15, Pl. 3; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 161–162 no. 20, Pl. 4; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 166–167 no. 29, Pl. 6; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Malinine 1961, 167–168 no. 31, Pl. 6; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Menu 1982, 314–315, Pl. LVII no. 1; Zauzich 1984, 74; Devauchelle 1987, 156–157, Pl. 24; Muhs 2003, 103–104. Malinine 1961, 166 no. 28, Pl. 6; Muhs 2003, 83–86. Menu 1982, 316–317, Pl. LVII no. 3; Zauzich 1984, 74; Devauchelle 1987, 156–157, Pl. 25; Muhs 2003, 103–104. Devauchelle 1987, 158, Pl. 25; Muhs 2003, 103–104. Devauchelle 1987, 155–156, Pl. 24; Muhs 2003, 103–104. Devauchelle 1987, 158–159, Pl. 26; Muhs 2003, 103–104.

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited O. IFAO 883 (144 BC) O. IFAO 884 (c. 144 BC) O. IFAO-Deir el-Médineh 1 and 2 (Ptolemaic) Kaplony-Heckel MSS, DO GMi 111 (242 BC) Kaplony-Heckel MSS, DO GMi 112 (285–222 BC) Kaplony-Heckel MSS, DO GMi 113 (225 BC) Kaplony-Heckel MSS, DO GMi 114 (247 BC) Kaplony-Heckel MSS, DO GMi 120 (247 BC) Kaplony-Heckel MSS, DO GMi 121 (229 BC) O. Leiden 96 [Inv. No. F 1897/6.24] (Ptolemaic) O. Leiden 288 [Inv. No. F 1897/ 6.70] (Ptolemaic) O. Louvre 74 (261 BC)

O. Louvre 92 (241? BC)

O. Louvre 93 (Ptolemaic)

O. Louvre 288 (Ptolemaic) O. Louvre 303 (255 BC) O. Louvre 314 (Ptolemaic)

OIM 19295 (271 BC) OIM 19296 (260 BC) OIM 19298 (3rd century BC) OIM 19301 (3rd century BC) OIM 19312 (266 BC) OIM 19316 (225? BC) OIM 19317 (260 BC)

715

Devauchelle 1987, 159, Pl. 25; Muhs 2003, 103–104. Devauchelle 1987, 159–160, Pl. 25; Muhs 2003, 103–104. Devauchelle 1987, 151; Muhs 2005, 144. Muhs 2011, 170–171 no. 128. Muhs 2011, 175–176 no. 133. Muhs 2011, 173–174 no. 131. Muhs 2011, 168–169 no. 126. Muhs 2011, 169–170 no. 127. Muhs 2011, 182–183 no. 137. Nur el-Din 1974, 79–81; Pestman 1992, 208 note 1. Nur el-Din 1974, 234; Den Brinker et al. 2005. Revillout 1895, 204; Mattha 1945, 111–112 no. 88; Lichtheim 1957, 19; Malinine 1961, 141; Devauchelle 1983, 153–154, Pl. XIX. Devauchelle 1983, 155–156, Pl. XXII; Andrews 1990, 46–47; Vleeming 1994, 113–119; Muhs 1996, 390; Depauw 2000, 66– 67; Muhs 2005, 43, 95–97, 100, 102, 123. Cattaui 1888, 81, Pl. 19; Revillout 1895, 194; Devauchelle 1983, 157–158, Pl. XXIII; Martin 1986, 230; Vleeming 1994, 113–119; Muhs 1996, 391; Depauw 2000, 66–67; Muhs 2005, 95–96, 98, 100, 102–103. Devauchelle 1983, 185–186, Pl. XLIII; Muhs 2005, 98– 99. Devauchelle 1983, 168, Pl. XLVII; Muhs 2005, 93, 116. Devéria 1872, 197 (X 19); Revillout 1895, 195–196; Devauchelle 1983, 168–169, Pl. XLIX; Vleeming 1994, 113–119; Muhs 1996, 391; Depauw 2000, 66–67; Muhs 2005, 43, 95–96, 98, 100, 102–103, 127, 167. Muhs 2005, 100, 111, 140–141 cat. no. 7, Pl. 3. Muhs 1996, 268–269; Muhs 2005, 89, 93, 109, 141 cat. no. 8, 152, 154, 157, 175, 179, Pl. 4. Muhs 1996, 269; Muhs 2005, 124, 142–143 cat. no. 10, Pl. 4. Muhs 2005, 113, 144 cat. no. 13, Pl. 6. Muhs 1996, 269–270; Muhs 2005, 87, 90, 99, 101, 108–109, 141, 152 cat. no. 23, 157, 175, 179, Pl. 11. Muhs 1996, 270–271; Muhs 2005, 88–89, 95, 125, 141, 154 cat. no. 26, 167, 176, Pl. 13. Muhs 1996, 274–275, 390; Depauw 2000, 66–67; Muhs 2005, 95–97, 109, 155 cat. no. 27, 157, 179, Pl. 13.

716 OIM 19319 (265 BC)

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

Muhs 1996, 271; Muhs 2005, 87–88, 90, 92, 109, 141, 152, 155, 157 cat. no. 29, 175, 179, Pl. 15. OIM 19333 (3rd century BC) Muhs 1996, 271–272; Muhs 2005, 43, 48, 89, 95, 100, 125, 127, 154, 166–167 cat. no. 40, 176, Pl. 21. OIM 19336 (239 BC) Muhs 1996, 272; Muhs 2005, 169 cat. no. 43, Pl. 22. Muhs 1996, 272–273; Muhs 2005, 87, 90, 141, 152, 157, 175 cat. OIM 19348 (267? BC) no. 54, 179, Pl. 26. OIM 19349 (234 BC) Muhs 1996, 273; Muhs 2005, 89, 94, 154, 167, 176 cat. no. 55, Pl. 27. OIM 19382 (262 BC) Muhs 1996, 273–274; Muhs 2005, 92, 141, 152, 155, 157, 175, 178–179 cat. no. 60, Pl. 29. O. Petrie Gr. 36 (236 BC) Tait 1930, 82; Muhs 1996, 291, 298 note 15; Muhs 2011, 75–76. O. Pont. Bibl. Inst. (227 BC) Vleeming 1994, 113–119 no. 53; Muhs 1996, 390; Depauw 2000, 66–67; Muhs 2005, 95–97, 100, 102, 123. Ray 1986, 87–93, Pl. 17; Devauchelle 1987, 149. O. Reeder 1 (144? BC) O. Saqqara 298 (Ptolemaic Period) Ray 2013, 291–292. O. Smithsonian Institute Unpublished. O. Strasbourg D 2037 (c. 243 BC) Spiegelberg 1912, 47, Pl. 37.3; Carter 1912, 47, Pl. 37.3; Muhs 1996, 390; Devauchelle 1998, col. 384; Depauw 2000, 66–67; Muhs 2005, 95–96, 122, 133; Muhs 2011, 178–180 no. 135. O. Strasbourg 189 (Roman Period) Vinson 1998, 176–177; Winkler 2014. O. TT32 (264 BC) Vleeming 1994a, 356–362; Kákosy et al. 1985, 15, 18; Muhs 2005, 87, 91, 100–102, 115, 133, 140. O. TT373 doc. 2367 (Last quarter Seyfried 1990, 217–218, Pl. 58; Vleeming 1994, 124–125, 3rd century BC) no. 55; Muhs 1996, 181, 195 note 17; Muhs 2005, 43, 48, 88– 89, 95, 100, 133, 167. O. TT373 doc. 2368 (232 BC) Seyfried 1990, 217–218, Pl. 58; Vleeming 1994, 122–123, no. 54; Muhs 1996, 181, 195 note 18; Muhs 2005, 43, 50, 55– 56, 89, 133, 163, 171, 174. O. TT373 doc. 2369 (227 BC) Vleeming 1994, 126–128, no. 56; Muhs 1996, 391; Depauw 2000, 66–67; Muhs 2005, 95–96, 98, 100, 133. O. Uppsala 611 (117–116 BC) Kaplony-Heckel 1963, 316. O. Uppsala 624 (Ptolemaic) Wångstedt 1962, 19–20. O. VOK 1 (152 BC or 141 BC) Cruz-Uribe and Vinson 2005/2006, 114–116; Muhs 2009, 394–395. O. VOK 2 (151 BC or 140 BC) Cruz-Uribe and Vinson 2005/2006, 116–117; Muhs 2009, 395. O. Wångstedt 69 (Ptolemaic) Wångstedt 1981, 23–24 no. XIV; Muhs 2003, 104. O. Wilkinson MS e61a (263 BC) Muhs 2011, 150–151 no. 111. O. Wilkinson MS e61b (263 BC) Muhs 2011, 151–153 no. 112. O. Wilkinson MS e61c (261 BC) Muhs 2011, 154–155 no. 114. T. Wångstedt 49 (DH W49) (253– Wångstedt 1967, 44–46 no. XVIII. 252 BC) T. BN 1892 (315–314 BC) Depauw 2000, 65 note 199, 66–67. Mummy label Heidelberg Inv. Nr. Smith 1999, 284. 1892 Mummy label Michigan Inv. Smith 1999, 284. 4535.10

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited Mummy label Vienna MT 47 New York Historical Society mummy label 572 (Roman Period)

717

Smith 1999, 284. Reich 1932, 167–170, Pl. 70c.

Stelae and Miscellaneous Inscriptions ÄS 109 Cartonnage Berlin 11746 (Ptolemaic Period) Cairo Inscription (1st century BC) Coffin of Artemidoros BM EA 21810 (2nd century AD) Coffin Edinburgh L. 224/3002 (Ptolemaic Period) Sarcophagus Cairo 31566 (26th Dynasty) Statue of the God’s-father Esminis Linköping Museum (Ptolemaic Period) Statue-stela Cairo 86125 (21st dynasty) Stela Berlin 1192 Stela BM EA 147 Stela BM EA 159 Stela BM EA 184 (PtolemaicRoman Period) Stela BM EA 188 (Roman Period) Stela BM EA 213 Stela BM EA 378 (163 BC) Stela BM EA 387 (132 BC) Stela BM EA 567 Stela BM EA 573 Stela BM EA 711 (100? BC) Stela BM EA 886 (41 BC) Stela Bologna KS 1943 (183 BC) Stela Cairo 31099 (73 BC) Stela CCG 20153 Stela CCG 20479 Stela Florence 1659/1639 (585 BC) Stela Florence 2551 (Saite Period)

Seipel 1994, 136–137, Pl. 64. Grimm, 1974, 20–22; Depauw 2004, 235 and note 26. Piehl, 1886, 36. Walker and Bierbrier 1997, 80–81 [52]. Smith 1987a, 81 note 59; Barns 1952, 69–71; Donker van Heel 1992, 21 note 8. Rowe 1938, 191. Doresse 1973, 93–97, Nº 12bis.

Habachi 1947, 278–281. Simpson 1974. Reymond 1981, 165–177. Simpson 1974. Reymond 1981, 223–230. Reymond 1981, 214–221. Simpson 1974. Munro 1973, 339; Otto 1956, 124–126. Farid 1995, 157, 260 no. 28; Quaegebeur 1974a, 69 no. 20; Munro 1973, 340, Fig. 210, Pl. 61. Simpson 1974. Simpson 1974. Budge 1909, 273 No. 1017; Munro 1973, 203; Derchain-Urtel 1989, 83; Vleeming 2004, 626. Reymond 1981, 136–150. Otto 1956, 120 no. 2; Munro 1973, 336; Bresciani 1985, 74–75, Pl. 50. Griffith 1900, 29–30 note 25; Rowe 1938, 177; Shore and Smith 1960, 291. Simpson 1974. Simpson 1974. Malinine 1975; Pernigotti 1979. Munro 1973, 329; Bosticco 1972, 26–28; Jansen-Winkeln 2014, 57.243.

718

bibliographical details of the primary sources cited

Stela H.M.V. 162 (224–223 BC) Stela H.M.V. 82 (76–75 BC) Stela Leiden V.18 (Saite Period) Stela Leiden V.3 Stela Leiden V.6 Stela Leiden V.55 Stela Leiden V.79 Stela Louvre C3 Stela Louvre C15 Stela Louvre C101 (656 BC) Stela Louvre C170 Stela SB I 4542 (142? BC) Stela SCA 149 (Saite Period) Stela Vienna 32

Reymond 1981, 87–91. Reymond 1981, 118–135. Habachi 1947, 264 n. 4; Frandsen 1992, 52 and n. 39 and 42. Simpson 1974. Simpson 1974. Lichtheim 1980, 58–59. Simpson 1974. Simpson 1974. Simpson 1974. Malinine 1975. Simpson 1974. Preisigke 1913–1915; Wagner 1970; Montserrat and Meskell 1997, 193–194. Handoussa 2009; Gohary 2009. Simpson 1974.

List of Personal Names Greek Achoapis Achomneuis Amasis Amenemes Amenneus Amenope Amenothes Amenrosis Ammonios Amortaios Annos, Anemher Apathes Apelos Arsinoe Aschlas Asklepias Asychis Aurelius Belles Bochorinis, Bocchoris Chapochonsis Chapochrates Chauris Chonompres Chonstephnachtis Chonsthotes Diasthenes Dionysios Ephonychos Eschonsis Esminis (also Sminis) Esoeris Espemetis Esptais Haonchis Harbechis

Egyptian ꜥnḫ-ḥp ꜥnḫ-mr-wr I҆ꜥḥ-ms I҆mn-m-ḥꜣ.t I҆mn-i҆w I҆mn-i҆py I҆mn-ḥtp I҆mn-rwš Ꜣmns I҆mn-i҆.i҆r-ti҆.t-s ꜥn-m-ḥr ꜥꜣ-pḥ.ṱ Ꜣpwlꜣ Ꜣrsnꜣ Ꜣsklꜣ Ꜣsklpyꜣs ꜥšꜣ-i҆ḥy Ꜣwlꜣrs Blꜣ, Br, Bl Bꜣk-(n)-rn=f ꜥnḫ=f-n-ḫnsw ꜥnḫ-pꜣ-ẖrṱ ꜥnḫ-ḥr H̱ nm-i҆b-rꜥ Ḫnsw-tꜣy=f-nḫṱ.t Ḫnsw-ḏḥwṱ Tysthns Tynsyꜣs I҆w=f-ꜥnḫ Ns-ḫnsw Ns-mn I҆s.t-wr.t Ns-pꜣ-mt, Ns-pꜣ-mtr Ns-ptḥ Ḥr-ꜥnḫ Ḥr-bi҆k

720 Harchebis Hareus Harimouthes Harkonsis Harmais (also Horemheb) Harmouis Harnouphis Haroeis Haroeris Haronnophris Harpaesis Harpebechis Harpochrates Harsemtheus Harsiesis Harthothes Haryotes Hasos Heraclides Heribastis Herieus Hermias Hetphes Hetpheubastis Horemsynis Horos, Hor Imouthes Inaros Isis Ithorous Kelol Kemois Kenouphis Kephalon Khababash Kolleuthis Kolloutes Chomaros Chomoapis Chrates

list of personal names Ḥr-ḫb Ḥr-i҆w Ḥr-i҆y-m-ḥtp Ḥr-ḫnsw Ḥr-m-ḥb Ḥr-mꜣy Ḥr-nfr Ḥ-sꜣ > Ḥr-sꜣ(?) Ḥr-wr Ḥr-wn-nfr Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t Ḥr-pꜣ-bi҆k Ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ Ḥr-sm-tꜣ.w-mḥt Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t Ḥr-ḏḥwṱ Ḥr-wḏꜣ Ḥr-sꜣ Hrglyts > Hꜣrꜣkli҆ṱs, Hrꜣḳlṱs Hry=w-bꜣst.t Hry=w Hrmyꜣs Ḥtp=s Ḥtp-bꜣst.t Ḥr-msn Ḥr I҆y-m-ḥtp I҆r.t-ḥr-r=w I҆s.t I҆r.t.w-r=w Ḳll Gm-mys Kꜣ-nfr Kpln H̱ bbš Krḏ Ḳlwḏ, Ḳrḏꜣ > Ḳlwḏ Gmrws Gm=w-ḥꜥp Grts

721

list of personal names Chronios Krysis Kydres Lobais Lolous Maelis Marephaues Maresisukos Maron Marres Matraios Melas Menon Mires Miusis Nechouthes Nechouthis Nechsouchos Nechtapis Nechtenibis Nechtharmais Nechthminis Nechthmonthes Nechthyris Nepheros Oaphres Onchasis Onnophris Osoroeris Paapis Pabechis Paches Pachnoumis Pachonsis Pachysis Paesis Pagonis Paibis Pais Pamenis

Grnys Ḳrsꜣs Ḳwtrs Lwby Rwrw, Rlw, Lwlw, Lwl Ḥmwrꜣ > Ḥmwr Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-pa-wꜣ Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-sꜣ-sbk Mrn Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ Mtry Mls Mnn Mꜣy-rs, Mꜣy-rsy Mꜣy-ḥs Nꜣ-nḫṱ=f, Nḫṱ=f Nꜣ-nḫṱ=s Nḫṱ-sbk Nḫṱ-ḥp Nḫṱ-nb=f, Nḫt.ṱ-nb=f Nḫṱ-ḥr-m-ḥb Nḫṱ-mn Nꜣ-nḫṱ-mnṱ, Nḫṱ-mnṱ Nꜣ-nḫṱ-ḥr Nꜣ-nfr-ḥr Wꜣḥ-i҆b-rꜥ ꜥnḫ=s Wn-nfr Wsi҆r-wr Pa-ḥp Pa-bi҆k Pa-h̭ e, Pa-ḫꜣ Pa-ẖnm Pa-ḫnsw Pꜣ-i҆gš, Pꜣ-i҆kš, P-i҆kš Pa-i҆s.t, Pa-n-i҆s.t, P-n-i҆s.t, P-i҆s.t Pa-wn Pa-hb Pa-ḥy Pa-mn

722 Pamethis Pamonthes Panas Panitis Panoubis Panouphis Paoros Paoueris Paous Parates Pasas Pasemios Pasis Patapis Patemis Pateris Pathotes Pathres Patis Patous Patseous Paues Pausis Pchoilis Pchorchonsis Pe Pechites Pelaias Pemaus Pemsais Pestaus Pesyris Petaus Peteamounis Petearmotes Petearoeris Peteharpochrates Petearpres Petechons Peteimouthes

list of personal names Pa-mtr, Pa-mti҆ Pa-mnṱ, Pa-mnt Pa-nꜣ Pa-ny.t Pa-i҆np(w) Pa-nfr Pꜣ-ḥr Pa-wrṱ.w, Pꜣ-wr-ty.w > Pa-wr Pa-ḥr Pa-rṱ Pa-šꜣ Pa-ḏmꜣ Pa-si҆y, P-si҆y, Pa-sy Pꜣ-ty-ḥꜥpy Pa-tm Pa-tr, Pa-tr.ṱ Pa-ḏḥwṱ Pꜣ-ḥtr Pa-ti҆.t Pa-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-tꜣ-s.t-ꜥꜣ.t Pa-wꜣ, P-wꜣ Pa-wsr Pꜣ-gyl, Pꜣ-gyr Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw, Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pe Pꜣ-ḫṱ Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ, Pꜣy=y-mr-i҆ḥ Pꜣ-i҆my > Pꜣ-my Pꜣ-msḥ Pꜣ-ꜣstw Pꜣ-i҆šwr Pꜣy-tw=w Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-mtn Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-wr Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw Pꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp

723

list of personal names Petemenope Petemestous Peteneneteris Petenephotes Petenet Petenoubis Petesemtheus Petesis Petesouchos Petetumis Peteuris Peteutemis Petobastis Petophois Petosiris Petous Phchoiphis Paibis Philon Phimenis Phthomouthes Pichos Piminis Pinas Pinuris Pipes Piuris Plous Pmois Pnepheros Polianthes Polydeukes Pouoris Psammetichos Psammetichos-dierneheh Psansnos Psemminis Psen[…] Psenaes Psenamounis

Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆p, Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-ty-nꜣ-nṯr.w Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Pꜣ-ty-ny.t Pꜣ-ty-i҆np Pꜣ-ty-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-ty-i҆s.t Pꜣ-ty-sbk Pꜣ-ty-i҆tm Pꜣ-ty-ḥr Pꜣ-ty-nfr-tm Pꜣ-ty-bꜣst.t Pꜣ-ty-wp(-wꜣw.t) Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r Pꜣ-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-kp Pꜣ-hb, Pa-hb Phyln Ḥp-mn Pꜣy-fdw-mnṱ Pꜣy-kꜣ, Pꜣ-kꜣ > Pꜣy-kꜣ Pꜣy-mn Pꜣy-nꜣ Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr Pꜣy-pꜥ Pꜣy-ḥr Pꜣ-lwꜣ Pꜣ-mꜣy Pꜣ-nfr-ḥr Pwlꜣnths Pylḳrts Pꜣ-whr Pꜣ-s-n-mtk, Pꜣ-s-mṱk, Pꜣ-s-n-mṯk Psmṯk-ty-r-nḥḥ Pꜣ-sn-sn.w Pꜣ-šr-mn Pꜣ-šr-[…] Pꜣ-šr-i҆ḥy Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn

724 Psenasychis Psenchonsis Psenenteris Psennesis Psenoros Psenosiris Psenptais Psentaes Psenthotes Psenthotres Psyllos Psyllos Ptolemy, Ptolomaios Rempnophris Sachperis Samous Sarapion Sarpochratis Satyros Searthos Semenouphis Senmouthis Senpsais Semtheus Sen[…] Senamounis Senarbekis Senaroeris Senchnoumis Senchonsis Senimouthes Senminis Sennesis Senpoeris Senthotes Senuris Sesoosis Siepmous Smithis Snachomneus

list of personal names Pꜣ-šr-ꜥšꜣ-i҆h̭y Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t, Pꜣ-šr-i҆s.t Pꜣ-šr-ḥr Pꜣ-šr-wsi҆r Pꜣ-šr-n-ptḥ Pꜣ-šr-tꜣ-i҆ḥ.t Pꜣ-šr-ḏḥwṱ Pꜣ-šr-ḏḥwṱ-rs Psyls Pslꜣws Ptlwmys, Ptrwmys, Ptlwmi҆ꜣs Rnp.t-nfr.t Šꜥ-ḫpry, Šꜥ-ḫpry.t Ṯ-n.i҆m=w Srpyꜣn Ns-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ Stwlys, Stwrs Ṯ-ḥr-pꜣ-tꜣ Šmꜥ-nfr Tꜣ-šr.t-mw.t Tꜣ-šr.t-n-pꜣ-šy Smꜣ-tꜣ.wy Tꜣ-šr.t-[…] Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr-pꜣ-bi҆k Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr-wr Tꜣ-šr.t-ẖnm Tꜣ-šr.t-ḫnsw Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆y-m-ḥtp Tꜣ-šr.t-mn Tꜣ-šr.t-(n)-i҆s.t Tꜣ-šr.t-pꜣ-wr Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr S-wsr Sy-pꜣ-mwt Šmṱy Ns-nꜣy=w-ḫmnw, Ns-nꜣ.w-ḫmn-i҆w,

725

list of personal names Snechetis Sochonopis Sopatros Sosichrates Soulis (var. Esouris) Spotous Stoetis Tabastis Tabekis Tabis Taes Taesis Taimouthes Taimouthes Talous Tamares Tamestasytmis Tamin Tamounis Taneus Taneus Tanouphis Tanous Taous Tapsais Taratis Tasatmis Tasis Tasos Tasouchis Tateathuris Tateathyris Tates Tathotes Taues Taunchis Tauris Tchalibis Tchoilis Teebes

Ns-nꜣ-ḫṱ.w Sbk-ḥꜥpy Swptrws Swsygrts I҆šwr Ns-pꜣy=w-tꜣ.wy Sṱꜣ=w-wty, Stꜣ.ṱ=w-tꜣ-wt Ta-bꜣst.t Ta-bi҆k Ta-bꜣ Ta-ḥꜣ.t Ta-wꜣ-n-i҆s.t, Ta-i҆s.t Tꜣ-i҆y-m-ḥtp Ta-i҆y-m-ḥtp Ta-lw > Ta-ꜥlw.t Ta-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ Ta-msḏr-stm Ta-mn Ta-i҆mn Tꜣ-ḥn > Ta-ḥn=w Tꜣy-ḥn=w, Tꜣy=f-ḥn > Ta-ḥn=w Ta-nfr Ta-nwꜣ Tꜣy-ꜥw > Ta-wꜥ Tꜣ-pꜣ-šꜣy Ta-rṱ.t, Ta-rṱ Ta-ḏtm Ta-si҆y Ta-swr Ta-sbk Ta-tw-ḥ.t-ḥr Ta-tw-ḥ.t-ḥr Ta-ty Ta-ḏḥwṱ Ta-wꜣ Ta-ꜥnḫ Tꜣy-ḥr Tꜣ-gr-hb Tꜣ-gyr Ḏ-ḥr-bs

726

list of personal names

Teephibis Teephthaphonichos Teos Terous Terpos Tesenouphis Teteharpochrates Teteimouthes Tetenephotes Tetosiris Teuoris Thathas Thatres Thibis Thoteous Thotes Thotmosis (also Djehutymose) Thotomous Thotorches Thotortaios Thotsytmis, Thotsymthmis Timinis Timounis Timouthis Tiuris Tlolous Tnapheros Totoes Touaxis Uaxis (from Touaxis = Tꜣ-wgš.t) Zmanres Zoilos

Ḏ-ḥr-pꜣ-hb Ḏ-ptḥ-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ Ḏ-ḥr Tꜣy-r-r=w Tꜣ-rpꜣ.t Tš-nfr Tꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ Tꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp Tꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Tꜣ-ty-wsi҆r Tꜣ-whr.t, Tꜣ-whr Tꜣ-ḥꜣḏ Tꜣ-ḥtr.t Ta-hb Ḏḥwṱ-i҆w Ḏḥwṱ Ḏḥwty-ms Ḏḥwṱ-mꜣꜥ Ḏḥwṱ-i҆r-rḫ-s Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s Ḏḥwṱ-stm Ti҆-mn, T-mn Tꜣy-i҆mn Tꜣy-mw.t Tꜣy-i҆s.t Tꜣ-rlw Tꜣ-nfr-ḥr Twt Tꜣ-wgš Wgš Smn-rꜥ, Wsr-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ Sylꜣ[w]s

Romanised name Abunefer Akhoris Amenhotep Amunranesutjereu Anchefenamun Anchefenrahorakhty

Egyptian Ꜣbw-nfr Hkr I҆mn-ḥtp I҆mn-rꜥ-nsw-nṯr.w ꜥnḫ=f-n-i҆mn ꜥnḫ-f-n-rꜥ-ḥr-ꜣḫty

727

list of personal names Anchet Anchsematawi Anchtifi Ankh-hor, Ankhhor Aras Ba Basa Bastet Benirutehties Beniuutehties Chaauesiset Chaintief Cheperkara Cherbes Cheri Chonommen Chonompares Chonomumes Chonsumaa Djebastetiuefankh Djechi Djedjehutiuefankh Djehormen Djehorpahapi Djehorsechmet Djekara Eba G[…]ybr Hapimeneh Hapis Har-tj[…] Harwa Heh Hehelibua Hemek Herchi Heremdjertief Hergemefbakef Heri Herib

ꜥnḫ.t ꜥnḫ-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy ꜥnḫ.t.f ꜥnḫ-ḥr ꜥrꜣs Bꜥ(?) Bꜣsꜣ Bꜣst.t Bw-i҆r=w-th-ty-s Bn-i҆w=w-th.ṱ=s Ḫꜣꜥ=w-s-i҆s.t Ḫꜥ-i҆n.ṱ=f Ḫpr-kꜣ-rꜥ H̱ rbs H̱ ry(?) H̱ nm-mn H̱ nm-pꜣ-rs H̱ nmw-ms Ḫnsw-˹mꜣꜥ˺ Ḏ-bꜣst.t-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ Ḏ-ḫy Ḏ-ḏḥwṱ-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ Ḏ-ḥr-mn Ḏ-ḥr-pꜣ-ḥꜥp Ḏ-ḥr-sḫm.t Ḏ-kꜣ-rꜥ Ebꜣ G[…] ybr Ḥp-mnḥ Ḥp Ḥr-ṯ-[…] Ḥrwꜣ, Ḥlw, Ḥlꜣw, Ḥlwꜣ Ḥḥ ˹Ḥḥlybwꜣ˺ Ḥmḳ Ḥr-ḫy Ḥr-m-ḏr.ṱ=f Ḥr-gm=f-bꜣk=f Ḥry Ḥr-i҆b

728 Heriesenef Herirm Herpa[…] Hetephapis Hetephorakhty Hewen Iahweben Iben Ipy Ire(t)djel[…] Irmutpanefer Iuefaa Iuefamun Iuefau Ka Kedjadja Ken Gesa Kesimua Maimehti Manmin Marebes Meref-nebef Meri Meriesamun Merti Mesuiset Montuemhat Mutemwia Mutirdis Mutmehit Namenechiset Naneferkaptah Nati Nebettahy Neb-wenen, Neb-wenenef Nechetpara Nesamunhetep Nesbanebdjed Nesbentit

list of personal names Ḥry=s-n=f Hryrm Ḥr-pꜣ-[…] Ḥtp-ḥp Ḥtp-ḥr-ꜣḫt Ḥwn I҆ꜥḥ-wbn I҆bn I҆py I҆r.(t)-ḏl-[…] I҆r-mw.t-pꜣ-nfr I҆w=f-ꜥꜣ I҆w=f-i҆mn I҆w=f-ꜥw Kꜣ K-ḏꜣḏꜣ, G-ḏꜣḏꜣ Ḳn Gsꜣ Ksymwꜣ Mꜣy-mḥṱ Mn-mn Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-bs Mr=f-nb=f Mry Mry-s-i҆mn Mrṱ Ms-i҆s.t > Ms=w-i҆s.t Mnṱ-m-ḥꜣ.t Mw.t-m-wyꜣ Mw.t-i҆.i҆r-ty=s Mw.t-mḥyt Nꜣ-mnḫ-i҆s.t Nꜣ-nfr-kꜣ-ptḥ Nꜣṱ Nb.t-tꜣ-ḥy Nb-wnn, Nb-wnn=f Nḫt-pꜣ-rꜥ Ns-i҆mn-ḥtp Ns-bꜣ-nb-ḏd Ns-bntyt

729

list of personal names Nesnehemenu Nespachy Nespertet Nes-shutefnut Nestenitptah Pa[…] Paardjeba Pabastet Pabya Pachaas Pachelhareus Pachemen Padjuh Pahe Paheber Pahemnetjertep Pahu Paibeh Paiga Paiu Pamesha Panebweres Papa Paremetjrenenet Pashai Pashermeneru Pashemetere Pashutaiefnechety Pashuty Patipasegena Patipepet Patisesu Patiwes Pawe Pawia Pawedjametues Payweten Pepakher Pete[…] Peteharresenis

Ns-nḥm-n=w Ns-pꜣ-ḫy Ns-pr-tt, Ns-pr-dd Ns-šw-tfn.t Ns-tny.t-ptḥ Pꜣ-[…] Pꜣ-r-ḏbꜣ(?) Pa-bꜣst.t Pa-byꜣ Pꜣ-ḫꜣꜥ=s Pꜣ-ẖl-ḥr-i҆w Pa-h̭ e-mn Pꜣ-ḏwh Pa-ḥe Pa-hbr Pꜣ-ḥm-nṯr-tp Pa-ḥw Pꜣ-i҆bḥ Pꜣ-i҆.i҆r-gꜣ > Pꜣ-i҆.gꜣ Pa-yw Pꜣ-mšꜥ Pꜣ-nb-wrs Pꜥpꜥ Pꜣ-rmṯ-rnn.t Pꜣ-šꜣy Pꜣ-šr-mnrw Pꜣ-š-mtre Pꜣ-šw-tꜣy=f-nḫṱ Pꜣ-šwṱ Pꜣ-ty-pꜣ-sgnꜣ(?) Pa-ty-[p]pt Pꜣ-ty-ssw ˹Pꜣ-ty-ws,˺ Pꜣ-tw (?) Pa-w Pa-wi҆ꜣ Pꜣ-wḏꜣ-mtw=s Pꜣy-wtn P-pꜣ-ẖr Pꜣ-ty-[…] Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-rsn

730 Peteny Peseti Pn-[…] Psenhapi Pseniah Psentaneutos Ptah-hotep Ptahmaacheru Ptahpanetjeraa Ptahshepses Sensa Sepeln Sesua Setatiretbint Shebet[…] Shemaa Sheti Shu Sobekhotep Ta[…] Ta[…] Taachitar[…] Tagereb Tahekeret Taheni Tai-[…] Taimen Tainetem Taipa Tairetereru Taishebti Taishur Taiui-ii Taiui-iu Taketem Taluau Talut Tamehi Tameseh Taremetjet[…]

list of personal names P-tny Psṱ Pn-[…] Pꜣ-šr-ḥꜥpy Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆ꜥḥ Pꜣ-šr-ta-ḥn=w Ptḥ-ḥtp Ptḥ-mꜣꜥ-ḫrw Ptḥ-pꜣ-nṯr-ꜥꜣ Ptḥ-špss Snsꜣ Spln Sswꜣ Stꜣ.ṱ-tꜣ-i҆r.t-bn.(t) Šbt[…] Š-mꜣꜥ Šty Šw Sbk-ḥtp Tꜣ-[…] Ta[…] Tꜣ-ꜥẖy.t-ꜣr[…] Ta-grb Tꜣ-hkr.t Tꜣ-ḥny Tꜣy-[…] Tꜣy-mn Tꜣy-ntm Tꜣy-pꜥ Ta-i҆r.t-r-r=w Tꜣy-šb.ṱ Tꜣ-i҆šwr Ta-i҆w=y-i҆y Ta-i҆w=y-i҆w Ta-ktm Ta-lw-ꜥw Ta-lwt Ta-mh̭ y Tꜣ-msḥ Tꜣ-rmṯ.t-[…]

731

list of personal names Tarua Tasenneferhetep Tasentenher Tasentsent Tashebura Tashertmehi Tateben Tateitum Tateletem Tau[…] Tawatenchemet Tefnu(t) Teteipwer Tiesmonti Tjaibastet Tjaiharpchypsis Tjaihekaenimu Tjaiutaiudeni(t) Tuamunweten Tuefhapi Turmen Wenhor Wenmen Wepimen

Tꜣ-rwꜣ Tꜣ-sn-nfr-ḥtp Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr Tꜣ-sn.t-2.t Tꜣ-šbwrꜣ Tꜣ-šr.t-mḥy Ta-tbn Ta-tꜣ-i҆tm Ta-tꜣ-ltm Tꜣ-w[…] Tꜣ-wꜥ.t-n-3.t Tfny Tꜣ-ty-i҆p-wr Ty-s-mnṱ Ṯ-bꜣst.t Ṯ-ḥr-pꜣ-ḫpš Ṯ-ḥkꜣ-n.i҆m=w Ṯꜣy=w-tꜣy=w-dny(.t) Tw-i҆mn-wtn Tw=f-ḥꜥpy Twrmn Wn-ḥr Wn-mn ˹Wpy˺-mn

Egyptian ꜣ Ꜣwlꜣrs Ꜣbw-nfr Ꜣpwlꜣ Ꜣmns Ꜣrsnꜣ Ꜣsklꜣ Ꜣsklpyꜣs

Greek

i҆ I҆ꜥḥ-wbn I҆ꜥḥ-ms I҆y-m-ḥtp I҆w=f-ꜥꜣ

Romanised name

Aurelius Abunefer Apelos Ammonios Arsinoe Aschlas Asklepias

Iahweben Amasis Imouthes Iuefaa

732 I҆w=f-ꜥw I҆w=f-ꜥnḫ I҆w=f-i҆mn I҆by I҆bn I҆py I҆mn-ḥtp I҆mn-i҆.i҆r-ti҆.t-s I҆mn-i҆py I҆mn-i҆w I҆mn-m-ḥꜣ.t I҆mn-rꜥ-nsw-nṯr.w I҆mn-rwš I҆r-mw.t-pꜣ-nfr I҆r.t.w-r=w I҆r.t-ḥr-r=w I҆r.(t)-ḏl-[…] I҆s.t I҆s.t-wr.t I҆šwr ꜥ ꜥꜣ-pḥ.ṱ ꜥn-m-ḥr ꜥnḫ.t ꜥnḫ.t.f ꜥnḫ=f-n-i҆mn ꜥnḫ-f-n-rꜥ-ḥr-ꜣḫty ꜥnḫ=f-n-ḫnsw ꜥnḫ-pꜣ-ẖrṱ ꜥnḫ-mr-wr ꜥnḫ-ḥp ꜥnḫ-ḥr ꜥnḫ=s ꜥnḫ-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy ꜥrꜣs ꜥšꜣ-i҆ḥy

list of personal names Iuefau Ephonychos Iuefamun Iby Iben Ipy Amenothes, Amenophis Amenhotep Amortaios Amenope Amenneus Amenemes Amunranesutjereu Amenrosis Irmutpanefer Ithorous Inaros Ire(t)djel[…] Isis Esoeris Soulis (var. Esouris)

Apathes Annos

Chapochonsis Chapochrates Achomneuis Achoapis Chauris Anchosis

Anemher Anchet Anchtifi Anchefenamun Anchefenrahorakhty

Ankh-hor, Ankhhor Anchsematawi Aras

Asychis

733

list of personal names e Ebꜣ w Wꜣḥ-i҆b-rꜥ ˹Wpy˺-mn Wn-mn Wn-nfr Wn-ḥr Wsi҆r-wr Wsr-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ, Smn-rꜥ Wgš

b Bꜣk-(n)-rn=f Bꜥ(?) Bꜣsꜣ Bꜣst.t Blꜣ, Br, Bl Bn-i҆w=w-th.ṱ=s Bw-i҆r=w-th-ty-s P Pꜣ-[…] Pꜣ-ꜣstw Pꜣ-i҆.i҆r-gꜣ > Pꜣ-i҆.gꜣ Pꜣ-i҆wi҆w-ḥr Pꜣ-i҆bḥ Pꜣ-i҆my > Pꜣ-my Pꜣ-i҆šwr Pꜣ-i҆gš, Pꜣ-i҆kš, P-i҆kš Pꜣ-whr Pꜣ-wḏꜣ-mtw=s Pꜣ-mꜣy Pꜣ-mr-i҆ḥ, Pꜣy=y-mr-i҆ḥ Pꜣ-msḥ Pꜣ-mšꜥ Pꜣ-nb-wrs Pꜣ-nfr-ḥr

Eba

Oaphres Wepimen Wenmen Onnophris Wenhor Osoroeris Zmanres Uaxis (from Touaxis=Tꜣwgš.t)

Bochorinis, Bocchoris Ba Basa Bastet Belles Beniuutehties Buirutehties

Pa[…] Pestaus Paiga Pinuris Paibeh Pemaus Pesyris Pachysis Pouoris Pawedjametues Pmois Pelaias Pemsais Pamesha Panebweres Pnepheros

734 Pꜣ-r-ḏbꜣ(?) Pꜣ-rmṯ-rnn.t Pꜣ-lwꜣ Pꜣ-hb, Pa-hb Pꜣ-ḥm-nṯr-tp Pꜣ-ḥr Pꜣ-ḥtr Pꜣ-ḫꜣꜥ=s Pꜣ-ḫṱ Pꜣ-ẖl-ḥr-i҆w Pꜣ-ẖr-ḫnsw, Pꜣ-ẖl-ḫnsw Pꜣ-s-n-mtk, Pꜣ-s-mṱk, Pꜣ-s-n-mṯk Pꜣ-sn-sn.w Pꜣ-šꜣy Pꜣ-šy Pꜣ-šw-tꜣy=f-nḫṱ Pꜣ-šwṱ Pꜣ-šr-[…] Pꜣ-šr-i҆mn Pꜣ-šr-i҆ḥy Pꜣ-šr-ꜥšꜣ-i҆h̭y Pꜣ-šr-wsi҆r Pꜣ-š-mtre Pꜣ-šr-mn Pꜣ-šr-mnrw Pꜣ-šr-nꜣ-nṯr.w Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆ꜥḥ Pꜣ-šr-n-i҆s.t, Pꜣ-šr-i҆s.t Pꜣ-šr-n-pꜣ-mꜣy Pꜣ-šr-n-ptḥ Pꜣ-šr-ḥꜥpy Pꜣ-šr-ḥr Pꜣ-šr-ḫnsw Pꜣ-šr-tꜣ-i҆ḥ.t Pꜣ-šr-ta-ḥn=w Pꜣ-šr-ḏḥwṱ Pꜣ-šr-ḏḥwṱ-rs Pꜣ-kp Pꜣ-gyl, Pꜣ-gyr Pꜣ-tꜣ.wy

list of personal names Paardjeba Paremetjrenenet Plous Paibis Pahemnetjertep Paoros Pathres Pachaas Pechites Pachelhareus Pchorchonsis Psammetichos Psansnos Pashai Psais Pashutaiefnechety Pashuty Psen-[…] Psenamounis Psenaes Psenasychis Psenosiris Pashemetere Psemminis Pashermeneru Psenenteris Pseniah Psennesis Psenephmous Psenptais Psenhapi Psenoros Psenchonsis Psentaes Psentaneutos Psenthotes Psenthotres Phchoiphis Pchoilis Petous

735

list of personal names Pꜣ-tꜣ-s.t-ꜥꜣ.t Pꜣ-ty-[…] Pꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆p, Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-i҆py Pꜣ-ty-i҆mn-nsw-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-ty-i҆np Pꜣ-ty-i҆s.t Pꜣ-ty-i҆tm Pꜣ-ty-bꜣst.t Pꜣ-ty-wp(-wꜣw.t) ˹Pꜣ-ty-ws,˺ Pꜣ-tw (?) Pꜣ-ty-wsi҆r Pꜣ-ty-nꜣ-nṯr.w Pꜣ-ty-ny.t Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥr Pꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Pꜣ-ty-nfr-tm Pꜣ-ty-ḥꜥpy Pꜣ-ty-ḥr Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-wr Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-rꜥ Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-mtn Pꜣ-ty-ḥr-rsn Pꜣ-ty-pꜣ-sgnꜣ(?) Pꜣ-ty-smꜣ-tꜣ.wy Pꜣ-ty-ḫnsw Pꜣ-ty-sbk Pꜣ-ty-ssw Pꜣ-ḏwh Pꜣy-wtn Pꜣy-fdw-mnṱ Pꜣy-pꜥ Pꜣy-mn Pꜣy-nꜣ Pꜣy-ḥr Pꜣy-kꜣ, Pꜣ-kꜣ > Pꜣy-kꜣ Pꜣy-tw=w Pꜥpꜥ

Patseous Pete[…] Peteimouthes Peteamounis Petemenope Petemestous Petenoubis Petesis Petetumis Petobastis Petophois Patiwes Petosiris Peteneneteris Petenet Petenepheros Petenephotes Peteutemis Patapis Peteuris Petearoeris Petearpres Petearpochrates Petearmotes Peteharresenis Patipasegena Petesemtheus Petechons Petesouchos Patisesu Padjuh Payweten Phthomouthes Pipes Piminis Pinas Piuris Pichos Petaus Papa

736 P-pꜣ-ẖr P-tny Pa-i҆np(w) Pa-i҆s.t, Pa-n-i҆s.t, P-n-i҆s.t, P-i҆s.t Pa-yw Pa-w Pa-wꜣ, P-wꜣ Pa-wi҆ꜣ Pa-wn Pa-wrṱ.w, Pꜣ-wr-ty.w > Pa-wr Pa-wsr Pa-bꜣst.t Pa-bi҆k Pa-byꜣ Pa-mn Pa-mnṱ, Pa-mnt Pa-mtr, Pa-mti҆ Pa-nꜣ Pa-ny.t Pa-nfr Pa-ry.t Pa-rṱ Pa-hb Pa-hbr Pa-ḥy, Pa-ḥe Pa-ḥw Pa-ḥp Pa-ḥr Pa-ḫnsw Pa-h̭ e, Pa-ḫꜣ Pa-h̭ e-mn Pa-ẖnm Pa-si҆y, P-si҆y, Pa-sy, (Pa)-syꜣ Pa-šꜣ Pa-tꜣ.wy Pa-ti҆.t Pa-ty-[p]pt Pa-tm Pa-tr, Pa-tr.ṱ Pa-ḏmꜣ

list of personal names Pepakher Peteny Panoubis Paesis Paiu Pawe Paues Pawia Pagonis Paoueris Pausis Pabastet Pabechis Pabya Pamenis Pamonthes Pamethis Panas Panitis Panouphis Paris Parates Paibis Paheber Pais Pahu Paapis Paous Pachonsis Paches Pachemen Pachnoumis Pasis Pasas Patous Patis Patipepet Patemis Pateris Pasemios

737

list of personal names Pa-ḏḥwṱ Pe Pylḳrts Pwlꜣnths Pn-[…] Phyln Psyls Pslꜣws Psmṯk-ty-r-nḥḥ Psṱ Ptlwmys, Ptrwmys, Ptlwmi҆ꜣs Ptḥ-pꜣ-nṯr-ꜥꜣ Ptḥ-mꜣꜥ-ḫrw Ptḥ-ḥtp Ptḥ-špss m Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-bs Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-pa-wꜣ Mꜣꜥ-rꜥ-sꜣ-sbk Mꜣy-mḥṱ Mꜣy-ḥs Mꜣy-rs, Mꜣy-rsy Mw.t-i҆.i҆r-ty=s Mw.t-m-wyꜣ Mw.t-mḥyt Mn-mn Mnn Mnṱ-m-ḥꜣ.t Mr=f-nb=f Mry Mry-s-i҆mn Mrn Mrṱ Mls Ms-i҆s.t > Ms=w-i҆s.t Mtry

Pathotes Pe Polydeukes Polianthes Pn-[…] Philon Psyllos Psyllos Psammetichostierneheh Peseti Ptolemy, Ptolomaios Ptahpanetjeraa Ptahmaacheru Ptah-hotep Ptahshepses

Marres Marebes Marephaues Maresisukos Maimehti Miusis Mires Mutirdis Mutemwia Mutmehit Manmin Menon Montuemhat Meref-nebef Meri Meriesamun Maron Merti Melas Mesuiset Matraios

738 n Nꜣ-mnḫ-i҆s.t Nꜣ-nfr-ḥr Nꜣ-nfr-kꜣ-ptḥ Nꜣ-nḫṱ=f, Nḫṱ=f Nꜣ-nḫṱ=s Nꜣ-nḫṱ-ḥr Nꜣ-nḫṱ-mnṱ, Nḫṱ-mnṱ Nꜣṱ Nb.t-tꜣ-ḥy Nb-wnn, Nb-wnn=f Nḫt-pꜣ-rꜥ Nḫṱ-ḥp Nḫṱ-ḥr-m-ḥb Nḫṱ-mn Nḫṱ-nb=f, Nḫt.ṱ-nb=f Nḫṱ-sbk Ns-i҆mn-ḥtp Ns-bꜣ-nb-ḏd Ns-bntyt Ns-pꜣ-ḫy Ns-pꜣ-mt, Ns-pꜣ-mtr Ns-pꜣy=w-tꜣ.wy Ns-pr-tt, Ns-pr-dd Ns-ptḥ Ns-mn Ns-nꜣ-ḫṱ.w Ns-nꜣy=w-ḫmnw, Ns-nꜣ.w-ḫmni҆w, Ns-nꜣ.w-ẖnm.i҆w Ns-nḥm-n=w Ns-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ Ns-ḫnsw Ns-šw-tfn.t Ns-tny.t-ptḥ r Rpw Rnp.t-nfr.t Rwrw, Rlw, Lwlw, Lwl

list of personal names

Namenechiset Nepheros Naneferkaptah Nechouthes Nechouthis Nechthyris Nechthmonthes Nati Nebettahy Nebwenen, Nebwenenef Nechetpara Nechtapis Nechtharmais Nechthminis Nechtenibis Nechsouchos Nesamunhetep Nesbanebdjed Nesbentit Nespachy Espemetis Spotous Nespertet Esptais Esminis, Sminis Snechetis Snachomneus Nesnehemenu Sarpochratis Eschonsis Nes-shutefnut Nestenitptah

Repu Rempnophris Lolous

739

list of personal names l Lwby Lwlw, Lwl, Rwrw, Rlw h Hryrm Hry=w/Hry.w Hry=w-bꜣst.t Hrmyꜣs Hrglyts > Hꜣrꜣkli҆ṱs, Hrꜣḳlṱs Hkr ḥ Ḥꜣ=f-ḫnsw Ḥwn Ḥp Ḥp-mn Ḥp-mnḥ Ḥmwrꜣ > Ḥmwr/Ḥmwl Ḥmḳ Ḥr Ḥr-ꜥnḫ Ḥr-i҆.i҆r-ꜥw Ḥr-i҆y-m-ḥtp Ḥr-i҆w Ḥr-i҆b Ḥr-wn-nfr Ḥr-wr Ḥr-wḏꜣ Ḥr-bi҆k Ḥr-pꜣ-[…] Ḥr-pꜣ-bi҆k Ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ Ḥr-pa-i҆s.t Ḥr-mꜣy Ḥr-m-ḥb Ḥr-msn Ḥr-m-ḏr.ṱ=f Ḥr-nfr Ḥr-ḫy

Lobais Lolous

Herirm Herieus Heribastis Hermias Heraclides Akhoris

Haefchonsu Hewen Hapis Phimenis Hapimeneh Maelis Hemek Horos, Hor Haonchis Heriraou Harimouthes Hareus Herib Haronnophris Haroeris Haryotes Harbechis Herpa[…] Harpebechis Harpochrates Harpaesis Harmouis Harmais Horemsynis

Horemheb Heremdjertief

Harnouphis Herchi

740 Ḥr-ḫb Ḥr-ḫnsw Ḥr-sꜣ Ḥ-sꜣ > Ḥr-sꜣ(?) Ḥr-sꜣ-i҆s.t Ḥr-sm-tꜣ.w-mḥt Ḥr-gm=f-bꜣk=f Ḥr-ṯ-[…] Ḥr-ḏḥwṱ Ḥry Ḥry=s-n=f Ḥrwꜣ, Ḥꜣrwꜣ, Ḥlw, Ḥlꜣw, Ḥlwꜣ Ḥḥ ˹Ḥḥlybwꜣ˺ Ḥtp-bꜣst.t Ḥtp-ḥp Ḥtp-ḥr-ꜣḫt Ḥtp=s ḫ Ḫꜣꜥ=w-s-i҆s.t Ḫꜥ-i҆n.ṱ=f Ḫnsw-˹mꜣꜥ˺ Ḫnsw-ḏḥwṱ Ḫnsw-tꜣy=f-nḫṱ.t Ḫpr-kꜣ-rꜥ ẖ H̱ bbš H̱ nm-i҆b-rꜥ H̱ nm-pꜣ-rs H̱ nm-mn H̱ nmw-ms H̱ rbs H̱ ry(?) s Syꜣ > (Pa)-sy Sy-pꜣ-mwt Sylꜣ[w]s

list of personal names Harchebis Harkonsis Hasos Haroeis Harsiesis Harsemtheus Hergemefbakef Har-tj[…] Harthothes Heri Heriesenef Harwa Heh ˹Hehelibua˺ Hetpheubastis Hetephapis Hetephorakhty Hetphes

Chaauesiset Chaintief Chonsumaa Chonsthotes Chonstephnachtis Cheperkara

Khababash Chonompres Chonompares Chonommen Chonomumes Cherbes Cheri

Pasis Siepmous Siephmous Zoilos

741

list of personal names Swptrws Swsygrts S-wsr, S-s-wsr.t Sbk-ḥꜥpy Sbk-ḥtp Spln Smꜣ-tꜣ.wy Smn-rꜥ, Wsr-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ Snsꜣ Srpyꜣn Sswꜣ Sṱꜣ=w-wty, Stꜣ.ṱ=w-tꜣ-wt Stꜣ.ṱ-tꜣ-i҆r.t-bn.(t) Stwlys, Stwrs š Šꜥ-ḫpry, Šꜥ-ḫpry.t Šw Šbt[…] Š-mꜣꜥ Šmꜥ-nfr Šmst Šmṱy Šty ḳ Ḳwtrs Ḳll Ḳlwḏ, Ḳrḏꜣ > Ḳlwḏ Ḳn Ḳrsꜣs k Kꜣ Kꜣ-nfr Kpln Krḏ Ksymwꜣ K-ḏꜣḏꜣ, G-ḏꜣḏꜣ

Sopatros Sosichrates Sesoosis Sochonopis Sobekhotep Sepeln Semtheus Zmanres Sensa Sarapion Sesua Stoetis Setatiretbint Satyros

Sachperis Shu Shebet[…] Shemaa Semenouphis Shemeset Smithis Sheti

Kydres Kelol Kolloutes Ken Krysis

Ka Kenouphis Kephalon Kolleuthis Kesimua Kedjadja

742 g G[…] ybr Gm=w-ḥꜥp Gm-mys Gmrws Grnys Grts Gsꜣ t Tꜣ-[…] Tꜣ-i҆y-m-ḥtp Tꜣ-i҆šwr Tꜣ-ꜥẖy.t-ꜣr[…] Tꜣ-w[…] Tꜣ-wꜥ.t-n-3.t Tꜣ-whr.t, Tꜣ-whr Tꜣ-wgš Tꜣ-pꜣ-šꜣy Tꜣ-msḥ Tꜣ-nfr-ḥr Tꜣ-rwꜣ Tꜣ-rpꜣ.t Tꜣ-rmṯ.t-[…] Tꜣ-rlw ˹Tꜣ˺-rš Tꜣ-hkr.t Tꜣ-ḥꜣḏ Tꜣ-ḥn > Ta-ḥn=w Tꜣ-ḥny Tꜣ-ḥtr.t Tꜣ-sn.t-2.t Tꜣ-sn.t-n-ḥr Tꜣ-sn-nfr-ḥtp Tꜣ-šbwrꜣ Tꜣ-šr.t-[…] Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆y-m-ḥtp Tꜣ-šr.t-i҆mn Tꜣ-šr.t-pꜣ-wr Tꜣ-šr.t-mw.t

list of personal names

G[…]ybr Chomoapis Chemois Chomaros Chronios Chrates Gesa

Ta[…] Taimouthes Taishur Taachitar[…] Tau[…] Tawatenchemet Teuoris Touaxis Tapsais Tameseh Tnapheros Tarua Terpos Taremetj[…] Tlolous Trase Tahekeret Thathas Taneus Taheni Thatres Tasentsent Tasentenher Tasenneferhetep Tashebura Sen[…] Senimouthes Senamounis Senpoeris Senmouthis

743

list of personal names Tꜣ-šr.t-mn Tꜣ-šr.t-mḥy Tꜣ-šr.t-(n)-i҆s.t Tꜣ-šr.t-n-pꜣ-šy Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr-wr Tꜣ-šr.t-ḥr-pꜣ-bi҆k Tꜣ-šr.t-ḫnsw Tꜣ-šr.t-ẖnm Tꜣ-šr.t-ḏḥwṱ Tꜣ-gyr Tꜣ-gr-hb Tꜣ-ty-i҆y-m-ḥtp Tꜣ-ty-i҆p-wr Tꜣ-ty-wsi҆r Tꜣ-ty-nfr-ḥtp Tꜣ-ty-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrṱ Tꜣy-[…] Tꜣy-i҆mn Tꜣy-i҆s.t Tꜣy-ꜥw > Ta-wꜥ Tꜣy-bꜣ > Ta-bꜣ Tꜣy-pꜥ Tꜣy-mw.t Tꜣy-mn Tꜣy-ntm Tꜣy-r-r=w Tꜣy-ḥn=w, Tꜣy=f-ḥn > Ta-ḥn=w Tꜣy-ḥr Tꜣy-šb.ṱ Ta[…] Ta-ꜥnḫ Ta-bꜣ Ta-bꜣst.t Ta-bi҆k Ta-i҆y-m-ḥtp Ta-i҆w=y-i҆y Ta-i҆w=y-i҆w Ta-i҆mn Ta-i҆r.t-r-r=w

Senminis Tashertmehi Sennesis Senpsais Senuris Senaroeris Senarbekis Senchonsis Senchnoumis Senthotes Tchoilis Tchalibis Teteimouthes Teteipwer Tetosiris Tetenephotes Teteharpochrates Tai-[…] Timounis Tiuris Taous Tabis Taipa Timouthis Taimen Tainetem Terous Taneus Tauris Taishebti Ta[…] Taunchis Tabis Tabastis Tabekis Taimouthes Taiui-ii Taiui-iu Tamounis Tairetereru

744 Ta-wꜣ Ta-wꜣ-n-i҆s.t, Ta-i҆s.t Ta-wꜥ Ta-mꜣꜥ-rꜥ Ta-mn Ta-mh̭ y Ta-msḏr-stm Ta-nwꜣ Ta-nfr Ta-rṱ.t, Ta-rṱ Ta-lw > Ta-ꜥlw.t Ta-lw-ꜥw Ta-lwt Ta-hb Ta-ḥꜣ.t Ta-sbk Ta-si҆y Ta-swr Ta-ktm Ta-grb Ta-tꜣ-i҆tm Ta-tꜣ-ltm Ta-ty Ta-tw-ḥ.t-ḥr Ta-tbn Ta-ḏḥwṱ Ta-ḏtm Ti҆-mn, T-mn Tynsyꜣs Tysthns Ty-s-mnṱ Tw[…] Tw=f-ḥꜥpy Tw-i҆mn-wtn Twrmn Twt Tfny Tš-nfr

list of personal names Taues Taesis Taous Tamares Tamin Tamehi Tamestasytmis Tanous Tanouphis Taratis Talous Taluau Talut Thibis Taes Tasouchis Tasis Tasos Taketem Tagereb Tateitum Tateletem Tates Tateathuris Tateben Tathotes Tasatmis Timinis Dionysios Diasthenes Tiesmonti Tu[…] Tuefhapi Tuamunweten Turmen Totoes Tefnu(t) Tesenouphis

745

list of personal names ṯ Ṯꜣy=w-tꜣy=w-dny(.t) Ṯ-bꜣst.t Ṯ-n.i҆m=w Ṯ-ḥr-pꜣ-ḫpš Ṯ-ḥr-pꜣ-tꜣ Ṯ-ḥkꜣ-n.i҆m=w ḏ Ḏ-[…] Ḏ-bꜣst.t-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ Ḏ-ptḥ-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ Ḏ-ḏḥwṱ-i҆w=f-ꜥnḫ Ḏḥwṱ Ḏḥwṱ-i҆.i҆r-ty-s Ḏḥwṱ-i҆r-rḫ-s Ḏḥwṱ-i҆w Ḏḥwṱ-mꜣꜥ Ḏḥwṱ-m-ḥb Ḏḥwty-ms Ḏḥwṱ-stm Ḏ-ḥr Ḏ-ḥr-bꜣst.t Ḏ-ḥr-bs Ḏ-ḥr-pꜣ-ḥꜥp Ḏ-ḥr-pꜣ-hb Ḏ-ḥr-mn Ḏ-ḥr-sḫm.t Ḏ-ḫy Ḏ-kꜣ-rꜥ

Tjaiutaiudeni(t) Tjaibastet Samous Tjaiharpchypsis Searthos Tjaihekaenimu

Dje[…] Djebastetiuefankh Teephthaphonichos Djedjehutiuefankh Thotes Thotortaios Thotorches Thoteous Thotomous Thotmais Thotmosis (also Djehutymose) Thotsytmis, Thotsymthmis Teos Djehorbastet Teebes Djehorpahapi Teephibis Djehormen Djehorsechmet Djechi Djekara

List of Toponyms Mentioned The following identifications and information are based on the database of places in www.trismegistos.org. Anchtawi ꜥnḫ-tꜣ.wy

Anchtawi (TM Geo 10723) 1st Lower Egyptian nome, Memphites (Memphis, Meidum) Status: necropolis area north of the Serapeum Egyptian name(s): ꜥnḫ-tꜣ.wy Variants: Anch-tawi (Ankhtawy, Anekh-taui, Onchtowe, Anchtu) (Life (of the) two lands)

Apollonopolis (Qus) Gs

Apollonopolis (Qus) (TM Geo 270) 5th Upper Egyptian nome, Koptites (Qift) Status: city (polis), village (kome, vicus), district (nomos) Greek name(s): Ἀπόλλωνος Πόλις Μικρά, Διοκλητιανόπολις, Διοκλητιανοῦ Πόλις Egyptian name(s): Gs (Gsꜣ, Gsy) Modern name(s): Qus Variants: Apollonopolis (Apollonos Polis, Apollinopolis) Mikra (Parva), Diokletianopolis (Diokletianou Polis, City of Diocletianus), Ges, Koos (Kos, Chus), Qus (Kous, Kus, Qos) Note: obsolete interpretation: Apollonopolites; the identification with Rsn(.t) / Rsnf(.t) is no longer accepted (See Latopolis (Esna) (TM Geo 1227))

Aut(?) Ꜣwṱ.w

Aut(?) (TM Geo 11263) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) Status: village(?) Egyptian name(s): Ꜣwṱ.w, ꜣwt(?) Variants: Aout(?)

list of toponyms mentioned

747

Djeme—Memnoneia Ṯ-mꜣꜥ

Djeme—Memnoneia (Thebes west) (TM Geo 1341) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) Status: village, kome, quarter, district Greek name(s): τὰ Μεμνόνεια Egyptian name(s): Ḏmꜣ, T-ḏmꜣꜥ, Ḏmꜥ, Ḏmꜣ.t, Pr-ḏmꜣ, Pꜣ-ḏmꜣ Modern name(s): Thebes west

Djeserset Ḏsr-st

Djeserset

Hartai (Hardai) Ḥr-ty

Hardai (Hartai) (TM Geo 4989) 17th Upper Egyptian nome, Kynopolites (El-Qeis) Status: city, district Egyptian name(s): Ḥr-dy (Ḥr-ty); pꜣ tš n Ḥr-ty Note: locations uncertain; the identification with Kynopolis (1196) is no longer accepted

Herakleopolis Magna Ḥ.t-nn-nsw

Herakleopolis Magna (TM Geo 801) 20th Upper Egyptian nome, Herakleopolites Status: city (polis; urbs; civitas; oppidum; metropolis) Egyptian name(s): Ḥw.t-nn-nsw; Nn-nsw; Ḥw.t-nsw Variants: Herakleopolis (Herakleous Polis) Megale (Magna)—Hut-nen-nesu (Henen-Nesu) [House (of the) child (of the) king]—Hnes (Hanes)—Ihnasya elMedina (Ahnas) Greek name(s): Ἡρακλέους Πόλις Μεγάλη Modern name(s): Ihnasya el-Medina

Hut Ḥ-wt

Hut

748

list of toponyms mentioned

Hutnesu Ḥ.t-nsw

Hutnesu [House of (the) king] (TM Geo 2793) 17th Upper Egyptian nome, Kynopolites (El-Qeis) Status: city, district Egyptian name(s): Ḥ.t-nsw; pꜣ tš n Ḥw.t-nsw Modern name(s): Kom el-Ahmar Sawaris (ca. 5km south of Sharuna, on the eastern Nile bank)

Kerkesoucha Orous Pr-grg-sbk

Kerkesoucha Orous (TM Geo 1069) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides (located near Kerkesoucha) (TM Geo 1067), Philadelpheia (TM Geo 1760), and Ptolemais Hormou (TM Geo 2024) Status: village (kome, demi) Greek name(s): Κερκεσουχα Ὄρους Egyptian name(s): Pr-grg-n-sbk, Pꜣ-grg-sbk, Pꜣy-grg-sbk, Pr-grg-n-sbk Variants: Kerkesoucha Orous (The settlement of Souchos / Sobek of (the) desert) Note: obsolete reading: Pꜣ-nwgr-sbk / Nwlg-sbk

Kochlax Pꜣ-ẖll

Kochlax (TM Geo 3141) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Pathyrites (Gebelein) Status: village? Greek name(s): Κόχλαξ Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-ẖll, Pꜣ-ẖrr Variants: Kochlax, P-cherer

Koussai (El-Qusiya) Kss

Koussai (El-Qusiya) (TM Geo 1176) 15th Upper Egyptian nome, Hermopolites (El-Ashmumein, El-Qusiya, Meir, El-Minya) Status: village (kome), city (polis) Greek name(s): Κουσσαι Egyptian name(s): Ḳys (Ḳsi҆ꜣ, Ḳs, Ks) Modern name(s): El-Qusiya Variants: Koussai (Kousai, Kos, Akouasa, Kousos, Chousai, Chousos, Kasos), El-Qusiya (Kusija, El-Koussieh) Note: obsolete reading: Qsỉs

list of toponyms mentioned

749

Latopolis (Esna) Rsnf

Latopolis (Esna) (TM Geo 1227) Resnef (TM Geo 3633) ghost name; 3rd Upper Egyptian nome, Latopolites (Esna, Kom elAhmar) Status: city (polis) Greek name(s): Λάτων Πόλις Egyptian name(s): I҆wny.t, Sn.t, Tꜣ-sn.t, Sni҆, Sn (obsolete readings: Rsnf (Rsn), Rsn(.t), Rsnf(.t)) Variants: Latopolis (Laton Polis), Iounit, Senet (Seni), Esna (Isna) (obsolete variants: Resnef, Resne, Resen, Shema) Modern name(s): Esna Note: new reading Sen / Esna (TM Geo 1227) in several papyri; the identification with Apollonopolis (Qus) (TM Geo 270) is no longer accepted

Medamud Mꜣtn

Kerameia, Madu (Nagʾ el-Medamud) (TM Geo 1281) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) (located on the eastern Nile bank) Status: village Greek name(s): τὰ Κεραμεῖα Egyptian name(s): Mꜣdw, Mꜣd, Mꜣt, Mꜣtn, Mtn, Pr-mntw-nbmꜣtn Modern name(s): Nagʾ el-Medamud Variants: ta Kerameia (Keramike), Madu, Per-Montu-nebMaten (House / temple / domain (of) Montou lord (of) Maten), Nagʾ el-Medamud (Medamud) Note: obsolete readings instead of Mꜣtn: Tp-tn, Tꜣ-tn, Tꜣ-Ḏsr, dsr, Ḥpw; there is no reason to suppose the existence of an homonymous temple called Pr-mnt-nb-mꜣtn at Medinet Habu / Memnoneia (TM Geo 1341) on the western Nile bank, as so often (incorrectly) has been maintained

750 Mendes Ybyt

list of toponyms mentioned Mendes (TM Geo 1350) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides (located near Hiera Nesos (TM Geo 839)) Status: village (kome, demi) Greek name(s): Μενδης Egyptian name(s): Pr-bꜣ-nb-ḏd.t Variants: Mendes Note: obsolete readings: Pr-ḏd, Pr-bj.t, Ybyt

Nabikuharpochrates(?) Nabikuharpochrates(?) Nꜣ-byk.w-ḥr-(pꜣ)-˹ẖrṱ˺ (TM Geo 10659) Arsinoites (Fayum) Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Nꜣ-bi҆k.w-ḥr-pꜣ-ẖrd? Variants: N-bikou-Harpochrates? Naukratis (Kom Gajef) Krḏ

Naukratis (Kom Gajef) (TM Geo 1424) 5th Lower Egyptian nome, Saites (Sa el-Hagar) Status: city (polis, civitas, demi) Greek name(s): Ναύκρατις Egyptian name(s): Nꜣy=w-Krḏ (Nꜣ-Krṯ, Nꜥ-Krḏ), Bꜣ-dd Modern name(s): Kom Gajef Variants: Naukratis, Baded, Kom Gajef (el-Giʾeif, Kom elGeif) Note: obsolete readings: dmḏ Krḏ, Pꜣ-krḏ

Ope I҆py

Ope (TM Geo 2629) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Pathyrites (Gebelein) Status: city Egyptian name(s): I҆py Variants: Ape

list of toponyms mentioned

751

Pabunim Pꜣ-bw-n-ym

Pabunim (TM Geo 10664) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides (?) Status: village Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-bw-n-ym Variants: P-bou-n-im Note: reading uncertain

Pachercher Pꜣ-ḫrḫr

Pachercher (TM Geo 10913) 1st Lower Egyptian nome, Memphites (Memphis, Meidum) Status: village Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-ḫrḫr Variants: P-chercher (The ruin?)

Pachir Pꜣ-h̭ yr

Pachir (TM Geo 10686) 13th Upper Egyptian nome, Lykopolites (Assiut) (located near Lykopolis (Assiut) (TM Geo 1271)) Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-h̭ yr, Pꜣ-ḫyr, Pꜣ-ẖr Variants: P-chir, P-kher (The street)

Paherenpaihy Pꜣ-ḥr-n-pꜣ-i҆hy

Paherenpaihy

Paihinpamehen Pꜣ-i҆hi҆-n-pꜣ-mhn

Paihinpamehen (TM Geo 10666) 5th Upper Egyptian nome, Koptites (Qift) Status: area Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-i҆hi҆-n-pꜣ-mhn, Pꜣ-i҆hy-n-pꜣ-mhn-n-i҆mn, Tꜣ-sby Variants: P-ihi-n-p-mehen-n-Amon (‘The stable of the milk can (of Amun)’), T-sebi (The pond(?)) Note: the identification with Pois (TM Geo 2654) is no longer accepted

752

list of toponyms mentioned

Pakeis Pꜣ-ḳs

Pakeis (TM Geo 6196) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) Status: village? Greek name(s): Πακεις Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-ḳs Variants: Pakeis

Papa Pꜥpꜥ

Papa (TM Geo 3175) 5th Upper Egyptian nome, Koptites (Qift) Status: village (kome) Greek name(s): Παπα Egyptian name(s): Pꜥpꜥ (Ppꜥ) Variants: Papa

Pasehhoriirau Pꜣ-sḥ-ḥr-i҆.i҆r-ꜥw

Pasehhoriirau (TM Geo 10661) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-sḥ-ḥr-i҆.i҆r-ꜥw Variants: P-seh-Hor-iir-au (The hall (of) Horos-who-hasbecome-great)

Pasehhoriirties Pꜣ-sḥ-ḥr-i҆.i҆r-ty-s

Pasehhoriirties

Patadjeser Pꜣ-tꜣ-dšr

Patadjeser (TM Geo 10676) 13th Upper Egyptian nome, Lykopolites (Assiut) Status: necropolis area Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-tꜣ-ḏsr, Pꜣ-ḏsr Variants: P-ta-djeser, P-to-djoser (The sacred land) Note: uncertain identification of Pꜣ-tꜣ-dšr as Pꜣ-tꜣ-ḏsr

list of toponyms mentioned

753

Pateshresi Pꜣ-tš-rs

Pateshresi (TM Geo 13472) 1st Upper Egyptian nome (Elephantine, Kom Ombo) Status: district Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-tš-rs Variants: P-tesh-resi (‘The southern district’)

Pathyris Pꜣ-ḥ.t-ḥr

Pathyris (TM Geo 2849) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Pathyrites (Gebelein) Status: city: polis; oppidum; village: kome; demi Greek name(s): Παθυρις—Ἀφροδίτης πόλις—Ἐνταιγις Egyptian name(s): Pr-Ḥw.t-Ḥr—Ỉnr.ty (Ỉn.ty) Variants: Pathyris, Aphroditopolis (Aphrodites Polis), Per-Hathor (‘House (of) Hathor’), Inerty / Inti (Inty) / Entaigis / Entaiis (Entaiye) (in the expression Hathernebentaigis) (‘The two rock formations’), Gebelein (Gebelen), sites including Debbabiyeh (Dabbabiyeh)

Patushenara Pꜣ-tw-šn-ꜥrꜣ

Patushenara (TM Geo 10657) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-tw-šn-ꜥrꜣ Variants: P-tou-shen-ara (The mountain with the ara tree)

Pawawa Pꜣ-wwꜣ

Pawawa (TM Geo 2092) Arsinoites (Fayum) (located near Mendes (TM Geo 1350)) Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-wwꜣ Variants: P-ououa

754

list of toponyms mentioned

Pei Pꜣ-ꜥ.wy

Pei (TM Geo 6566) 5th Upper Egyptian nome, Koptites (Qift) Status: village Greek name(s): Πηι Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-ꜥ.wy Variants: Pei, P-awi (The place / village) Note: obsolete reading: Pꜣ-ꜥy

Peralk Pr-ꜣlk

Peralk

Perbit Pr-bj.t

Perbit

Peribt[…] Pr-i҆bt[…]

Peribt[…]

Permentinebmaten Pr-mnṱ-nb-mꜣtn

Permentinebmaten shrine of Montu lord of Medamud

Pernebetwety Pr-nb-wṱ

Pernebetwety (TM Geo 13668) 10th Upper Egyptian nome, Antaiopolites (Qaw el-Kebir) (located north of Antaiopolis (Qaw el-Kebir) (TM Geo 188)) Status: city Egyptian name(s): Pr-nb-wṱ, Pr-nb.t-wt, Pr-wḏy Variants: Per-nebet-oudji (Pernebut, Pinobuot: House (of the) mistress (of the red) udj-fish (scil. of Hathor)), Perwadj (House (of the) udj-fish) Note:the identification of Phenebythis(TMGeo3009) with Per-nebet-udji (TM Geo 13668) is no longer accepted

Persheha Pr-šhꜣ

Persheha (TM Geo 10669) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Pathyrites (Gebelein) Status: village? Egyptian name(s): Pr-šhꜣ Variants: Per-sheha

list of toponyms mentioned

755

Pes Ps

Pes

Pestenemenophis Pꜣ-i҆šd-n-i҆mn-i҆py

Pestenemenophis TM Geo 6533 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) Status: domain Greek name(s): Πεστενεμενωφις Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-i҆šd-n-i҆mn-i҆py (Pꜣ-šty-n-i҆mn-i҆py) Variants: Pestenemenophis (‘The ished-tree / scrubland of Amon (of) Apis / of Amenophis’)

Pinpoor Pꜣ-ꜥ.wy-n-pꜣ-whr

Pinpoor (TM Geo 6681) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Pathyrites (Gebelein) Status: village Greek name(s): Πινποωρ, Πηινποαρ Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-ꜥ.wy-n-pꜣ-whr Variants: Pinpoor (Peinpoar) (The place of Pouoris / The hound)

Pmounemounis Pꜣ-mw-n-i҆mn

Pmounemounis (TM Geo 6778) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) Status: village Greek name(s): Πμουνεμουνις Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-mw-n-i҆mn, Rꜣ-n-pꜣ-mw-n-i҆mn Variants: Pmounemounis (Pmonemounis) ((Mouth of) The water of Amun)

756

list of toponyms mentioned

Poenpois Pꜣ-wꜣḥ-n-pꜣ-i҆hi҆

Poenpois (TM Geo 6801) 5th Upper Egyptian nome, Koptites (Qift) (located near Pois (TM Geo 2654), same as Pais (TM Geo 2661)?) Status: village Greek name(s): Ποενπωις Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-wꜣḥ-n-pꜣ-i҆hi҆ Variants: Poenpois, Poenpoeos, Poonpois (The region / estate / settlement in / of Pois / The stable) Note: obsolete reading: Pꜣ-ḥr-n-pꜣ-i҆hy; Pestman rejects the identification of Ποενπωις and Pꜣ-wꜣḥ-n-pꜣ-i҆hi҆, and considers the latter the full form of Pꜣ-i҆hy / Pais (TM Geo 2661)

Pois Pꜣ-i҆hy, I҆hy

Pois (TM Geo 2654) 5th Upper Egyptian nome, Koptites (Qift) Status: village (kome) Greek name(s): Πωις Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-i҆hy Variants: Pois (The stable(?)) Note: the identification with P-ihi-n-p-mehen-n-Amon (TM Geo 10666) is no longer accepted Pois (TM Geo 2657) 13th Upper Egyptian nome, Lykopolites (Assiut) Status: village (kome) Greek name(s): Πωις Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-i҆hy Variants: Pois (The stable(?))

Psameris Pꜣ-šꜥ-mr

Psameris (TM Geo 8102) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) Status: village (kome) Greek name(s): Ψαμηρις Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-šꜥ-mr Variants: Psameris (The sand bank / The sand of (the river) bank)

list of toponyms mentioned

757

Psenharyo Pꜣ-sy-ḥr-wḏꜣ

Psenharyo (TM Geo 1956) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides (located near Ptolemais Hormou) (TM Geo 2024), and Tanchoiris (TM Geo 2249) Status: village (kome, demi) Greek name(s): Ψεναρυω Egyptian name(s): Ḥr-wḏꜣ, Pꜣ-sy-(n)-ḥr-wḏꜣ, Pꜣ-sbt-n-ḥr-wḏꜣsꜣ-ḥr-ḫb, Pꜣ-ꜥ.wy-n-ḥr-wḏꜣ Variants: Psenharyo (Psenaryo, Psinaryo, Psinnaryo, Psynaryo) (The beam / The fortress / The place of Haryotes) Note: obsolete identification: Sanhur (TM Geo 10600)

Psobthon Haryoteos Pꜣ-sbt-ḥr-ḫb-sꜣ-ḥr-wḏꜣ

Psobthon Haryoteos (TM Geo 8254) 16th Lower Egyptian nome, Mendesios (Tell el-Rubʾa, Baqlia) Status: village (kome) Greek name(s): Ψωβθον Ἁρυωτεως Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-sbt-ḥr-ḫb-sꜣ-ḥr-wḏꜣ, Pꜣ-sbt-n-ḥr-wḏꜣ Variants: Psobthon Haryoteos

Ptolemais Hormou Pꜣ-sḥ-ptwlmys/ Rꜣ-tꜣ-ḥny-mꜣ-wr

Ptolemais Hormou (TM Geo 2024) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides (located near Kerkesoucha Orous) (TM Geo 1069), at the Moiris canal (TM Geo 1385) Status: village (kome, demi) Greek name(s): Πτολεμαὶς Ὅρμου Egyptian name(s): Rꜣ-tꜣ-ḥny-mꜣ-wr, Pꜣ-sḥ-ptwlmys, Pꜣ-syḥt(?) Modern name(s): El-Lahun Variants: Ptolemais Hormou (Mouth (of) the canal of Moiris), P-seh-Ptolemaios (The hall of Ptolemaios), P-si-het (Pasiheti)(?), El-Lahun (Illahun)

758

list of toponyms mentioned

Rataheny Rꜣ-tꜣ-ḥny

Same as Rꜣ-tꜣ-ḥny-mꜣ-wr?

Rꜣ-tꜣ-ḥny-mꜣ-wr

See above Pꜣ-sḥ-ptwlmys

Resnef Rsnf

Resnef (TM Geo 3633) Ghost name Egyptian name(s): Rsnf (Rsn) Variants: Resnef, Resne, Resen, Shema

Rutiset Rꜣ-i҆s.t

Rutiset (TM Geo 11184) 1st Lower Egyptian nome, Memphites (Memphis, Meidum) (located in Saqqara (TM Geo 1344) near Serapeum (TM Geo 10638); near Abusir (TM Geo 1344)?) Status: area? Egyptian name(s): Rw.t-i҆sw.t, ḥsb(?), Pr-wsỉt r-n-rw.t-i҆sw.t, Pr-wsi҆r-n-ḥsb(?) Variants: Rout-isout (Rutiset) ((The) forecourt of (the) workshop), Heseb(?), (the) House of Osiris / (the) Osirieion of Rout-isout Note: the Hieroglyphic reading is Rw.t-i҆sw.t, but there is doubt about its Demotic equivalent, which is sometimes read as ḥsb (Zauzich, CDD) or as a reduced form of Rw.t-i҆sw.t (Devauchelle, Martin); because of the expression Pr-wsỉr-n-rw.t-i҆sw.t / ḥsb the place is sometimes identified with the village Abusir; obsolete reading: Rꜥ-ḳdt

Sele (Seila) Šy-ꜥlꜣ

Sele (Seila) (TM Geo 2108) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides Status: village Greek name(s): Σελη Egyptian name(s): Šy-ꜥlꜣ Modern name(s): Seila Variants: Sele (Selle—Sele Chorion)—Sayla—Seila (Sêle)

list of toponyms mentioned

759

Shaiueshetep Š-i҆w=s-ḥtp

Shaiueshetep

Syron Kome Pꜣ-sbt-nꜣ-i҆šꜣwr.w

Syron Kome (TM Geo 2216) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides (located near Ptolemais Hormou) (TM Geo 2024), and Haueris (TM Geo 747) Status: village (kome, demi, chorion) Greek name(s): Σύρων Κώμη Egyptian name(s): Pꜣ-sbt-nꜣ-i҆šꜣwr.w, Pꜣ-sbt-n-nꜣ-i҆šꜣwr.w Variants: Syron Kome (Syron Chorion), P-awi-n-nIshourou (The place of the Syrians), P-sebet-n-nIshourou (The fortress / wall of the Syrians)

Taachiar Tꜣ-ꜥẖy.t-ꜣr, Tꜣ-ꜥẖy.t-n-ꜣr[…]

Taachiar

Taachinheriitem Tꜣ-ꜥẖy-hr-i҆tm

Taachinheriitem (TM Geo 10910) 1st Lower Egyptian nome, Memphites (Memphis, Meidum) Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-ꜥẖy-hr-i҆tm, Tꜣ-ꜥẖy.t, ꜥẖy-hr-i҆tm Variants: (Ta)-achi-n-heri-item (The chapel-with-aviary of Heriatum)

Taachinsetmeseh Tꜣ-ꜥḫy-n-s.t-msḥ

Taachinsetmeseh (TM Geo 10907) 1st Lower Egyptian nome, Memphites (Memphis, Meidum) Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-ꜥḫy-n-s.t-msḥ Variants: Ta-achi-n-set-mesehet (The chapel-with-aviary of Tail of (the) crocodile)

760

list of toponyms mentioned

Taanch Tꜣ-ꜥnḫ

Taanch (TM Geo 11338) 13th Upper Egyptian nome, Lykopolites (Assiut) Status: necropolis area in Lykopolis (Assiut) Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-ꜥnḫ Variants: Ta-anch (Land (of) life)

Tafai Tꜣ-fꜣy

Tafai (TM Geo 10658) Arsinoites (Fayum) Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-fꜣy Variants: T-fai

Tamen Tꜣ-mn

Tamen (TM Geo 11554) 1st Lower Egyptian nome, Memphites (Memphis, Meidum) (located in the necropolis of Memphis (?) (TM Geo 1344)) Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-mn, Tꜣmny Variants: Ta-men, Tomen (Land (of) mooring)

Tameten Tꜣ-mtn

Tameten (TM Geo 10660) 20th Upper Egyptian nome, Herakleopolites (Inhnasya el-Medina) Status: village(?) Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-mtn.t Variants: T-meten (The place / village)

Taresitmehit Tꜣ-rsy.t-mḥy.t

Taresitmehit

list of toponyms mentioned

761

Tarkytis Tꜣ-ꜥrg.ṱ, Tꜣ-ꜥrḳ

Tarkytis (TM Geo 3636) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Pathyrites (Gebelein) Status: village (kome) Greek name(s): Ταρκυτις Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-ꜥrḳ, Tꜣ-ꜥrḳt, Tꜣ-ꜥrg.ṱ Variants: Tarkytis (Terkythis, Terkytis, Terkth)

Tasetiuiu Tꜣ-s.t-(n)-i҆w=y-i҆w

Tasetiuiu

Tawecheri Tꜣ-wḫry

Tawecheri (TM Geo 10911) 1st Lower Egyptian nome, Memphites (Memphis, Meidum) Status: village (demi) Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-wḫry.(t) Variants: T-oucheri (The arsenal / The shipyard)

Temesteites Tꜣ-mtn.t-n-ḏḥwṱ

Temesteites (TM Geo 4438) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) (?) Status: village(?) Greek name(s): Τεμεστειτης—Τμοστειτης Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-mtn.t-n-ḏḥwṱ Variants: Temesteites, Tmosteites, Tmotnenthot (The place / village of Thoth)

Tmononkepis Tꜣ-mꜣy-ḳpw

Tmononkepis (TM Geo 4517) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) Status: village (mai) Greek name(s): Τμονονκηπις—Θμονονκοιφις—Τμονονκοιφις Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-mꜣy.(t)-(n)-ḳpw Variants: Tmononkepis (Tmounonkepis, Tmotnonkepis, Thmononkoiphis, Tmononkoiphis) (The island of (the) vault/dome; The island of (the) kyphi/koiphi-incense)

762

list of toponyms mentioned

Tmotnenphamenis Tꜣ-mtn.t-n-pa-mn

Tmotnenphamenis (TM Geo 7654) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Pathyrites (Gebelein) Status: village Greek name(s): Τμοτνενφαμηνις Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-mtn.t-n-pa-mn, Pꜣ-mtn.t-n-pa-mn Variants: Tmotnenphamenis (Tmontnenphamenis, Tmontnempamenis, Tmotanenphamenis) (The place / village of Phamenis)

Tmotnesous Tꜣ-mtn.t-n-i҆šwr

Tmotnesous (TM Geo 7653) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Peri Thebas (Theban area) (?) Status: village Greek name(s): Τμοτνεσους Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-mtn.t-n(ꜣ)-i҆šwr.(w) Variants: Tmotnesous, Tmotnesouris(?) (The place / village of the Assyrians)

Toame Tꜣ-whm

Toame (TM Geo 7665) 4th Upper Egyptian nome, Pathyrites (Gebelein) Status: canal (choma) Greek name(s): Τοαμε Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-whm.(t) Variants: Toame (The dike)

Troe (Tura) Try

Troe (Tura) (new reading) (TM Geo 2480) Teri = ghost name (TM Geo 11431) 1st Lower Egyptian nome, Memphites (Memphis, Meidum) Status: village (kome) Greek name(s): Τρώη—Τροία Egyptian name(s): Tꜣ-rꜣw, Tꜣ-rꜣy, Twr, Try Modern name(s): Tura Variants: Troe (Troia), Tura (Turah) (obsolete variant: Teri)

list of toponyms mentioned

763

Waherker Wꜣḥ-r-kr

Waherker (TM Geo 10665) Arsinoites (Fayum), meris of Herakleides(?) Status: village Egyptian name(s): Wꜣḥ-r-kr, Wꜣḥ-r-ḳr Variants: Wah-r-ker Note: reading uncertain Grouped by origo 455–457

Wenkhem Wn-ḫm

Wenkhem (TM Geo 10628) 1st Lower Egyptian nome, Memphites (Memphis, Meidum) Offering rite 273 Status: city(?), district (tesh) Egyptian name(s): Wn-ḫm, pꜣ tš n Wn-ḫm Variants: Oun-chem Note: obsolete location: in the Letopolites

Select Index of Words Burial Ceremony (ḥb ḳs.(t)) 223, 251–252, 508 Rations 293 Delayed 26, 264–268, 270 n. 56 Grounds/cemeteries Division in districts 33–34 and n. 79, 351–352 Ethnic division 357–358 Identified by landmarks 352–353 Pre-Ptolemaic Period organisation 369–372 See also Deceased identified by origo Lexicology To appertain to (ṯ r) 262 To be buried in (ḳs r) 260–262 To come to (the feet) (i҆y r (rṱ)) 263– 264 To lay to rest (ty ḥtp r) 256 To leave (ḫꜣꜥ) 263 To place (ty r-ḥr=s) 256 To remove from tomb (rk, fy r bnr, i҆n r bnr) 264 To rest in it/with (somebody) (ḥtp ẖn=s/i҆rm) 256–259 To take to (ṯ r-r=s) 254–256 Plot Ownership of 369–370 Size 359 Solutions 373–376 Death Monthly incidence (from burial taxes) 302–303 Premature 324–325 Terms of reference to 190 View of 1 As illness 39, 189 As transition 191 Deceased Identified by origo 34–35, 453–457 Eldest son of 2–3, 291 n. 80, 330–331, 372, 513 Mythological archetype 2–3 Epithets of ḥry and ḥsy 317–325 wꜥb.(w), rmṯ.(w) and nṯr.(w) 315–316

Veneration of 132–133, 269–270, 316, 323–325, 497 Deification of 316, 325 Funeral Repast 252–254 and n. 20 See also Funeral rites Funerary equipment Cartonnage Manufacture 282, 510 Materials (papyrus) 282–283 Religious iconography loci 481, 518 Range of (Masks, cases, coffins) 281– 283, 373–376 Relation to inhumation typology 459–482 Funerary priests Archentaphiastes Memphis 53–54, 490 Choachyte Edfu 51–52 and n. 7 Female 106–118, 120–121 Hawara 65–66, 68–69, 84 Manual of (P. BM EA 10209) 275 Memphis 54–55 and n. 9, 57–61 Middle Egypt 91, 101–103 Place of residence Memphis 178 Thebes 171–174 Thebes Adoption of new title 29–31 As head of religious association 24 and n. 37 As overseer of the necropolis 22– 23 Association with Amenope cult 30 Engaging the services of 200–201 Family 182–186 Hire of services of 367 Income of 147–153, 433–434 Late Period 28–29 Mortuary cult 272–275 Mummy storage 264–267, 270 n. 56

select index of words Payment of funerary taxes 296, 300, 362 Provision of mummification materials 292–295 Role after mummification 249 Role in mummification 239–240, 245, 247–248 Role in tomb acquisition 363–364 Role in tomb construction 363, 422 Territorial jurisdiction 31–36 and n. 82, 45 Title in Demotic 25–26 Use of title in documents 26–27 See also Door-keeper Doctor 36, 38 Female 105, 118 Lector-priest as 190 n. 5 Role in mummification 39, 200–201, 492 Title in Greek 41–42 Use of title in documents 43 Door-keeper Adoption of new title 29 Association with Amenope cult 30 Family 182–186 Gnomon of the Idios Logos 5–6, 165 and n. 33 Hawara choachytes and Theban doorkeepers 69 Identification in documents 26–28 Man of Anubis and Theban doorkeepers 72 Not borne by women 116 Not linked to funerary industry 101 n. 46, 342 and n. 74 Official title 26 and n. 44 Status 29, 489 See also Choachyte and Religious Associations Embalmer As funerary artists 288 Engaging the services of 200–201 Female 118–121 Hawara 70, 75, 90 Middle Egypt 91, 92–9 Thebes 36 Income of 138–142, 155 n. 132 Place of residence of 175

765 Translation of title of 38–39 and n. 94, 41–42 Use of title in documents 43 Role after mummification 249 Role in mummification 244–245, 247–248 Entaphiastes 494 Hawara 66 Thebes 48–49 God’s seal-bearer Memphis 54–59, 69–70 Residence of 175–178 Territorial jurisdiction 60–62 Middle Egypt 91–92, 98–99 Residence of 181–182 Engaging the services of 200–201 Role in mummification 244–248 Role in tomb acquisition 368 God’s seal-bearer and embalmer Hawara As lector-priest 66–67 As choachyte 67–68 Economic situation 154, 158 Transactions 154–155, 183 Family 184–185 and n. 50 Income 142–147 Overseer god’s seal-bearer 53, 63–65 Overseer of the necropolis 89– 90 Residence of 178–180 Role after mummification 249– 250 Middle Egypt Attestations of title in 99 Role in mummification 244–248 Role in tomb acquisition 367–368 Tebtunis Attestations of title in 65 Hem-ka priest(ess) 3, 105 Lector-priest As ritual reader 36 Edfu 51 Territorial jurisdiction 51–52 Engaging the services of 200–201 Female 119–121 Hawara 66–68, 72, 81, 83–85, 88 Income of 138–142, 153–158 Memphis 54–59

766 Middle Egypt 91–94, 98, 102–103, 206–207 Territorial jurisdiction 103–104 Place of residence Memphis 177–178 Middle Egypt 180–182 Thebes 174–175 Provision of mummification materials 295 Role after mummification 249 Role in mummification 244–248 Thebes As overseer of the necropolis 17– 23, 37–38 Collection of burial taxes 17–18, 300 Family of 182 Role in animal mummification 36 n. 83 Territorial jurisdiction 43–47 Translation of title as paraschistes 39–41 and n. 104, 233 Translation of title as taricheutes 39 Use of title in documents 36, 42– 43 Lesonis As head of religious association 24 and n. 33 Function 23–24 Office and Tenure 25 and n. 38 Title in Demotic 23 Man of Anubis 71–72 Man of the necropolis 94–96 Necrotaphos Middle Egypt and Dush Oasis 99– 103, 168–169, 206, 288 Thebes 48–49 Overseer of mysteries 2, 54, 69–70 and n. 22, 244, 292, 488, 490 Pastophoros 5–6, 26–27 and n. 49, 29, 101, 148, 164–165, 489 Prophet of Sobek 67, 78–82, 85–86, 88, 90, 490–491, 493 Seal-bearer who attends god 94, 97– 98 Steward 25 Stolistes 69–71, 73 and n. 32, 76, 179, 280

select index of words Taricheutes Edfu 50–51, 299, 489 Hawara 66–67, 494 Memphis 54–55 and n. 11 Tanis 487, 494 Thebes 39–40, 42, 48–49, 165, 172, 174 Funerary specialist workers Anointer 246–248, 510 Artists Identity 278–279 and n. 4, 288 and n. 60 and n. 63, 510 Painter and gilder 283–284 Tax (on gilding and painting) 285– 286 Workshop location 279–280 Bandager 247, 280, 510 Sellers of resin, gum, pitch(?), incense 289 n. 68 Unguent-maker 65 n. 7, 99, 280, 289– 290 Mourning Attire 194, 197, 233 Gestures and expression Fasting 194 and n. 32, 224 and n. 66 Isolation (ꜣrb) 193–194 Mud over head 197 n. 48, 198 Not washing 200 Wailing and crying 199 Location 200 Mythological archetypal 192, 501 Rations (ꜥḳ nhpy) 193–194 and n. 35, 195– 196 and n. 40, 293 and n. 89, 503 Service(?) (npy) 142–147 Terminology 193–194, 199 Mummification Materials Bandage(s) Decorated, inscribed 287–288, 519 Mourning 233 and n. 99 Perception of 191 Perceived function of 316, 481 Clothing (ritual) 233, 286 (gtn-robe) Embalmers’ deposits Abusir 190, 234, 236–237, 240, 251, 281 n. 16, 507 Saqqara 289

767

select index of words Range of 236–238, 240, 245–247, 286, 289–290, 508 Methods 511–513 Mythological archetype 209, 242 Place Archaeological remains 214–216 Location of 75–76, 213–214 Per-nefer (pr-nfr) as embalming place 209–210, 212–213 Wabet (wꜥb.t) as embalming place 209–210 Pre-Ptolemaic Period 4–5, 252 n. 15, 512 n. 59, 513 n. 64, 517 Process Referred to as 189–190 Negative aspect 191 Rations 211–212, 239, 293 Religious significance 242–243 Stages 88, 223–224 Day 1–4 224–229 Day 4–16 229–236 Day 16–35 236–239 Day 35–70 239–242 Per-nefer (pr-nfr) as stage 211– 212, 223–224, 229–231 and n. 92, 235–236 and n. 116 and n. 118, 238 Qs (Ḳs) as stage 223, 229, 239, 242 used with ḫꜣꜥ-syḥ 218–223 Wabet (wꜥb.t) as stage 211–212, 223, 225, 229–230 Non-documentary sources Artistic El-Hibeh Coffins (Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum, Hildesheim) Djebastetiuefankh [RPM/PM 1954] Depiction of deceased on embalming bed 231–232 and n. 96 Ritual washing 226–227 Mutirdis [RPM/PM 1953] Priests before depiction of deceased 227 n. 78 and n. 81 Depiction of deceased on embalming bed 231–232 and n. 96

Offerings presentation (ḏꜣ.t-rꜥ ritual?) 227 Symbolic river journey 207– 208 Classical Cicero 268 Diodorus Siculus 39–40, 122, 194, 198, 233, 240, 268, 507 Herodotus 39–40, 122, 192, 198, 200, 224–225, 235, 307, 323, 503, 512, 517 Literary Setne Khamwas 19 n. 10, 95, 199, 201– 202, 210, 233 n. 101, 235, 240, 478 n. 87 Religious Coffin Edinburgh L. 224/3002 274 P. Wien ÄS 3865 273 P. Strasbourg 3 verso 252 P. Rhind 1 (P. Edinburgh 908+504) 232–234 and n. 95, 242, 507 P. Rhind 2 (P. Edinburgh 909) 232 and n. 95, 242 P. Louvre E 10605 273 P. Harkness (MMA 31.9.7) 34 n. 79, 128 n. 20, 242, 323–324 and n. 42, 430 n. 239 P. Detroit Institute of Arts 1988.10 291 n. 81 P. Bodleian MS.Egypt.c.9(P) 273 P. BM EA 10507 128 n. 20, 189, 242, 251 and n. 11, 323–324 and n. 42, 325 n. 49 P. BM EA 10209 275, 291 and n. 81 P. BM EA 10208 291 n. 81 P. BM EA 10188 (P. Bremmer-Rhind) 291 n. 81, 323 P. Berlin P. 8351 273 n. 69 Statue of the God’s-father Esminis in Linköping Museum 274 Stela Cairo 31099 (Anemher) 192 n. 18, 224, 240, 242, 290 Religious Associations Fayum 167–168 Memphis 166 Middle Egypt 168–169 Thebes Choachytes 159–166 Female 112–113 and n. 35, 121

768 Late Period 29 Lector-priests 166 Contribution to mummification 293, 310–311 Role in transport of dead 204–205 Revenues Šty-revenue 127–128, 135–137 I҆ḫy-offerings 128, 135 H̱ ny- and i҆ny-offerings 128–130, 135 Šmꜥ- and gyl-revenue 130–132, 135 Hwh.t-revenue 132–133, 135 Glflf-revenue 133, 135 ꜥḳ n wsi҆r rations 133–134, 135 I҆w-income 134–135 Ritual Celebrations/festivities Khoiak 273 n. 68, 275 Festival of the Valley 275, 452 Feast of the Decade 275, 452 Embalming Boulaq 3 69, 189, 232 and n. 93, 237, 240 n. 135, 244, 246 n. 160, 274, 286– 287, 291–292, 488, 498, 508, 510 P. Louvre 5158 189, 232 n. 93, 281 n. 16, 287 P. Durham 1983.11 189, 232 n. 93 P. St. Petersburg 18128 189, 232 n. 93 P. Wien ÄS 3873 (Apis) 69, 210 and n. 9, 212 n. 17, 216, 226, 232–233, 240 n. 137, 427–428 n. 224 and n. 228, 505 Funerary Ritual complexes 191, 250 Funeral Rites (examples of) Offering rite 273 Opening of the mouth 54 n. 7, 191, 212 n. 17, 223, 250–251, 508 P. BM EA 10507 columns II and III 251 and n. 11 Spell for Striking the Copper (P. Strasbourg 3 verso) 252 Mortuary cult Archaeological evidence 276–277 Interval/periodicity 273–274 Mythological archetype 2–3 Amenope (Amun in ithyphallic form) Performing mortuary cult for the ogdoad 30 and n. 61 and n. 62, 452, 489

select index of words As libationer 30, 274 Services 124–126 Customer base 325–331 Length of 32, 266 Setting 275–276 Special occasions 275 Other Šty-ceremony 113–114, 229, 239–240, 295, 508 Per-nefer (pr-nfr) service(?) 142– 147 Qs (Ḳs) service? 142–147 Washing 210, 226–227 and n. 79, 236 Tomb(s) Acquisition 26, 442–443 Chapels and other funerary structures I҆p-structure 395–396 Ḳnḥy 416 Ḥ.t-bꜣw-chapel 420–421 Mꜣꜥ-chapel 416–419 Mr-chapel 420 S.t-rmy, mꜣꜥ.w-nhpy and wlḥ.w structures 421 Wabet (wꜥb.t) cultic place 216–217 Collective Grouped by origo 455–457 Grouped by profession 454–455 Grouped by pater/mater familias 457–458 Construction 26, 421–434 Identified by original owner’s name 353–354 Later use 335–347, 434–453 Markers 33–35, 348–349 Ownership of 369–370, 442–443, 443– 444 (royal tombs) Relationship with body treatment 459– 482 Typology ꜥ.wy-tomb ꜥ.wy n rmṯ, ꜥ.wy-ḳs, ḳs.(t) 402–411 ꜥ.wy-ḥtp, ꜥ.wy-ḥp 411–416 Ḥ.t-tomb 389–397 Ḳꜣ-tomb 398–402 Shaft (šḳ) 388–389 S.t-tomb 383–387 Terminology’s use 376–381 Tower-tomb (mkṱl) 397–398

769

select index of words Transport Expenses Middle Egypt 101 Thebes 202 Individuals responsible for 203–208

47–48, 101,

River By Neshmet (nšmt) boat 202 By other specialised boat 207–208 By regular boat/craft 208 To necropolis 201–203, 214 To tomb (Middle Egypt) 206–207

Plates

∵

plate 1

General map of Memphis and some of the necropolises on the west bank Modified from PM III 2 part 1 Key-map; PM III 2 part 2, Key-map; Jeffreys 1985, Pl. 1. Reproduced with permission of the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford

plate 2

Map of Saqqara Modified from Aufrère and Golvin 1997, page 73

plate 3

Map of the Giza plateau showing the location of the various necropolis areas discussed Modified from LÄ Band II, 613–614, Site Map; Zivie-Coche 1991, Pl. 1

plate 4

Sphinx temenos and location of rock-cut tombs After PM III 2 part 1, Pl. VI. Reproduced with permission of the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford

plate 5

Abusir pyramids field After Verner 2000, Fig. 5; Porter and Moss 1974, Plan XXXVII. Reproduced with permission of the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford

plate 6 Plan of some of the tombs discovered at Tûra el-Asmant After Yacoub 1988, Foldout plan

plate 7

Map of the Fayum After Doxiadis 1995, page 228

plate 8

Map of the Hawara necropolis produced by Petrie After Petrie 1889, Pl. XXV; Courtesy of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL

plate 9

Topographical survey map produced by the Leuven Katholieke Universiteit After Uytterhoeven 2001, Fig. 1

plate 10

Plan of the el-Kom el-Ahmar Sawaris area investigated by the German mission Modified from Gestermann et al. 1987, Fig. 1; © Göttinger Miszellen, Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie der Georg-AugustUniversität Göttingen

plate 11

Plan of the necropolis showing the division in zones by the German mission and the phases of expansion of the cemetery (the numbers in brackets refer to the typology of the shaft tombs, the others indicate the tombs’ number) Modified from Gestermann et al. 1988, Fig. 6. © Göttinger Miszellen, Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie der GeorgAugust-Universität Göttingen

plate 12

Map of Theban necropolis After PM I 2 part 2, Pl. 1. Reproduced with permission of the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford

plate 13

Sketch map of the limit of the Metropolitan Museum of Art excavations on the Asasif After Lythgoe et al. 1917

plate 14

View of the south-east end of the Asasif showing the areas excavated by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, by Carter and Carnarvon and by the Austrian missions. The Ptolemaic structures excavated by Winlock and Lansing are marked over the Ramesside temple After Eigner 1984 Plan 1, and Winlock’s unpublished plan of the tombs uncovered

plate 15

Tomb B4: view from northeast with the burial chambers at the back Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 16

Tomb B11: view from the front, with an entrance step, or slope, in the foreground Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 17

Tomb B11: view from southeast looking toward the entrance of the tomb; the bins and the pots within are visible on either side of the entrance pit Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 18 Examples of the type of vessels found buried under the floors of these structures After Carter 1912, Pl. XXXIV.1. Reproduced with permission of the Griffith Institute, University of Oxford

plate 19

Pots in position beneath floor level in the north chamber in tomb B19 Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 20

Vaulted tombs located within brick enclosure Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 21

Tombs B5–B12, south view Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 22

View of tomb B30 looking towards the south Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 23

Map of the Labyrinth produced by Lepsius After Lepsius 1843, Fig. 46

plate 24

Mud brick superstructures identified by the excavator as a birabi. The central one appears to be in the shape of a truncated pyramid, while that to the right resembles a tower Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 25

Burials in the upper stratum in square 1715 After Myśliwiec 2003, Fig. 3

plate 26

Squares 1714, 1715 and 1716 excavated to the west of the ‘dry-moat’ After Myśliwiec 2003, Fig. 4

plate 27

Burial № 4 before and after removal of the mat covering and stones After Myśliwiec et al. 1995, Fig. 13b and 14

plate 28

Photographs of some of the inhumations found at Tûra el-Asmant. The bad state of preservation is clearly discernible on some of them After Yacoub 1988, Pls. XX and XXI

plate 29

Later partition walls inside the tomb of Ankh-Hor (TT414) After Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, Pl. 28

plate 29a Later partition walls inside the tomb of Ankh-Hor (TT414) After Bietak and Reiser-Haslauer 1978, Pl. 29

plate 30

Tomb in the foreground described by excavators as the large Ptolemaic tomb Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 31 Burial emplacement built using bricks for the walls and inscribed stone fragments for the base Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 32

Burial emplacement built using offering tables, stone slabs and architectural fragments Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 33 Ptolemaic burial in position inside a crypt Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 34

Plan of the area around the funerary temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu After Robichon and Varille 1936, Pl. IV

plate 34a Sketch of tombs’ construction methods After Robichon and Varille 1936, Fig. 11

plate 35

Remains of a family tomb (left) After Robichon and Varille 1936, Pl. XXIX.13

plate 36

Remains of an individual tomb with intact vault After Robichon and Varille 1936, Pl. XLVI.37

plate 37

Remains of an individual tomb with collapsed vault After Robichon and Varille 1936, Pl. XLIV.35

plate 38

Remains of an individual tomb with vault removed and burial still in place After Robichon and Varille 1936, Pl. XLVI.38

plate 39

Remains of a simpler type of individual tomb visible to the right After Robichon and Varille 1936, Pl. XLVII.39

plate 40

Tomb B45 (26th Dynasty), view east. Man standing in vaulted passage leading to burial chamber at left pyramidal tomb Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 41

Cultic emplacement in the forecourt of TT411 After Arnold and Settgast 1966, Pl. XIVb

plate 42

P. Philadelphia XXX (302–301 BC) Image Courtesy of the Archives of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

plate 43

Upper burial chambers inside tomb O17 After Gestermann et al. 1987, Pl. 6. © Göttinger Miszellen, Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie der Georg-AugustUniversität Göttingen

plate 44

Lower burial chambers inside tomb O17 After Gestermann et al. 1987, Pl. 7. © Göttinger Miszellen, Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie der Georg-AugustUniversität Göttingen

plate 45

Tomb B4: body lying in the north burial chamber Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 46

Tomb B4: female body lying in the south burial chamber Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 47

Human remains in situ in tomb B17, with the coffin still visible along the short side of the tomb and the partial remains lying across it and over the other on the ground Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 48 Sketch of five of the six bodies found in the tomb showing the letters assigned to them by the excavator unpublished field notes, image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 49

Bodies found inside one of the brick tombs, possibly B39 Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 50

View from the south-east of the burials 1–11 Image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 51

Sketch showing the position of the eleven inhumations found northeast of tomb B40 unpublished field notes, image courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art Archives

plate 52

Map of Edfu and its cemeteries After Effland 1999, 23

plate 53

Photograph of the coffin and mummy taken immediately after their removal from the tomb. Now both in the collection of the Liverpool Museum After Gray and Slow 1968, Pl. 65; Image courtesy of The Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool

plate 54

Burial 207: coffin lid (left) and skeleton inside coffin (right) showing no evidence for wrapping After Myśliwiec 2002a, Fig. 2a and 2b

plate 55

Burials 335 and 336 in wooden coffins After Myśliwiec 2003, Fig. 6

plate 56

Burials 345 and 346 in terracotta coffins After Myśliwiec 2003, Fig. 7

plate 57

Multiple burials 288, 289 and 314 with the wrapped bodies placed directly in the sand After Myśliwiec 2003, Fig. 5

plate 58

Father and child lying next to each other with stones placed around the bodies for protection After Myśliwiec 1999, Fig. 8

plate 59

Adult and sub-adult mummies lying together inside the sarcophagus to the right After Yacoub 1988, Pl. XX

plate 60

Another adult and sub-adult lying together in the same sarcophagus. Left: detail of the decoration applied to the cartonnage over the adult body After Yacoub 1988, Pl. XXI