Egyptian CulturE and SoCiEty

Egyptian CulturE and SoCiEty

StudiES in honour of naguib kanawati

supplment aux annales du service

des antiquits de l'gypte

cahier no 38

VolumE i

Preface by
Zahi hawaSS

Edited by
alExandra woodS
ann mCfarlanE
SuSannE bindEr

PUBLICATIONS DU CONSEIL SUPRME DES

ANTIQUITS DE L'GYPTE

Graphic Designer:
Anna-Latifa Mourad.
Director of Printing:
Amal Safwat.
Front Cover: Tomb of Remni.
Opposite: Saqqara season, 2005.
Photos: Effy Alexakis.

(CASAE 38) 2010

Conseil Suprme des Antiquits de l'gypte

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher
Dar al Kuttub Registration No. 2874/2010
ISBN: 978-977-479-845-6
IMPRIMERIE DU CONSEIL SUPRME DES ANTIQUITS

The abbreviations employed in this work follow those in B.

Mathieu, Abrviations des priodiques et collections en usage
l'IFAO (4th ed., Cairo, 2003) and G. Mller, H. Balz and G. Krause
(eds), Theologische Realenzyklopdie, vol 26: S. M. Schwertner,
Abkrzungsverzeichnis (2nd ed., Berlin - New York, 1994).

Presented to

NAGUIB KANAWATI AM FAHA

Professor, Macquarie University, Sydney

Member of the Order of Australia
Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities

by his
Colleagues, Friends, and Students

ContEntS

VolumE i
prEfaCE
Zahi hawass

xiii
xv

aCknowlEdgEmEntS
naguib kanawati: a lifE in Egyptology
ann mcFarlane

xvii

xxvii

naguib kanawati: a bibliography

susanne Binder, The Title 'Scribe of the Offering Table': Some Observations

gillian Bowen, The Spread of Christianity in Egypt: Archaeological Evidence

15

from Dakhleh and Kharga Oases

edward Brovarski, The Hare and Oryx Nomes in the First Intermediate

31

Period and Early Middle Kingdom

vivienne g. callender, Writings of the Word Hathor from Akhmim

87

malcolm choat, Athanasius, Pachomius, and the 'Letter on Charity and

97

Temperance'
rosalie david, Cardiovascular Disease and Diet in Ancient Egypt

105

linda evans, Otter or Mongoose? Chewing over the Evidence in Wall Scenes

119

roByn gillam, From Meir to Quseir el-Amarna and Back Again: The Cusite

131

Nome in SAT and on the Ground

said g. gohary, The Cult-Chapel of the Fortress Commander Huynefer at
Saqqara

159

michelle hampson, 'Experimenting with the New': Innovative Figure Types

165

and Minor Features in Old Kingdom Workshop Scenes

ix

Zahi hawass, The Anubieion

181

tom hillard, The God Abandons Antony: Alexandrian Street Theatre in 30bC

201

colin a. hope and olaF e. kaper, A Governor of Dakhleh Oasis in the

219

Early Middle Kingdom

Jana Jones, Some Observations on the Dimensions of Textiles in the Old

247

Kingdom Linen Lists

edwin a. Judge, The Puzzle of Christian Presence in Egypt before

263

Constantine
lesley J. kinney, Deining the Position of Dancers within Performance

279

Institutions in the Old Kingdom

audran laBrousse, Huit pouses du roi Ppy Ier

297

VolumE ii
miral lashien, The Transportation of Funerary Furniture in Old Kingdom

Tomb Scenes
lise manniche, The Cultic Signiicance of the Sistrum in the Amarna

13

Period
kim mccorquodale, 'Hand in Hand': Reliefs in the Chapel of Mereruka

27

and other Old Kingdom Tombs

roBert s. merrillees, Two Unusual Late Cypriote Bronze Age Juglets from

35

Egypt in Western Australia and Tatarstan

Juan carlos moreno garca, La gestion des aires marginales: pHw, gs, Tnw, sxt

49

au IIIe millnaire
karol myliwiec, The Mysterious Mereris, Sons of Ny-ankh-nefertem

71

(Sixth Dynasty, Saqqara)

alanna noBBs, Phileas, Bishop of Thmouis

93

Boyo g. ockinga, The Memphite Theology - Its Purpose and Date

99

maarten J. raven, A New Statue of an Old Kingdom Vizier from Saqqara

119

gay roBins, Space and Movement in Pre-Amarna Eighteenth Dynasty

129

Theban Tomb Chapels

ashraF-alexandre sadek, Trois pices de la Collection gyptienne du

143

Muse des Beaux-Arts de Limoges

ramadan el-sayed, propos de sept scarabes au Muse du Caire

151

michael schultZ, The Biography of the Wife of Kahai: A Biological

163

Reconstruction
sameh shaFik, Disloyalty and Punishment: The Case of Ishfu at Saqqara
Basim

el-sharkawy, Sobek
Further Documents

samir

at

Memphis,

Once

Again:

181
191

kenneth a. sheedy, Scenes from Alexandria in the Time of Domitian

205

karin n. sowada, Forgotten Cemetery F at Abydos and Burial Practices of the

219

Late Old Kingdom

Joyce swinton, De-Coding Old Kingdom Wall Scenes: Force-Feeding the Hyena

233

eliZaBeth thompson, Scenes of the Tomb Owner Journeying-by-Water: The

247

Motif in Tombs of the Old Kingdom Cemetery of El-Hawawish

miroslav verner, miroslav Brta and Zdenka svov, The Second Renaissance

267

of Abusir
sophie winlaw, The Chapel Types Utilised in the Teti Cemetery at Saqqara

281

alexandra woods, A Date for the Tomb of Seneb at Giza: Revisited

301

xi

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES IN THE FIRST INTERMEDIATE

PERIOD AND EARLY MIDDLE KINGDOM
Edward Brovarski
Brookline, Massachusetts
In 1981 the writer contributed an article on the Hare nome in the First Intermediate Period
to the Festschrift of a distinguished colleague. Subsequently, Harco Willems took exception
to a number of views expressed in that article and presented quite a different reconstruction
of the events concerned. Our views remain divergent on these questions. The principle
thrust of the present article is that an examination of palaeographic, phraseological,
iconographic, and archaeological data justify a date prior to the Twelfth Dynasty for the
tombs of Ahanakht I and Nehri I at Bersheh and the Nehri-graffiti at Hatnub. Additonally,
there are reasons for thinking that the Tjehemau graffiti at Abisko indeed document
episodes in the conquest of the Heracleopolitan kingdom by Mentuhotep II.

This study is dedicated in admiration and respect to Naguib Kanawati. Naguib's

extraordinary series of site reports on places as diverse as Giza, Saqqara, Dishasha,
Quseir el-Amarna, Hammamiya, Hagarsa, and especially El-Hawawish, have left
Egyptology forever in his debt. And this is not to mention a number of important
monographs on Old Kingdom government and administration. As a past master of
Old Kingdom history, who has taken considerable interest in the succeeding First
Intermediate Period as well, I hope he finds the following essay of interest.
In 1981 the present writer contributed an article on the Hare Nome in the course of
the First Intermediate Period to the Festschrift of a distinguished colleague.1
Subsequently, H. willems took exception to a number of views expressed in that
article (as well as those in an article on a related topic by E. Blumenthal) and
presented quite a different reconstruction of the events concerned.2 Our views
remain divergent on these questions, even in the aftermath of the 1990 field season
of the Joint Expedition of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania, and Leiden University, of which H. willems
and I, along with R. E. Freed and D. Silverman, were directors. This dissent is
testimony to the thorny nature of the problems involved. Of course, it is by means
of such controversy that our science progresses. I have hesitated for a number of
years to rehash once again the same old data, but I did not want to leave the
impression that I concurred with willems's conclusions. Even so, it remains my
firm belief that only new data will settle these problems with any finality, and it is
to be hoped that future field seasons of the Belgian expedition at Bersheh will
provide the requisite material.

31

EDwARD BROVARSKI

willems (pp. 80-81) begins his critique by observing that in the first years
following the discovery of the Hatnub graffiti dated to the reign of the nomarch
Nehri I, general opinion as to their date was that these graffiti reflected the
upheavals in Middle Egypt accompanying the reunification of the 'Two Lands'
under Mentuhotep Nebhepetre. 'The most recent publications concerning this issue
also agree that a date in this period is the most likely alternative for the NHri-texts.'
willems describes the first of these recent studies, the article by E. Blumenthal, as 'a
critical analysis of the relevant geneaological, chronological, palaeographical,
phraseological and archaeological evidence that had been used by previous writers'.3
He sees my article, 'Ahanakht of Bersheh and the Hare Nome in the First
Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom', as similar but 'more radically formulated'.
As willems observes (p. 81) both publications rehabilitate the theory of Anthes and
discredit the one that had come into vogue after the appearance of Schenkel's
dissertation.4 In this book, as willems writes, 'Schenkel tried to establish a number
of palaeographical criteria for dating undated texts of the First Intermediate Period
and early Middle Kingdom. On the basis of these, he concluded that the nomarchs
aHA-nxt I and NHri I could only be assigned to the Twelfth Dynasty. He suggested
that the unsettled situation recorded in the Hatnub texts be seen in the light of the
events surrounding the murder of Amenemhat I, which are so vividly described in
that king's Instruction and the Story of Sinuhe'.5
willems thinks that 'Schenkel's critics are probably right in stating that such a date
is far too late'. But he also feels that 'Anthes's suggestion of a date in the period of
Egypt's unification need not be considered the only alternative, the more so since
evidence in favor of this is more ambiguous than is generally admitted. A span of
sixty years or more separates both events'. willems asks if it could not be possible
that NHri's rule fell somewhere in between? This is the thesis his article endeavors
to substantiate.
The Genealogy of the Nomarchs of the Hare Nome
willems (p. 82) notes that there is no need to discuss the nomarchs who ruled the
Hare nome directly after the end of the Old Kingdom. He begins by observing that
the 'earliest governor of interest to us is aHA-nxt I. The latter was the owner of the
large tomb No. 5 at Bersheh and is mentioned several times in the Hatnub graffiti.6
He is known to have had three sons: the scribe #nmw-ior mentioned in Hatnub Gr.
10, +Hwty-nxt (IV), and aHA-nxt (II). From the scarce evidence concerning the latter
two it appears that they succeeded their father as nomarch'.7
willems observes that the 'next nomarch we hear about was called NHri (I). Little
now remains of his tomb, but most of the graffiti at Hatnub are from his time.8 we
are well informed about his family. A grandfather KAy and his father +Hwty-nxt are
known,9 as well as his mother Km.10 He was married to a certain +Hwty-Htp, the
mother of his two sons +Hwty-nxt and KAy'.11

32

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

As willems also remarks: 'It is unfortunately less certain that KAy son of NHri (I) is
identical with the KAy who features as grandfather of the later nomarch Imn-m-HAt
in Hatnub Gr. 49, as was proposed by Griffith.'12
willems (p. 83) notes further that: 'Hatnub Gr. 49 mentions not only Imn-m-HAt's
grandfather KAy, but his father NHri and mother %At-HDt-Htp, too. This same pair is
also mentioned as the parents of the nomarch +Hwty-nxt VI13 and of the sDAwty-bity
NHri.14 An inscription in Bersheh tomb No. 2 may mention even a fourth son,
KAy.15 The owner of this tomb, the nomarch +Hwty-Htp, is here represented
standing opposite his father NHri sA KAy, 'NHri's son KAy'.16 The accompanying
inscription makes clear that +Hwty-Htp had been appointed as successor of his
grandfather NHri. Thus, if KAy is indeed a fourth son of NHri, one is justified to
conclude that NHri was a nomarch. On these grounds, he is usually identified with
the nomarch NHri II, who owned Bersheh tomb No. 7. Blumenthal has emphasized
that this identification is hypothetical.17 However, her chronological objections are
unfounded and the fact that one of NHri's and %At-HDt-Htp's sons is called a sA HAty-a
'nomarch's son' is of some consequence as well.'18
willems is correct that the inscription does seem to indicate that +Hwty-Htp was
appointed Great Overlord of the Hare Nome as successor to his grandfather NHri
II.19 KAy, +Hwty-Htp's father apparently never functioned as nomarch, but went to
the Residence where he served as high priest of Senusert I's (?) pyramid town at
Lisht.20 He may even have been buried at Lisht.
willems (p. 84) points out that the nomarch Imn-m-HAt is mentioned in Hatnub Gr.
49, dated to year 31 of Sesostris I. willems thinks that 'at that time he had not yet
reached the zenith of his career, for the titles of the nomarchy are lacking. But he
was already sDAwty-bity and imy-rA Hmw-nTr. The latter function was normally
executed by nomarchs, but sometimes the son took over when the father was still in
office.' willems concludes therefore that Imn-m-HAt's father NHri II was nomarch
before the year 31 of Sesostris I.'
willems (p. 85) argues that if his 'suggestion that NHri II was in office before
Sesostris I's year 31... is correct, it follows that his (direct ?) predecessor +Hwty-nxt
V must have been appointed before year 11, for he ruled at least twenty years. NHri
I became nomarch at least 8 years earlier, i.e. prior to year 3 of Sesostris I, which
corresponds to year 23 of Amenemhat I. The first reports on disturbances in the
Hatnub texts date from NHri's year 5, that is Amenemhat I's year 28 at the latest.
The fights must therefore have begun well before the king's death.'
I could not disagree more with willem's reconstruction of events. To begin with, it
is unclear why the titles of the nomarchy are lacking in Gr. 49. Although he
provides no references, willems's observation that sometimes the son took over as
Overseer of Priests when the father was still in office, is probably accurate. For
example, +Hwty-nxt V is xtmty-bity, smr waty, imy-r3 Hmw-nTr in Gr. 26, dated to
33

EDwARD BROVARSKI

year 8 of NHri I, a circumstance which suggests that he was already functioning as

Overseer of Priests under his father. But does this also necessarily mean that Imnm-HAt was not nomarch by year 31 of Senusert I? It should be recalled that we do
not fully understand the reasons for the inclusion of titles on some monuments and
their exclusion on others of the selfsame individual. For example, the title Hry-tp aA
n MAHD is missing from the coffins of the Bersheh nomarchs, on which only the
titles HAty-a, xrp nsty or HAty-a, xrp nsty, imy-rA Hmw-nTr (and sometimes wr 5 or
wab aA n +Hwty) appear.21 In Gr. 49 Imn-m-HAt is actually xtmty-bity, smr waty, imyr3 Hmw-nTr. The title sequence xtmty-bity, smr waty, recurs in three other graffiti at
Hatnub. In Gr. 17 and 23 NHri I's son, +Hwty-nxt V is imy-r3 Hmw-nTr (wAb aA n
+Hwty). Neither graffiti is dated, but it is likely that +Hwty-nxt's circumstances
were the same as in Gr. 26. The title sequence also occurs in Gr. 24 in which NHri
I's son KAy is xtmty-bity, smr waty, imy-rA niwt, tAyty TAty zAb. Clearly, the honorifics
xtmty-bity and smr waty might be coupled with high-level functional titles as well.
Indeed, on a block once in the Muse Guimet (and now in the Louvre?), an
anoymous nomarch has the title sequence xtmty-bity, smr waty, Hry-tp aA n MAHD.22
Considering that the block bears the titulary of Senusert I, it could well derive from
the tomb of the nomarch Imn-m-HAt himself. That Imn-m-HAt also has the highranking honorifics iry-pat, HAty-a, xtmty-bity, smr waty in Gr. 49, may well indicate
that he was nomarch as well as Overseer of Priests.
Alternatively, Imn-m-HAt may have served as Overseer of Priests during the time
that his older brother +Hwty-nxt VI functioned as nomarch, in which case Imn-mHAt only took over as nomarch at the death of his older brother. So it is possible that
Imn-m-HAt was already nomarch by Year 31 of Senusert I.
Because willems thinks that Imn-m-HAt and +Hwty-nxt VI succeeded their father
NHri II as nomarch towards the end of the reign of Senusert I and in the time of the
latter's successor Amenemhat II, he believes that their coffins date from the time of
Amenemhat II or only slightly earlier (i.e. the end of reign of Senusert I).23 He
adds: 'Unfortunately, the order of succession of the two men is uncertain, so that
the sequence of the sources remains more problematic.'
There is nevertheless some reason to think that +Hwty-nxt was the older of the two
brothers. His tomb (No. 1) and that of his father, NHri II (No. 7), both consisted of
a main chamber with a small shrine at the inner end (in contrast to earlier tombs
which were composed of two chambers without shrines).24 Not only do they appear
to be similar in plan, but both tombs have religious texts on the ceiling, a feature
that at Bersheh, so far as we know, is confined to these tombs.25 In addition, the
faade of Imn-m-HAt's tomb exhibits a new treatment, which may indicate that it
belongs to the later tradition of tomb design at the site. Although there appears to
have been no portico, in the center of a vertical area of dressed stone, the projecting
frame of the doorway was inscribed with lines and columns of hieroglyhic texts
recording Imn-m-HAt's name and titles.26 The tomb of NHri II lacks this sort of
impressive entrance27 and, while the facade of the tomb of +Hwty-nxt VI is buried
34

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

under debris, it is otherwise so closely affiliated in design with the tomb of his
father that it too is likely to have had a plain entrance.
In addition, Imn-m-HAt in his coffin utilizes the later form di.f prt-xrw, like the other
Bersheh coffins of Dynasty XII, while +Hwty-nxt does not, another indication
perhaps that +Hwty-nxt was older than Imn-m-HAt and served as nomarch before
him.28
Furthermore, it is +Hwty-nxt who bears the 'dynastic' name borne by (at least) five
of his predecessors. This may well suggest that he was eldest son, so named by his
father in the expectation that he would inherit the nomarchic office.
If this was indeed the case, and +Hwty-nxt VI preceeded his brother Imn-m-HAt in
office, he would have been nomarch before year 31 of Senusert I. we do not know
how long the brothers reigned as nomarchs. Since they both built substantial tombs at
Bersheh (Nos. 1 and 3), there is no reason to think they were short-lived. NHri II's
tomb (No. 7) was completed and there is every reason to assume that he had a normal
period of reign. He could have survived the 20-year sole reign of Amenemhat I and
lived on into the period of the co-regency of that king and Senusert I.
willems (p. 84) comments that 'the link between NHri II and the early Middle
Kingdom nomarchs is not established beyond doubt, so that 'generation counting'
affords no clue to the date of early nomarchs like aHA-nxt I and NHri I. If NHri I's
son KAy is identical with the like-named father of NHri II, it is hardly possible to
date the NHri texts (where the former KAy is mentioned) long before the beginning
of the 12th Dynasty.'
Yes, but it is not necessary to date the NHri-texts 'long before the beginning of the
12th Dynasty'. Assuming the reunification of Egypt by Mentuhotep II did take place
around the latter's year 39 (or 41), as is generally supposed,29 only 31 (or 29) years
elapsed between that event and the accession of Amenemhat I. This is ample time
to accommodate the end of the incumbency of NHri I, that of his son, +Hwty-nxt V,
whom we know ruled at least 20 years (and the lifetime of his brother, the Vizier
KAy), and perhaps even the beginning of the tenure in office of NHri II as well.
Contrary to what willems says, 'generation counting' does afford a clue to the date
of early nomarchs like aHA-nxt I and NHri I. It may not be able to provide us with a
full count of the years involved, but it can certainly yield a minimum number of
generations.
willems (pp. 84-85) observes that the period from aHA-nxt I's appointment until the
end of the reign of +Hwty-nxt V lasted at least 60 years. This period actually
encompassed the lives of five individuals but only four generations: aHA-nxt I, his
sons +Hwty-nxt IV and aHA-nxt II, NHri I, and +Hwty-nxt V, a minimum of 60 years
of rule. we know that NHri I ruled for at least 8 years30 and his son and successor
35

EDwARD BROVARSKI

+Hwty-nxt V for (at least) 20 years.31 Since aHA-nxt I ruled at least 30 years,32 that
would leave approximately 10 years for his sons +Hwty-nxt IV and aHA-nxt II.
However, 'generation counting' yields what I think is a more realistic figure for the
period in question. If we allow twenty years per generation, four generations
(remembering that aHA-nxt II and +Hwty-nxt V were brothers) equals some 80
years. If, on the other hand, we allow twenty-five years to a generation, the
resultant period would equal 100 years.33
Two of those generations belong to NHri I and +Hwty-nxt V. Forty or even fifty
years before the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty would make NHri I a
contemporary of Mentuhotep II. This would situate the NHri graffiti and the battle
of Shedyt-sha in the years that led to the reunification of Upper and Lower Egypt
by Mentuhotep II, as Anthes and other scholars have argued.
willems (p. 86) maintains that the hypothesis of Anthes, Blumenthal, and the
present writer 'involves an interruption of at least 30 to 40 years in our evidence of
the Hare nome and its nomarchs. For if NHri ruled around the time of Egypt's
Unification, the end of +Hwty-nxt V's term of office must be assigned to the last
years of the Eleventh Dynasty or the very beginning of the Twelfth. The first
governor we hear about after this is NHri II, a contemporary of Sesostris I. Given
the rich evidence pertaining to the nomarchs of the Hare nome and their relatives,
such a gap is rather unexpected. In itself this is not solid proof against an early
date, but in the light of coordinated interruptions in quite different sources of
information to be discussed below, it is significant.'
As we have seen, only something like 31 years intervened between the unification
(if it occurred around year 39 of Mentuhotep II) and the end of the Eleventh
Dynasty/beginning of the reign of Amenemhat I. +Hwty-nxt V reigned at least 20
years. If NHri II is a contemporary of Amenemhat I, as I believe he was, the time
gap is imaginary and results from willem's reconstruction of the history of the
Hare nome.
In passing, it may be noted that our dossier on the Bersheh nomarchs is not as
complete as willems implies. we lack tombs for the early Bersheh nomarchs
+Hwty-nxt (+Hwty-nxt I, II, III) and for +Hwty-nxt IV, son of aHA-nxt I,34 as well as
for NHri I's son, +Hwty-nxt V (see below). Similarly, we have no coffins for
+Hwty-nxt I-III and aHA-nxt II (unless B1Ph: Univ. Mus. E 16218) or for KAy, the
grandfather of NHri I, or for NHri I himself. In the Twelfth Dynasty, the coffins of
NHri II and %At-HDt-Htp (unless CG 28085/86) are missing. Nor do we know the
whereabouts of the tombs or coffins of Ipw, born of WAD, or of WpwAwt-Htp.35 (In
the case of Ipw, it is unclear whether he had a tomb or a cenotaph at Abydos.)

36

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

Arguments in Favor of an Early Date

willems observes (p. 86) that 'the genealogical and chronological evidence ...
[does] not enable us to fix the date of the NHri-texts. For this, one must resort to
secondary evidence, such as the palaeography of the inscriptions, the vocabulary
and phraseology of the texts, and the archaeological features of the relevant
material'. Schenkel used such arguments to justify his late date for the NHri-texts.
willems goes on to say that Schenkel's 'reasoning has since been submitted to close
scrutiny by Blumenthal and Brovarski, who added some new material'. willems
believes, however, that the usefulness of most of Blumenthal's and my observations
is open to serious doubt. Needless to say, I do not concur with this conclusion. In
the following three sections, I review the palaeographical, phraseological, and
archaeological evidence once again in the light of willem's objections.
a) Palaeography
willems (p. 86) notes that Schenkel's dating attempt of the NHri-texts is mainly
based on the form of the bookroll-sign in the earliest Middle Kingdom tombs. He
summarizes Schenkel's arguments as follows. The formal development of this sign
seemed to Schenkel to afford a reliable clue to the date of a text: the bookroll-sign
without ties was the form used until the end of the Eleventh Dynasty and
occasionally later; while the sign with two ties or one tie occur from the time of
Amenemhat I onwards. Since the tombs of aHA-nxt I (No. 5) and his contemporary
IHA (No. 8) and of NHri I (No. 4) as published by Griffith and Newberry exhibit the
form with two ties, Schenkel concluded that even aHA-nxt's tomb could not have
been completed before the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. The tomb of NHri I,
of course, must be still later.
willems then notes that a second transcript of the texts made in 1915 by the
Harvard University-Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition (Lyman Story) cast
doubt on the accuracy of the text edition.36 During a visit to Bersheh in September
1984 willems (pp. 86-87) found that both Griffith and Newberry's and Story's
copies were in fact wrong. He did not succeed in finding the single occurrence of
the sign with two ties in the tomb of NHri I (No. 4), but in the tomb of aHA-nxt I
(No. 5) and in the tomb of IHA (No. 8), it is written with one tie throughout.
willems asks (p. 87) what this tells us about the date of the aHA-nxt tombs (Nos. 5
and 8)? He answers, 'very much, according to Schenkel's book'. Schenkel's
evidence suggests a sudden popularity of the sign with one tie in the later years of
Amenemhat I's reign and the beginning of that of his successor, the earliest dated
instance being attested on a stela from Sesostris I's year 4 (?) (= year 24 of
Amenemhat I).37
willems then calls attention to two texts where the sign occurs that have been
thought to be much earlier, but he believes with little reason. One of these is the
graffito Hatnub X, which is often assumed to have been written under the Ninth
37

EDwARD BROVARSKI

Dynasty because of the cartouche it features. As willems points out, this dating
goes back to Mller who read the name as $ty.38 However, willems thinks the
remaining traces do not support this reading. Moreover, the name occurs after a
long break in the text, so that its context is not clear. willems also questions the
relevance of Hatnub Gr. X for our present concern, for the form of the sign (with
one tie and a loop) in the text is somewhat unusual.39 The restoration text published
by Lepsius40 also shows the bookroll with one tie, but, lacking the name of its
owner (a nomarch of the Hare nome), it cannot be securely dated. Note also that
the inscription has only been published in a hand copy. The earliest datable
instances therefore remain those of the later years of Amenemhat I.
Nevertheless, willems thinks it would be unwise to conclude from this single fact
that the tombs 4, 5 and 8 can only date from the Twelfth Dynasty. He then remarks
that Blumenthal has rightly called for more caution in these matters than Schenkel
has shown,41 but concludes that until clear instances are found to prove the
contrary, the scroll-evidence is certainly one argument in favor of a date close to or
in the Twelfth Dynasty. we will return to the question of the bookroll with or
without ties in our discussion of the tombs at Beni Hasan (see below).
willems argues (pp. 87-88) that 'the restrictions Blumenthal imposes upon the use
of the palaeography of hieroglyphs for dating purposes must also apply to the
palaeography of hieratic. Her conclusion '... die Gesamtheit des hieratischen
Befundes (spricht) fr ein frheres Datum' is therefore not fully justified.42
Probably the source for her conclusion that Hatnub-hieratic represents an earlier
stage than that of the Twelfth Dynasty is Mller's remarks in the introduction of his
Palographie. He argues that the NHri-texts represent the last group of texts written
in Old Hieratic. From then on, he says, the script evolved 'sprungweise' into Middle
Hieratic.43 Looking through the palaeography, one can certainly find instances of
Old Hieratic signs which disappeared after Hatnub, but in many cases the NHritexts can also be seen to be 'innovating'.'44 In willem's view, 'it is hardly possible to
differentiate Hatnub-hieratic from that of Papyrus Prisse, considered by Mller as
'Middle Hieratic'.'
I must differ with willems. Although there are signs in the NHri-texts which can be
seen as 'innovating', there are a far greater number that are more closely related to
Old Hieratic.45 Hatnub hieratic is definitely distinct from that of Papyrus Prisse.
In my article in Dunham Studies, I added three criteria to the question of date.
willems finds the first of these 'simply inadequate'. In the article I pointed out that
the toponymn +dw spelled
, as in documents of aHA-nxt I and NHri I, is
typical of Bersheh in the Heracleopolitan Period.46 But willems cites Bennett who
established long ago, that this spelling was usual until the time of Senusert III.47 Be
is typical of the Twelfth
that as it may, at the site of Bersheh itself the writing
Dynasty until the reign of Senusert III, occurring as it does in the coffins of +Hwty-nxt
VI, of his brother Imn-m-HAt, and of +Hwty-Htp II, a contemporary of that king.48
38

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

is typical of
In the aforesaid article, I also pointed out that the formula
Bersheh in the Heracleopolitan Period.49 willems (p. 88) disagrees and states that it
is uncertain that the formula pri.t xrw n.t can only point to a date prior to the
Twelfth Dynasty. He remarks that is true that its popularity rapidly declined around
this time, but it still occurs in the tombs of BAot III (No. 15) and $ty I (No. 17) in
Beni Hasan, which he considers to belong to the Twelfth Dynasty (but see below)
and on two other documents from the same dynasty both in Cairo, a stele, CG
20480, and a coffin, CG 28097.
In fact, it was never my intent to say that the formula prt-xrw nt can only point to a
date prior to the Twelfth Dynasty. The observation I was making concerned the
specific writing under discussion here, not the wider use of the formula prt xrw
nt.50 To my knowledge, no instances of the arrangement
appear on
monuments that clearly date to Dynasty Twelve! Prt-xrw nt does occur in tombs
No. 15 and 17 at Beni Hasan, but in the following arrangements:
,
51
,
. Neither do either the stele or coffin cited by willems display
the specific orthography of which I was speaking. The first, Cairo stele CG 20480
writes
.52 The second, CG 28097, a coffin in Cairo which willems
correctly assigns to the Twelfth Dynasty, on account of its vaulted lid, has
.53
does appear in a stela, Cairo JE 36420, found by Lady
The arrangement
william Cecil in the cemetery of Qubbet el-Hawa at Aswan in 1901.54 The stela
depicts two brothers, Msnw's son @oA-ib the Elder and Msnw's son @oA-ib, and
their respective spouses.55 Cairo JE 36420 has recently been included by Rita Freed
in her 'Packed Offerings Group'.56 Freed assigns a date range of late Amenemhat I
to early Senusert I to this stele group. Elsewhere, I believe I have demonstrated that
the stele belongs rather to the end of the Eleventh Dynasty.57
In aHA-nxt I's tomb determinatives or ideograms representing men in a standing
attitude occur in cases where a sitting posture is more usual. As willems pointed
out, quoting parallels from the First Intermediate Period until the later years of
Mentuhotep II, I used this as an argument for his dating of this nomarch, i.e. at
least thirty years before the end of the Eleventh Dynasty, and thus prior to Egypt's
unification.58 willem's argues that there is no compelling reason for such an early
date; similar signs occur on monuments made after the unification,59 and it is
prudent not to set the temporal margins for a given palaeographic phenomenon too
narrowly. In fact, willems is correct in this regard. Although the practice of
substituting standing signs for seated or kneeling ones appears to have largely
passed out of fashion at the end of the Eleventh Dynasty, isolated Twelfth Dynasty
examples are known.60

39

EDwARD BROVARSKI

b) Phraseology
At the end of her phraseological analysis of the Hatnub texts and the tomb
inscriptions from Bersheh, as willems (p. 88) observes, 'Blumenthal concludes that
there is little hard evidence for an early date as proposed by Anthes'. In fact, 'many
expressions are argued by Blumenthal to be typical of the Heracleopolitan Period
or the Eleventh Dynasty'. However, willems (p. 89) asserts that it can be shown in
almost every case that they occurred under the Twelfth Dynasty, as well.
willems (p. 90) addresses himself to further phraseological evidence adduced by
the present writer.61 The phrase [gmi Tz m] gAw.f nb sxr m sH n srw m hrw n mdwt
osnwt occurs on the tomb walls of aHA-nxt I.62 Tracing back the tradition of this
expression to anx.ty.fy of Moalla, the present writer argued for dating the tomb of
aHA-nxt before the Twelfth Dynasty.63 The latest dated occurrence of this complete
phrase is from the reign of Nakhtnebtepnefer Intef.64 willems argues since the
complete phrase was rather rare there is no way of telling whether it disappeared
soon after (which would provide a clue to the date of the NHri-texts) or not. In
answer to willem's objection, it should be pointed out that several of the elements
may survive into the Twelfth Dynasty, but that entire phrase does not. 65
I also proposed the phrase nHb kAw.f attested in aHA-nxt's tomb as a testimony of an
early date.66 willems (p. 90) argues it cannot be such, 'for comparative evidence is
very scarce indeed'.
The phrase may indeed be rare, but that is the point. It occurs in the Ninth Dynasty
inscription of Iti of Gebelein, an older contemporary of anx.ty.fy of Moalla.67 A
second parallel appears in the tomb of $nm-nfr at Rifeh.68 I remarked that the date
of the Rifeh tomb is uncertain, although there is nothing in the inscriptions to
indicate the tomb is later than the Tenth-Eleventh Dynasties. Indeed certain
parallels in phraseology argue for a date in that period.69 The evidence thus points
to an early date for aHA-nxt I. willems simply dismisses this evidence out of hand.
The same holds true for another 'early' phrase attested at Hatnub and Bersheh:
snDm sTi h.t-nTr, 'who sweetens the odour of the temple'. willems (p. 90) finds the
only parallel that I cited for this expression 'not apt'. The only similarity he sees
between the Hatnub case and that from Dendera is the combination snDm-ib sTi,
which he observes occurs after the First Intermediate Period, too.
I actually pointed out that the phrase snDm sTi Hwt-nTr, used of both aHA-nxt I and
NHri I,70 finds a parallel in the inscriptions of Mrri at Dendera, a contemporary of
anx.ty.fy of Moalla in the Tenth Dynasty,71 where it is used of 'sweetening' a
house.72 It is unclear to the present writer what is not 'apt' about the parallel.
Although willems does call attention to an occurrence in the Second Intermediate
Period (Thirteenth Dynasty),73 the expression simply does not occur in the Twelfth
Dynasty. It thus clearly constitutes additional evidence for a date before that period.

40

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

willems (p. 90) feels that the epithet aA n niwt.f, too, is far too rare to allow any
chronological conclusion. The only examples of the phrase aA n niwt.f known to me
are in the tomb of aHA-nxt I74 and in the stele of RwD-aHAw, which dates to the
middle reign of Mentuhotep II, when he still bore the Horus name NTry-HDt.75 This
criterion too may be rare, but until, and if, later examples are found, it points to a
date prior to the unification for aHA-nxt I.
c) Archaeology
willems remarks (p. 91) that Blumenthal76 presents some archaeological evidence
in favor of an early date for the tombs of aHA-nxt I and NHri I. She observes that the
tombs of aHA-nxt I (No. 5) and NHri I (No. 4) represent an intermediate stage
between the current types of the Old and Middle Kingdom. 77
willems notes, in addition, that Blumenthal observes that two drawings at Hatnub
that are dated to the reign of Senusert I are stylistically different from those in the
earlier NHri-graffiti:78 'The latter seem to stand closer to the typical First
Intermediate Period style than the former. Similar remarks are made regarding the
drawings in Bersheh tombs 4 and 5.'79
However, willems also quotes Blumenthal who admits that these indications are
'fr sich betrachtet, unzureichende Beweise'. He concludes that their 'cumulative
weight, however, would seem to plead against a date as late as Schenkel proposed,
for then a First Intermediate Period-like style in tomb layout and representation
would be almost contemporaneous with classical Middle Kingdom art forms'. This
leads Blumenthal to the conclusion that aHA-nxt I and NHri I are probably much
earlier. willems finds her observations are valuable, but he remarks that they fail to
show precisely how much earlier the two nomarchs must be dated.
willems comments (p. 91) that a 'most welcome addition' to the archaeological
argument was made by the present writer.80 He summarizes as follows: 'The tombs
of aHA-nxt and NHri I show some remarkable features, notably the representations of
griffins. Such representations are extremely rare on Middle Kingdom tomb walls,
the only comparable examples being found in the funerary chapels No. 15 and 17
at Beni Hasan.' As the present writer pointed out, 'the iconography and painting
style of the tombs from Beni Hasan and those from neighboring Bersheh are
closely related, so that one is inclined to assign them roughly to the same period.
There is some point in this line of argument, but unfortunately the monuments from
Beni Hasan are undated, too.'
willems quotes Newberry who thought that their owners lived under the Eleventh
Dynasty:81 'This was questioned by Schenkel. Epigraphic considerations led (the
latter) to the conviction that tombs Beni Hasan 15 and 17 were decorated early in
the next dynasty, as were some others (Nos. 27, 33), formerly assigned to the
Eleventh Dynasty. It is therefore necessary to discuss these matters once more.'

41

EDwARD BROVARSKI

williams proceeds as follows (p. 92):

'The earliest dated tomb at Beni Hasan is No. 14, belonging to the nomarch
$nm-Htp I, a contemporary of Amenemhat I. He was the first nome governor
at Beni Hasan to combine the titles ir.y-pa.t HA.tj-a; this became regular
practice thereafter, while the element ir.y-pa.t is lacking in the titles of the
owners of tombs 15, 17, 27, 29, and 33. with Newberry and Kessler I
therefore assume that they are earlier than $nm-Htp I. But this does not
imply (as is often stated) that all his predecessors held office during the XIth
Dynasty. From his autobiography we learn that $nm-Htp accompanied
Amenemhat I on a journey apparently intended to defeat an enemy.
Following this event he was appointed HA.ty-a n Mna.t-xwfw, 'governor of
Menat-Khufu', i.e. of the eastern half of the Oryx nome. Later on he was
charged with the administration of the whole province.82 It is completely
unknown when in the reign of Amenemhat I the latter appointment took
place, but it must have been several years after the accession of the king. No
doubt, then, at least of one $nm-Htp's predecessors' tombs was made under
the Twelfth Dynasty, and possibly even two. It remains to decide which of
the tombs 15, 17, 27, 29, and 33 are the most likely candidates.
The owner of tomb No. 29, BAq.t, was probably the predecessor of BAq.t of
tomb No. 33, and R-mw-Sn.ti of No. 27 preceded BAq.t (No. 15) in the
nomarchy.83 Therefore the owners of tombs 27 and 29 cannot have been
$nm-Htp's direct predecessors.
Now that the choice is limited to chapels Nos. 15, 17, and 33, it is not hard to
make a decision. $nm-Htp's tomb is most closely related in style to tombs
Nos. 15 and 17. Like these, its chapel has a number of columns. A very rare
representation on its walls is a battle scene---the only comparable instances
from the Middle Kingdom are, in fact, those from tombs 15 and 17 and a
slightly later one from tomb No. 2. The rarity of such drawings suggests that
a historical event is depicted and what we have here is not simply the
repetition of a traditional scene.84 These facts suggest that tombs 14, 15 and
17 belong very closely together. In contrast, the style and architecture of No.
33 are different. Typologically, this monument represents an earlier stage
than the other three.85 Tomb 33 represents Badawy's type I, Nos. 14, 15, and
17 Type II.'86
willems concludes that there is thus reason to believe that tomb No. 17 ($ty I) and
possibly 15 (BAot III) as well date from the reign of Amenemhat I.87 He then says
(p. 93) that if the present writer's 'conjecture that the owners of these tombs and
aHA-nxt I and NHri I were close contemporaries is correct, the two nomarchs of the
Hare nome must also have been in office around the early Twelfth Dynasty'.88

42

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

willems remarks (p. 93) that an analysis of the coffins from Bersheh gives the
same impression, although he points out that I arrived at a rather different
conclusion. The coffins used by me form a very incomplete sample of the available
material, while I investigate only some features of their decoration. This is not to
disclaim completely the value of my remarks; willems thinks the relative
chronology I established from his group of coffins is certainly correct. He observes
that the coffins of a nomarch aHA-nxt (though not necessarily the first ruler of that
name, as the present writer seemed to think) and those of the nomarch +Hwty-nxt
(IV or V) are very similar.
I will deal below with the interpretation of the evidence from the tombs at Beni
Hasan. First it is necessary to go into willem's analysis of the coffins from
Bersheh. I was well aware that the coffins discussed in my article formed an
incomplete sample of the available material. My aim was not an exhaustive study
of coffin development at Bersheh, which was too ambitious a project for an article
earmarked for the Festschrift of a colleague, but simply to present a basic outline
of coffin development at that site as an aid to determining the chronology of the
nomarchs of the Hare nome.
willems first of all remarks (p. 93) that CG 28094 is an interesting coffin: 'It was
originally designed for (a nomarch?) aHA-nxt, but only its Coffin Texts were
executed for him. At some later point, it was completed for a certain KAy, whose
name is apparently the original one everywhere besides the Coffin Texts. At last,
the coffin was usurped a second time by a woman named +Hwty-nxt.' willems
thinks 'the second owner of the coffin was probably identical with the
homonymous brother of the nomarch +Hwty-nxt V, for both KAys held the title
sDAw.ty-bity, and no other KAy is attested in the early Middle Kingdom nomarchic
family of Bersheh'. According to willems this identification finds support in a
comparison of his coffin CG 28094 with that of nomarch +Hwty-nxt (IV or V) now
in Boston (B 22 a or b: MFA 20.1822-27): 'The two show a close resemblance. The
arrangement of their object-frieze, for instance, is very similar, and shows
characteristics not paralleled elsewhere. Instances are the occurrence of a headrest
and a crescent-like object, as well as some shaving equipment on the back-board,
near the head-end. The crescent-like object, which is probably a kind of pillow,89 is
depicted nowhere else on Bersheh coffins.'90
It is hard to believe that the owner of CG 28094 was indeed KAy, son of NHri I, and
brother of +Hwty-nxt V. KAy does hold the title xtmty-bity in his father's tomb, but
already in his father's reign at Hatnub he is Overseer of Priests and Great wabpriest of Thoth, while he ultimately became Vizier of Egypt. It seems unlikely that
a coffin would have been prepared for him with the relatively low-ranking title of
Treasurer of the King of Lower Egypt.
willems is incorrect about the crescent-like object. It also occurs in the coffin of
aHA-nxt I (or II) in Philadelphia (B1Ph: Univ. Mus. E 16218).91 The crescent-like
43

EDwARD BROVARSKI

object is actually a magical boomerang or throwstick.92 The resemblance in the

arrangement and composition of the object friezes is actually closer between Univ.
Mus. E 16218 and CG 28094 than between the latter coffin and MFA 20.1822-27.
In the Philadelphia and Cairo coffins, the throwstick and two pellets of incense93
are set above a headrest lying on its side on a single table. Arranged alongside
these objects on the same table are a razor case (set vertically) and a Hsbt- and dgArazor.94 The same objects, but without the incense pellets, appear together on the
outer coffin of the nomarch +Hwty-nxt in Boston, although they are arranged
differently, and there are four Hsbt -razors and one dgA-razor depicted on the
Boston coffin. The identical arrangement of these objects on the sides of the
Philadelphia and Cairo coffins implies that the two coffins are contemporary and
that CG 28094 is too early to belong to the Vizier KAy, brother of +Hwty-nxt V. CG
28094 must therefore have belonged to an earlier individual named KAy. Moreover,
the resemblance in the object friezes of the Philadelphia and Cairo coffins, on the one
hand, and the Boston coffin on the other, at least raises the possibility that the latter
may actually have belonged to aHA-nxt I's son +Hwty-nxt IV rather than to NHri I's son
+Hwty-nxt V, as I initially suggested, a possibility which willems has also foreseen.
Another iconographic indication of early date appears in the object frieze on the sides
of the Boston coffin and of CG 28094 and on the south wall of the tomb chamber of
+Hwty-nxt, contemporary of aHA-nxt I.95 This consists of quivers of arrows resting in
a special stand (Figures 1a-c). In the case of CG 28094 and the tomb chamber of
+Hwty-nxt, it is a question of paired quivers, whereas in the Boston coffin only one
quiver is involved. Although paired quivers are known from a number of other
coffins,96 to my knowledge the stand appears only in these three instances.
willems (pp. 93-94 and n. 107) also draws into the argument coffins CG 28085 and
28086, both of which belonged to the nbt-pr %At-HDt-Htp: 'Rarely attested in the
early nomarchial family, the name in this case probably refers to the wife of NHri II
..., a contemporary of Sesostris I. while the exterior decoration of her coffins
shows a slightly more developed form than those just mentioned, their interior is
similar in almost every respect. The offering formulae are, for instance, paralleled
in KAy's case and, to some extent, that of +Hwty-nxt (IV or V). In the coffins of %AtHDt-Htp, the formulae are somewhat more elaborate than in KAy's97... Some of those
on the +Hwty-nxt coffin do not occur on the other three, but they are in fact unique
for Bersheh as a whole. (It concerns the variants of Pyr. 1615 and 1619 on the
back-side (interior).98 However, the formula occurring on the back-side in the other
coffins has here been drawn on the opposite side, above the false door. The second
front-formula in +Hwty-nxt's coffin is the one usual in this group of coffins.99 The
same can be said concerning the object frieze; particularly noteworthy is the fact
that none of these coffins have an object frieze on the front-side, where all feature a
row of offering bearers personifying the offering list. In this group of coffins, and
here alone, the Coffin Texts are not written in hieratic, as is usual at Bersheh, but
incised with a knife. One could point to many other similarities, but space forbids a
complete analysis.'
44

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

FIGURE 1a. Coffin MFA 20.18.22-27.

After Terrace, Egyptian Paintings of the Middle
Kingdom, pl. 20.

FIGURE 1b. Coffin CG 28094.

After Lacau, Sarcophages Anterieurs au Nouvel Empire II, pl. 41 (220).

FIGURE 1c. Tomb of HWty-nxt.

After Willems, Dayr al-Barsh I, pl. 49.
45

EDwARD BROVARSKI

willems says that the exterior decoration of the coffins of %At-HDt-Htp (B3C-B4C:
CG 28085/28086) exhibits 'a slightly more developed form' than CG 28094 and
MFA 20.1822-27. In actual fact, CG 28085/28056 belong to a later stage of coffin
development than the other two, inasmuch as there is a horizontal band with a
funerary formula on the exterior of each side and three columns of hieroglyphs,
while the ends have a single vertical column in addition to the horizontal band. CG
28085/28086 thus belong to willem's type IIIa. The earliest nomarchial coffins at
Bersheh with this design that we know of are those of +Hwty-nxt VI (CG
28123/28125) and his brother Imn-m-HAt (CG 28091/28092).
It is possible that CG 28025/28026 do indeed belong to %At-HDt-Htp, the mother of
those two nomarchs, but the attribution is by no means definite, for the name is not
as rare as willems implies. Of the women who bore that name at Bersheh, one is
the wife of NHri II and the mother of the nomarchs +Hwty-nxt VI and Imn-m-HAt.
Another is a daughter of the nomarch +Hwty-Htp. But a member of +Hwty-Htp's
household also has the name.100 The latter may or may not be identical with the
mother of one of his officials. In addition, the name is known from a fragmentary
coffin found by Kamal near the tomb of the nomarch Imn-m-HAt.101
The only title attested for any of these women is nbt-pr on CG 28085/28086.
Although a perfectly respectable title, and one borne by nomarchs' wives,
something more might be expected for the wife of one nomarch and mother of two
others. On the outside end of the outer coffin of +Hwty-nxt (B3Bo: MFA 21-964),
wife of the nomarch +Hwty-nxt (IV), the former is iryt-pat Xkrt nswt. @tHr-Htp, the
wife of the nomarch +Hwty-Htp, on her coffin in New Haven, Connecticut (BY3:
Yale 1937.5905) is iryt-pat nbt-pr Hnwt Xkrt nswt Hmt-nTr @tHr.102
willems dates coffins of subtype IIIa, to which CG 28085/28086 belong, to the
reigns of Senusert I and Amenemhat II. If the date is correct for the Cairo coffins,
%At-HDt-Htp may have survived her husband, the nomarch NHri II, and lived on into
the reign of her son, +Hwty-nxt VI, at which time her coffin was decorated, if
indeed CG 28085/28086 do belong to her.
As previously noted, we have no coffins for +Hwty-nxt I-III, aHA-nxt II (unless
B1Ph: Univ. Mus. E 16218), KAy, the grandfather of NHri I, or for NHri I and II.
Therefore, we do not know with surety what their coffins looked like. On the other
hand, we do have the coffin of aHA-nxt I (or II?). In the latter coffin, the Coffin
Texts are likewise incised with a knife.103
willems (p. 94) concludes his discussion of these Bersheh coffins with the remark
that my attempt to date the coffins of aHA-nxt (I or II) and +Hwty-nxt (IV or V) to
the middle and end of the Eleventh Dynasty respectively not only jars with his
observation that these monuments clearly represent contiguous stages in the
development of coffins at Bersheh, but also generates a gap of about half a century

46

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

in our coffin documentation. Still according to willems, this is, of course, possible,
but rather improbable in view of the large number of coffins known from Bersheh.
There is indeed a gap in the coffin documentation at Bersheh, as we have seen. It is
in fact a very real gap caused by the loss of the coffins of no less than five
nomarchs, three at the beginning of the sequence and three others near the middle.
The latter lacuna is especially regrettable, since it corresponds to the early Middle
Kingdom, and specifically the reign of Amenemhat I. we do have the early coffin
of aHA-nxt I (or II) (B1Ph: Univ. Mus. E 16218), the exterior design of which is
restricted to a broad band with a funerary prayer across the lid and around the rim
of the box with the sacred eyes on the east side.
willems summarises his argumentation as follows. The preceding evaluation of the
palaeographical, phraseological and archaeological evidence adduced by
Blumenthal and the present writer: 'has revealed that their conclusion that the Nehri
texts were probably written during the period of Egypt's unification is unwarranted.
Their theory also involves the existence of a gap of about thirty to fifty years in
several bodies of evidence: 1) in the sources concerning the nomarchs of the Hare
nome (see p. 85-86); 2) in the coffin documentation from Bersheh (although the
last cases before the 'break' and the first ones after are very similar (see p. 93-94);
3) in the tradition at Beni Hasan of depicting war scenes on tomb walls. (For, if
Beni Hasan tombs 15 and 17, where the earliest instances occur, were really made
around Egypt's unification, a gap of at least about thirty years would separate them
from the reign of Amenemhat I).'
we have responded to arguments 1 and 2 above. Before proceeding, however, it is
necessary to have a look at the state of affairs in the Oryx Nome and to compare
the situation at that site to the evidence from Bersheh. Here too our formulation
differs from willems's.
The Chronology of the Nomarchs of the Oryx Nome
willems's account of the architectural and stylistic evolution of the Beni Hasan
tombs is largely without objection (see above). Indeed, the seriation of the Beni
Hasan tombs based on architectural and stylistic criteria is fairly straightforward.
Tombs 29 (BAot I), 33 (BAot II), and 27 (RA-mw-Snti) belong to Badawy's Type I,
consisting as they do of one chamber, without columns or porticoes, roofed over
with slightly cambered ceilings.104 Type II tombs, with one chamber, also without
porticoes, but with columns of lotus bud type supporting the roof of the chamber
and covered with slightly cambered roofs, include Nos. 15 (BAot III), 17 ($ty), 14
($nm-Htp I), 21 (Nxti I), and 23 (NTr-nxt). Finally, Nos. 2 (Imn-m-HAt) and 3 ($nmHtp II) belong to Badawy's Type III, that is, tombs which comprise a court, a portico
with two polygonal or fluted (so-called 'proto-Doric') columns, a main hall with four
fluted columns in two rows, and a shrine cut in the middle of the rear wall.105

47

EDwARD BROVARSKI

In his account, however, willems has neglected to incorporate one tomb that
Christian Hlzl has placed in the sequence of nomarchs tombs after that of $ty
(No. 17).106 This is the unfinished and anepigraphic tomb No. 18.107 Had it been
completed, the tomb would have been one of the grandest at Beni Hasan. whereas
the tomb of $ty has six lotus columns in two north-south rows of three columns,
tomb No. 18 possesses no fewer than ten lotus columns. Nine of these are arranged
in three rows of three columns each, while the tenth one supports a small architrave
that runs east and west. In contrast, the tomb of $nm-Htp I (No. 14) has a single
north-south row of two lotus columns, while the tomb of his successor Nxti I (No.
21) was exactly similar (though the actual drums are missing), and the tombs of
Imn-m-HAt (No. 2) and $nm-Htp II (No. 3) which follow in the Twelfth Dynasty
both have a portico of two columns and a square hall whose roof was supported by
four columns with fluted shafts. In addition, the plans of the early tombs of BAot I
and II, of RA-mw-Snti, and of the chambers of the Twelfth Dynasty tombs of $nmHtp I, Nxti I, NTr-nxt (No. 23), Imn-m-HAt, and $nm-Htp II are square or nearly so.
In contrast, the plans of the three tombs of BAot III, $ty, and No. 18 are definitely
rectangular with the long axis perpendicular to the facade. Clearly these last three
sepulchers form a group closely related in style and time. Moreover, the rows of
columns in tomb Nos. 29, 33, 27, 15, 17, and 18, 14, and 23 support architraves
running transversely to the longitudinal axis of the room, in the fashion of the Old
Kingdom, whereas in Nos. 2 and 3 the architraves run parallel to the axis of the
tomb, in the manner of the Middle Kingdom.108 Furthermore, the tombs of BAot I and
II, RA-mw-Snti, BAot III, $ty, and anonymous tomb No. 18 all have square burial
shafts, while the sepulchers of Imn-m-HAt and $nm-Htp I have mostly rectangular
shafts.109 Tomb No. 18 therefore seems to fit into the developmental sequence at
Beni Hasan between tomb No. 17 of $ty and tomb No. 14 of $nm-Htp I.
The plan of tomb No. 18 is asymmetrical, and Newberry believed this was due to
the fact that the engineers were cramped for space, owing to a small tomb (No. 19)
having already been excavated on the south side.110 Indeed Fraser assumed the
tenth column with the east-west architrave was an addition to the original plan to
disguise the unsightliness of the corner necessitated by the presence of the small
tomb of apparently earlier date.111 The anonymous owner of tomb No. 18 thus
sacrificed symmetry in his tomb's plan to what evidently seemed to him to be a
more important consideration in order to have his tomb inserted between Nos. 17
and 19. That consideration may well have been a personal relationship to the owner
of Tomb 17. If this was indeed the case, it is possible to put forward a candidate for
the ownership of Tomb 18.
The nomarch $ty of tomb No. 17 had a son who, in an inscription on an architrave
of the tomb, is stated to have been his heir and to have 'made' his father's burial
place. At least so Newberry thought. However, Newberry was in doubt as to his
name and thought $ty, which occurs at the end of the text might be the name of
either the father or the son. The text is slightly damaged but probably read: ir rn[.f
Hr] mnw <nw> Dt in zA.f iway.f $ty, 'whose name was written upon a monument of
48

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

eternity by his son and his heir $ty'.112 It would be very strange indeed for the
name of a son who had gone to considerable trouble and expense on his father's
behalf to be omitted in an inscription that commemorates his good work. The
context of the inscription may also suggest that the name is that of the son. It is in
fact part of a two-way inscription that appears on the southern end of the western
architrave of Tomb 17. The titles and epithets of the father, without a following
name, seem to precede the dedicatory text by the son. The other part of the
inscription is on the northern end of the architrave, where the titles and epithets of
the father are again given, followed by the words imAx HAty-a imA-a $ty. This phrase
on the northern end of the architrave thus balances the dedicatory text of the son on
its southern end. If this interpretation is correct, $ty of tomb 17 had a like-named
son who built his own tomb immediately adjacent to his father's on the north. Even
if it is not, although we would be deprived of the name of $ty's son, the text still
tells us that his son and heir made his father's tomb. Even anonymous, he is still
likely to have been the owner of tomb No. 18 for the reasons already stated.
As previously noted, willems feels that $nm-Htp I's appointment as Hry-tp aA n
MAHD took place several years after the accession of King Amenemhat I. He is
probably correct in this regard. He then concludes that at least one of $nm-Htp's
predecessors tombs was made under the Twelfth Dynasty and possibly even two,
and that tomb No. 17 ($ty I), and perhaps No. 15 (BAot III) as well, date from the
reign of Amenemhat I. Regrettably, we have no idea how long $nm-Htp served as
HAty-a n Mnat-#wfw before being appointed nomarch of the Oryx nome. For that
matter, the appointment could have taken place simultaneously.113 If the owner of
tomb No. 18 ($ty II ?) is also to be factored in here, it would seem unlikely that the
nomarchs, BAot III, $ty I, and $ty II all lived and ruled their district in the early
years of Amenemhat I's reign. It is not impossible that tomb No. 18 is indeed to be
assigned to King Amenemhat's early years, especially if $ty I died unexpectedly
before finishing the construction of a tomb for himself, a task which had to be
undertaken by his son. On the other hand, Newberry may have been mistaken in
believing that $ty I's tomb was the work of his son and successor, for the latter
only says that he placed his father's name on the monument, and his participation
could have been limited to completing the decoration of his father's tomb. If the
participation of the son was indeed thus limited, $ty I may well have had a normal
length of rule. The unfinished state of his own tomb (No. 18) suggests that $ty II
did not and ruled U. E. nome 15 for a relatively brief span of time. He could have
died prematurely or been replaced in office by the representative of a new family,
$nm-Htp I, in the early years of the reign of Amenemhat I.
From a palaeographic point of view, $ty I and $nm-Htp I were probably not
separated by any great length of time. willems has already pointed out that their
tombs share a common writing of Anubis's epithet of nb tA-Dsr
.114
Taking the above evidence into account, it is likely that the beginning of the
Twelfth Dynasty at Beni Hasan fell somewhere in the time of $ty II, the probable
49

EDwARD BROVARSKI

owner of Tomb 18. Thus, the tombs of BAot I and II, RA-mw-Snti, BAot III, and $ty I
could still belong to the period before the Twelfth Dynasty.
Thanks to inscriptions in the tombs of the nomarchs at Beni Hasan, we are
surprisingly fortunate in possessing a fairly detailed chronological outline for the
rulers of the Twelfth Dynasty in the Oryx Nome.115 As we have seen, $nm-Htp I
was first created Count of Menat-Khufu and subsequently Great Overlord of the
Oryx Nome by Amenemhat I. Nxti I inherited his father $nm-Htp I's titles, which
were ratified by Senusert I. The nomarch Imn-m-HAt began to rule in the 18th year
of Senusert I116 and either died or had his tomb inscribed117 in the 43rd year of
Senusert I (which corresponds to the 1st year of Amenemhat II). If Imn-m-HAt lived
on till the 19th year of Amenemhat II, he would have been in the neighborhood of
62 years old, assuming he was 18 or so, when he accompanied Senusert I to Nubia.
If he died in year 43 of Senusert I, there is an 18-year gap between that date and
year 19 of Amenemhat II, when $nm-Htp II took office. Conceivably, $nm-Htp II's
relative NTr-nxt ruled the Oryx nome in the interval.118 $nm-Htp II inherited his
grandfather's governorship of Menat-Khufu in the 19th year of Amenemhat II, and
was still in office till at least the 6th year of Senusert III.119 His successor was
evidently $nm-Htp IV, a son of his second wife, the House-Mistress *At.120
Given the inscriptional evidence at Beni Hasan, it seems that the nomarch Imn-m-HAt
held office for at least 26 years and that $nm-Htp II was in office for at least 16 years.
It will be recalled that willems thinks $nm-Htp I was appointed Great Overlord of
the Oryx Nome several years after the accession of Amenemhat I. For the sake of
argument, let us say that $ty II ruled until year 5 of the founder of the Twelfth
Dynasty, when $nm-Htp I took up the position of Great Overlord. If the latter was
then in office until the 18th year of Senusert I, he would have ruled for 33 years.
Inscriptional evidence at Beni Hasan thus shows that the provincial governors of
the Oryx Nome 'held their offices serially in real succession and that their tenures
of office were of an ordinary character governed by the averages of life under
similar conditions'.121 According to the standard chronology, the sole reigns of the
first four sovereigns of the Twelfth Dynasty Amenemhat I, Senusert I,
Amenemhat II, and Senusert II totaled 113 years.122 During that time three
nomarchs ($nm-Htp I, Nxti I, Imn-m-HAt) and a Mayor of Menat-Khufu ($nm-Htp
II) ruled the Oryx Nome. Subtracting 5 years for the tenure of $ty II, this
represents an average of 27 years for the tenures of the four governors of the Oryx
Nome. Even if NTr-nxt ruled for 18 years, the average of tenure for the governors
of the Oryx nome would be 22.6 years.
From the point of view of chronology, the evidence for the Twelfth Dynasty
nomarchs at Bersheh is not as clear as it is at Beni Hasan. The only actual dates we
possess are a year 31 of Senusert I in a graffito of the nomarch Imn-m-HAt at
Hatnub and year 20 of Amenemhat II in a stele of the 'nomarch' Ipw from
Abydos.123 However, Imn-m-HAt's brother, +Hwty-nxt VI evidently governed the
50

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

Hare nome before him (see above), while their father NHri II presumably lived
under Amenemhat I (see below). Additionally, the jamb inscriptions of the tomb of
the nomarch +Hwty-Htp (No. 2) inform us that he was a child under Senusert II and
a courtier (smr waty) under Amememhat II. It is not clear whether he was appointed
nomarch by Amenemhat II or Senusert III.124
As previously noted, NHri II's tomb (No. 7) was completed and there is every
reason to assume that he had a normal period of reign. He could have survived the
20-year sole reign of Amenemhat I and lived on into the period of the co-regency
of that king and Senusert I. On the other hand, NHri I's son +Hwty-nxt V could have
lived into the early years of Amenemhat I, like $ty II at Beni Hasan.
The present writer made the nomarch +Hwty-nxt, son of anxw, the owner of tomb
No. 6 at Bersheh, the successor of the nomarch +Hwty-Htp.125 On the basis of his
coffin type (Type VI) willems thinks that he may have preceded +Hwty-Htp in the
nomarchy and belonged to the late reign of Amenemhat II and/or early reign of
Senusert II.126 However, all sides of his coffin are decorated with palace faade
panelling in the spaces between the text columns, whereas the coffins of +HwtyHtp's contemporaries, found in pits dug in the courtyard of his tomb, are all of the
earlier Bersheh pattern (Type IVab) with a single palace faade panel under the
wedjat-eyes.127 It is possible that the coffins with all round panelling appeared at
Beni Hasan as early as the last years of Amenemhat II and the early reign of
Senusert III.128 Since +Hwty-Htp lived into the reign of Senusert III, and willems
remarks that the coffins of his contemporaries can only have been made after work
on tomb No. 2 had begun,129 it is unlikely that this was so at Bersheh. For that
reason, and by analogy with the comparable decoration of the stone sarcophagus of
the nomarch Ibw at Qau el-Kebir, who was dated by Steindorff to Senusert III, I
originally assigned +Hwty-nxt, son of anxw, to the reign of Amenemhat III.130 It is
not impossible that in actuality he belonged to the late reign of Senusert III.131
we thus have evidence for six nomarchs at Bersheh between Amenemhat I and the
last years of Senusert III or the early years of Amenemhat III. In the first case, we
would have an average of 25 years for each nomarch. If +Hwty-nxt, son of anxw,
lived on into the reign of Amenemhat III each of the Bersheh nomarchs could have
averaged a few more years of reign.
It is clear from inscriptional and archaeological evidence at Beni Hasan and
Bersheh that the nomarchs of the Twelfth Dynasty lived normal life spans. Clearly,
we are dealing at Beni Hasan, as at Bersheh, with actual generations of 20-25
years. There is surely no reason to assume this was not the case for their
predecessors in the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties. The fact that aHA-nxt I ruled for a
probable thirty years and +Hwty-nxt V for at least twenty years supports this view.
we have seen above that 'generation counting' may not be able to provide us with a
full count of the years involved, but it can certainly give us a minimum number of
51

EDwARD BROVARSKI

generations. we possess evidence for nine or ten nomarchs of the Hare nome in the
period before the time of NHri II. Beginning with the earliest, they are: (1) IHA; (2)
#ww;132 (3) #ww's son +Hwty-nxt I; (4) +Hwty-nxt's son +Hwty-nxt II; (5) +Hwtynxt III, born of &ti; (6) +Hwty-nxt's son aHA-nxt I; (7) aHA-nxt's son +Hwty-nxt IV;
(8) aHA-nxt's son aHA-nxt II; (9) +Hwty-nxt's son NHri I, born of Kmi; (10) NHri I's
son +Hwty-nxt V.133 It is unclear if numbers (4) and (5) are identical or distinct.134
Supposing they are identical, we would have evidence for eight generations of
rulers, or 160-200 years in the period preceding NHri II. If it is assumed that the
Tenth and Eleventh Dynasties began at the same time,135 eight generations of rulers
could readily extend back to the Ninth Dynasty.
At Beni Hasan in the corresponding period we have evidence for the following
nomarchs: (1) BAot I; (2) his son, BAot II; (3) RA-mw-Snti (4) his son, BAot III; (5)
the latter's son, $ty I; (6) his son, $ty II (?).
The sequence of rulers at Bersheh reaches further back in time than that at Beni
Hasan. Nevertheless, as far as it extends, the following correspondance is suggested.
BAot I
+Hwty-nxt III
BAot II
aHA-nxt I
RA-mw-Snti
+Hwty-nxt IV
aHA-nxt II
BAot III
NHri I
$ty I
+Hwty-nxt V
The Turin Canon gives the Eleventh Dynasty a total of 143 years.136 Four
generations or 80-100 years would make aHA-nxt I and BAot II contemporaries of the
end of the reign of wahankh Intef II or of Nakhtnebtepnefer Intef III, to a point in
time when the Thebans had not yet expanded beyond the head of the south and
before the Heracleopolitan resurgence under King Khety, the father of Merikare.
Two generations or 40-50 years would make NHri I and BAot III contemporaries of
Mentuhotep II and the final Theban drive to conquer the North.
Schenkel and the Oryx Nome
This is perhaps an appropriate place to address Schenkel's interpretation of the
evidence from Beni Hasan as presented in Frhmittelgyptische Studien.137 On
palaeographic grounds, Schenkel dates all of the princes' tombs in the upper range
at the site to the Twelfth Dynasty with the single exception of No. 29 (BAot I),
which he assigns to the period immediately preceeding. His reasons for doing so
are as follows.
All five tombs exhibit the Lautwandel w>j in imAxy, the earliest dated attestations
for which, as Schenkel had previously noted, are at Thebes in the time of
Mentuhotep II and Asyut in the reign of Merikare.138 He therefore concludes that
none of the tombs can date back much before the reunification under Nebhepetre

52

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

Mentuhotep. In fact, his conclusion is not quite correct as it stands, for the earliest
occurrences of imAxy at Thebes date to the time of Mentuhotep II while he was still
the Horus %anx-tAwy, and one of these bears a dateline in his year 14,139 that is,
some twenty-five years before the reunification, if that event took place in
Mentuhotep's year 39, and perhaps 56 years before the foundation of the Twelfth
Dynasty. Those fifty-six years could accommodate three generations of rulers at
Beni Hasan, equating a generation with 20 years (or two rulers if a generation
equals 25 years).
belongs to
Schenkel observes the oldest example of the bookroll with two ties
the reign of Amenemhat I.140 Similarly, the bookroll with the forms
and
first appears in the Twelfth Dynasty, the oldest dated attestations being
from the reign of Senusert I.141 Since the bookroll with one or two ties already
exists in Beni Hasan Tombs 15, 17, 27, 33, Schenkel concludes that they must
belong to the Twelfth Dynasty. Only in Tomb 29, the tomb of BAot I, is the
bookroll with one or two ties lacking; otherwise it too would belong to the Twelfth
Dynasty.142
Spanel has devoted considerable time and energy to an investigation of the
appearance of the bookroll with ties at Beni Hasan and other sites.143 After an onsite investigation of the Beni Hasan tombs, he notes that only one example of the
Middle Kingdom form of the bookroll with two ties at that site is definite, despite
the alleged occurrences of the form with one or two ties cited by Schenkel. The
latter's citations are, in fact, not to facsimiles but to forms conventionalized by
Newberry in Beni Hasan II.144 The one definite form of the bookroll with two ties,
according to Spanel, occurs in the uppermost register of the east wall of BAot III's
tomb (No. 15) at Beni Hasan.145
Concerning the bookroll as a dating criteria, Spanel draws attention to a number of
late Old Kingdom occurrences of the bookroll with two ties. The first two
examples cited by him appear in the tomb of Ny-anx-Ppy/@pi-km at Meir and are
reproduced by Blackman.146 Spanel observes that an apparent occurrence of the
bookroll with two (rightward slanting) ties in the adjacent tomb of Ppy-anx/@ni-km
lends support to the validity of the other Sixth Dynasty occurrences at Meir. The
published line drawing of the latter example by Blackman,147 omits both the mud
seal and the ties, but Spanel has confirmed their existence in a photograph taken in
the course of Blackman's work at Meir.148
Spanel hesitantly cited another Old Kingdom example of the bookroll with two ties
in the tomb of %bk-nfr at Hagarsa published by Petrie.149 This was before the
appearance of a modern facsimile edition of the tomb by the Australian Centre for
Egyptology, in which the form of the sign with two ties is confirmed.150
Possible examples of the bookroll with two ties from the First Intermediate Period
are to be seen in three of a series of eight restoration texts inscribed on the walls of
53

EDwARD BROVARSKI

several Old Kingdom tombs at Sheikh Said and Bersheh.151 The texts are damaged
and the name of the owner partially destroyed or lost in four of them, but there can
be little doubt about the owner's identity,152 since the inscriptions are virtually
identical and his name is preserved intact at the end of three other texts as '+Hwtynxt, born of &ti'.153 It is also largely intact at the end of a fourth text,154 and partly
preserved at the end of a fifth.155 In the texts +Hwty-nxt is both Great Overlord of
the Hare Nome and Overseer of Upper Egypt, and in my earlier article I have
assigned him to the end of the Ninth Dynasty.156 Regrettably, the portion of the
three texts which feature the bookroll (in srwD, smAw) with two ties are only
available in copies made by Lepsius, since these portions of the texts are destroyed
today.157 The single example of the sign that does survive today is damaged and
only one tie is visible.158
Also uncertain is the occurrence of a bookroll with two ties on the false door of an
anonymous Great Overlord of the Thinite Nome which the present writer has
assigned to the Ninth Dynasty.159 The false door was excavated by Petrie at Abydos
and its present whereabouts are unknown, so Petrie's is the only available copy of
its texts.160 In four cases Petrie has drawn the bookroll without ties, in a fifth the
same sign exhibits two ties. It is largely for this reason that Fischer has dated the
false door to the Twelfth Dynasty.161
Another restoration text published by Lepsius contains a bookroll with one tie.162
The text appeared on the southern doorjamb of the tomb of Mrw and @nnt at
Sheikh Said.163 The name of its dedicator, a HAty-a, xrp nsty, imy-rA ^maw, is lost,
but, pace willems (p. 87), the text almost certainly belongs to IHA, who also left
brief restoration texts in the tombs of Wiw and &ti-anx/Ii-m-Htp at Sheikh Said.164
IHA is also known by Hatnub Gr. 9, where he has the additional titles imy-r3 HmwnTr and Hry-tp aA n Wnt. Anthes makes IHA out to be the earliest of the Bersheh
nomarchs, and the present writer has dated him to the Ninth Dynasty.165
Regrettably, the inscription has been destroyed and is only available in Lepsius's
hand copy.166
An instance of the bookroll with one tie occurs on the lid of an inscribed coffin
from Naga-ed-Dr tomb N 3751 in the title Hry-sStA n xtmt-nTr. The coffin belongs
to an individual named @ni, whose principal title appears to be imy-rA SnT, Overseer
of Disputes.167 It has been dated by the present writer to late Tenth-Eleventh
Dynasties.168
Other early instances of the bookroll with one or two ties are semi-cursive or
hieratic in nature. Several examples occur in Hatnub Inscription X. The graffito
was inscribed on behalf of the nomarch #ww sA +Hwty-nxt. A damaged royal
cartouche accompanies the graffito.169 There is also a lacuna between the beginning
of the graffito with the nomarch's name and titles and the remainder of the
inscription, which contains the cartouche. Nevertheless, the hieroglyphs in both
parts are in the same hand, and there can be little doubt that they belong to one and
54

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

the same text.170 Mller read the royal name in the cartouche as Khety.171 willems
(p. 87) opines that the remaining traces in the cartouche do not support this reading.
Earlier, von Beckerath had shown they do, and suggested that the cartouche
originally contained a throne name followed by the personal name $[t]y.172 The
practice of writing both throne and personal name within a single cartouche was
evidently fairly common from the later Old Kingdom,173 and Beckerath draws
attention to an apparent instance of this usage in Turin Canon IV.24 in regard to a
Heracleopolitan sovereign, Mr[y] ...)-[Ra] $ty.174 The cartouche in Inscription X
therefore in all probability belongs to an early Heracleopolitan ruler.175
; once
; and three
In Mller's copy of the inscription, the bookroll is once
times
. Schenkel questions whether the different variants of the sign can be
correct and assumes instead that the original was difficult to read, a circumstance to
which he claims the text alludes.176 To my mind Anthes's commentary on Mller's
copy provides no real justification for questioning the veracity of the copy,
occurs no less than three times.
especially since the form
Spanel also calls attention to other semi-cursive hieroglyphic and hieratic instances
of the bookroll with one or two ties in the coffins of @r-Htp (CG 28023) from Deir
el-Bahri and _Agi (CG 28024) from Qurna. The coffins have been dated by G.
Lapp to the late Eleventh Dynasty,177 while to willems they are demonstrably later
than the unification.178 Allen has in fact assigned _Agi's tenure of office as Vizier
between year 41 of Mentuhotep II and year 12 of Mentuhotep III.179 Somewhat
later in date than the above, the coffins are still earlier than the Twelfth Dynasty.
The number of occurrences of the bookroll with one or two ties from before the
Twelfth Dynasty is limited. This calls to mind two observations made by Spanel.
First, it is hardly likely that the form of the bookroll with one or two ties evolved
suddenly in the Twelfth Dynasty, but rather developed gradually over the course of
the First Intermediate Period and even earlier (as, for example, at Meir and
Hagarsa).180 Second, in Beni Hasan Tombs 15 (BAot III) and 17 ($ty I) the bookroll
appears infrequently, whereas in Tombs 2 (Imn-m-HAt) and 3 ($nm-Htp II), as
elsewhere among Twelfth Dynasty monuments, it is written often.181 Indeed, it can
probably be said that in general the use of the bookroll was much more restricted in
use before the Twelfth Dynasty than after. Nevertheless, limited as the evidence for
the bookroll with one or two ties before the Twelfth Dynasty is, I believe that the
evidence presented above is sufficient to show, as Spanel has speculated, that the
bookroll with one or two ties gradually came into use in the course of the late Old
Kingdom and First Intermediate Period. It therefore cannot be used by itself as an
indication of Twelfth Dynasty date.
Schenkel's third criterion for dating the five Beni Hasan tombs to the Twelfth
ra nb with a stroke after ra in
Dynasty is the orthography of the adverbial clause
tomb Nos. 33 (BAot II) and 17 ($ty I).182 He observes that in the First Intermediate
Period till the end of Dyn. XI ra and hrw are usually distinguished in that hrw is
55

EDwARD BROVARSKI

mostly written with a stroke, whereas the stroke is normally omitted in ra.183 In
Dynasty Twelve
is normally written. The oldest attestation for the common
Middle Kingdom writing of ra nb is in the coffin and tomb of the Vizier _Agi,
which Schenkel thought probably belonged to the late Eleventh Dynasty though
they could not be precisely dated. we have seen above that Allen now dates _Agi's
tenure as Vizier between year 41 of Mentuhotep II and year 12 of Mentuhotep III.
Thus, the occurrence of the phrase ra nb with the stroke at Beni Hasan cannot be
used to assign Tombs 15 and 17 to the Twelfth Dynasty. Moreover, Schenkel
occurs in an
himself notes an exception to the general rule at Dendera where
architrave of the Overseer of Priests Mrri.184 Schenkel dates Mrri to the end of the
Old Kingdom,185 seeing in the orthography of ra nb at Dendera a reflection of an
Old Kingdom practice.186 On the other hand, Fischer in his exhaustive monograph
on Dendera in the First Intermediate Period has demonstrated that Mrri belongs to
the Ninth Dynasty.187
Imy-wt in tomb Nos. 15, 17, 27, 29, and 33 at Beni Hasan is written with the
pustule(?) and town-sign.188 Schenkel189 notes that the two signs appear together as
the determinative of wt in the reign of Pepy II,190 and also in a Naga-ed-Dr
stele.191 To the same period Schenkel dates occurences at Saqqara in the burial
chamber of anxw and a stele of Min-anx-Ppj/Mni at Dendera. According to him in
all dated monuments down to the coffins of the queens of Mentuhotep II imy-wt
appears with different forms of the pustule(?).192 Then again, shortly before the end
of the Eleventh Dynasty the orthography of wt with pustule(?) and town-sign
appears again.
Fischer has, in fact, down-dated the monuments of Mn-anh-Ppj/Mni at Dendera to
the early Heracleopolitan Period (Dynasty IX)193 and the present writer has
assigned the Naga-ed-Dr stele to the same period.194 The burial chamber and
coffin of anxw, in my opinion, are even later and belong to the late Heracleopolitan
Period (Dynasty X).195
Fischer has noted the same combination of pustule(?) and town-sign as
determinatives in wt is attested by other examples vaguely dating to the end of the
Old Kingdom.196 At Naga-ed-Dr the same determinatives appear at the end of the
Old Kingdom197 and again at the very beginning of the Heracleopolitan Period.198
At Saqqara both determinatives in wt occur in false doors and coffins of the Tenth
Dynasty including several which belong to priests who served the mortuary cult of
King Merikare.199 Thus, the orthography of wt with pustule(?) and town-sign
cannot be utilized to date the Beni Hasan tombs to the Twelfth Dynasty.

56

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

The Historical Background of the NHri-texts

willems asks (pp. 95-96) what the NHri-texts tells us about the contemporary
situation in Egypt? In brief, he answers, 'the nation was apparently in a state of
dissolution, with an internal war going on, troubles with the royal court, and a
prolonged period of famine'.
He points out that the 'first record of war is preserved in a text of NHri 's year 5,
Hatnub Gr. 16, where his son KAy informs us that he protected the inhabitants of his
town when they fled before an invading army. The intruders formed a mixed
company of Upper and Lower Egyptians, MDA-people, WAwA.t-people, NHsy-people,
and aAm.w-people, who were 'united' against him. The fights seem to have
concentrated in a locality called Shedyt-sha (^dyt-S), which is mentioned in many
of the graffti.'
willems (p. 95) goes on to say that: 'A passage in Hatnub Gr. 25, 6, seems to
feature NHri I in the role of ally of the reigning king, who unfortunately remains
anonymous 'The king said: Make for yourself a fighting company (sk.w), for I
am with another fighting company.'200 Elsewhere he is called a nDs on HD n-Hr n
skw n nswt hrw n aHA 'citizen strong of club(?) in front of the fighting company of
the king on the day of fighting.'201 Anthes considered the possibility that NHri is
here described as fighting against the troops of the king,202 but willems (n. 112)
finds this hard to believe, since in the preceding line NHri characterizes himself as
rx nswt Hna onbt.f 'one who knows the king and his council'. willems points out
that such expressions seem to designate a friendly relationship as must certainly be
meant in the parallel in Gr. 24, 2.203 He adds that elsewhere in the Hatnub graffiti,
too, NHri and his sons express their subservience to and affection for the king.204
willems (p. 95) remarks that: 'Several other references to such unhappy days are
found: there was a 'day of plunder,' 'a day of rebellion', etc.205 In the same context,
the royal palace is mentioned. we hear about a 'period of fear for (or: on account
of) the royal palace',206 while NHri's sons KAy and +Hwty-nxt claim to have 'saved
(their) city from (m-a) the terrible fear of the royal palace on the day of fighting'.207
willems notes that: 'There is a contradiction between the fear inspired by the royal
palace according to these passages, and the friendly character of the relationship
between king and nomarch expressed elsewhere.' He thinks Schenkel's proposal to
translate not 'fear for the royal palace', but 'Schrecknissen des Knigshaus' may be
correct: 'However this may be, it is apparent that all was not well in Egypt, and that
the royal palace was in some way involved.'
willems (p. 96) observes that famines are mentioned repeatedly in the Hatnub
graffiti, and the word Tsw, lit. 'sandbanks' may indicate that the cause was a low
Nile. One Hatnub graffito actually speaks of 'years of famine'.208

57

EDwARD BROVARSKI

willems (p. 96) questions whether this situation is in accord with the period just
before the capture of northern Egypt by the Thebans, as many scholars believe
nowadays? His answer is that the available evidence does not support this
hypothesis. He quotes Faulkner and Schenkel who noted that rather strong counterevidence is contained in Hatnub Gr. 16, 7, where Lower Egyptians are mentioned
among the attackers.209 willems asks how the Thebans could make use of the help
of Lower Egyptians before the unification of Egypt? Moreover, he asks, 'if NHri
had aligned himself with the Heracleopolitans (the losing party), would he have
taken the trouble to have his king's defeat recorded in six graffiti?'.
willems remarks that: 'The only justification for dating NHri to this period seems to
be the recognized fact that a war led to Egypt's unification. The events narrated at
Hatnub would fit well into the picture of the Thebans gradually advancing north,
capturing province after province on the way. A northward movement of the
southern troops as far as Siut is vividly described in the nomarchs' graves there.'
Faulkner and Schenkel's argument, as restated by willems, is an important one, and
in my earlier article, I did not pay sufficient heed to it. How could the Thebans
make use of the help of Lower Egyptians before the unification of Egypt?
In Merikare P 81-85 King Khety relates his concern about the state of the Delta at
his accession ('when I first arose as lord in my city'). The region that concerned the
king apparently stretched from Het-shenu and Sembaqu on the north with its
southern border at the Two-Fish Channel. Lichtheim pointed out that the Two-Fish
channel appears to be the name for the Nile branch in the nome of Letopolis, that
is, the southernmost part of the Canopic branch, which in this passage seems to
designate the southern boundary of the western Delta.210 The disaffected area was
thus extensive, but Merikare's father claims to have pacified the western Delta as
far as the coast of the Mediterranean and returned its inhabitants to their loyalties.
Nonetheless, it is clear that at the beginning of his reign, he fought with Lower
Egyptians on at least one occasion.
Apparently too, at the start of his reign, the eastern part of the Delta (the text just
says 'the East') was overrun with foreigners (pDt) and the center of the Delta (the
Middle Island) was alienated.211 King Khety tells us that he resettled the east from
Hebnu, just to the north of Beni Hasan, to the Road-of-Horus (WAt-@r), the frontier
region that borders the eastern Delta, at the extremity of the Pelusiac branch of the
Nile.212 Then follows his peroration on the nature of foreigner, specifically the
Asiatic (aAmw), who 'has been fighting since the time of Horus; he never conquers,
yet he is never conquered'.213 Thus, early in his reign King Khety also appears to
have fought with Asiatics who had infiltrated the eastern Delta and the Nile Valley
as far south as the Oryx nome.
It is possible that the Lower Egyptians and aAmw -people, who formed part of the
army that invaded the Hare nome in NHri I's time, included Lower Egyptians and
58

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

Asiatics who remained unreconciled to the Heracleopolitan sovereign's rule. The

MDAy-people, the WAwAt-people, and the NHsy-people, would then represent African
mercenaries allied with the Thebans.
willems (p. 96) remarks that there is no independent evidence suggesting that
'kurze Zeit spter ... schon im 15. Gau gekmpft (wird).214 Indeed no records of a
unification war after the fall of Siut are known'.
willems (pp. 96-98) goes on that: 'One important body of texts, the Abisko
graffiti,215 mentions Mentuhotep Nebhepetre as well as---probably---disturbances
in the Fayum, i.e. not far from Heracleopolis. Most commentators216 agree that
these conflicts took place after the unification of Egypt, and perhaps even long
after Mentuhotep's reign, for the passage where he is mentioned seems to refer to a
past event; moreover, it describes the very beginning of the career of the Nubian
mercenary *hmAw, so that the engagement in the North must be placed at some
later moment in the Eleventh Dynasty. The passage reads thus: '... I began to fight
in the time of Nebhepetre in the army when he (or it) went south to Bu[h]en ... He
(the king) traversed the whole land, having made up his mind to kill the Asiatics of
+Aty.'217
As willems notes (p. 97), william J. Murnane and the present writer 'have argued
that the text may well have been written when Mentuhotep was still alive;
moreover the fact that the later form of his name occurs may be an error on the
ancient writer's part, so that the events discussed in the Abisko graffiti may have to
be seen in the light of the unification war'.218
According to willems (pp. 97-98) there are several arguments against such an
interpretation: 'The texts were not only written after the unification of Egypt, as
both authors concede, but probably even after Mentuhotep's reign; this seems at
least to be implied when *hmAw states that his career started 'in the time of
Nebhepetre. This obvious conclusion was challenged by Brovarski and Murnane
because they believe that m-hAw 'in the time of' may here refer to the time of the
current ruler.'
The conclusion is really not as obvious as willems suggests. *hmAw does not
merely state that he started to fight 'in the time of Nebhepetre'. He specifically says:
'I began to fight in the time of Nebhepetre in the army when he (or it) went south to
Ben.' In discussing the same graffiti, Redford specifically remarks on the long
career of *hmAw, noting that the use of SAa at the beginning of the inscription
suggests a long look back at a lengthy career as a soldier, involving several
campaigns.219 But it is important to recognize that *hmAw makes mention of no
other sovereign under whom he served. This excludes the possibility that the events
described can have taken place 'long after Mentuhotep's reign'.220

59

EDwARD BROVARSKI

In keeping with the earlier view of Murnane and myself, I believe that the later
form of Nebhepetre's throne name indicates that *hmAw's graffiti were carved late
in the reign of Mentuhotep II. But, as Redford observes, they look back at *hmAw's
lengthy career under that king.
willems continues: 'The texts seem to suggest that *hmAw joined the Egyptian
army when Mentuhotep visited Nubia some time before an attack on an Asiatic
community living in +Aty. It is worth noting that ships did visit Nubia in year 41,
i. e. after the unification of Egypt,221 although it is of course not certain that *hmAw
refers to this particular expedition. Similarly interesting in this connection is the
fact that Nubians are twice represented in painting and reliefs depicting an attack
on an Asiatic town.222 Such evidence seriously undermines the suggestion that the
'Asiatics' (aAm.w) mentioned in Abisko were in fact inhabitants of a place called +At
which was situated south of the Second Cataract.223 In the absence of independent
evidence for the existence of aAm.w that far south, it is more prudent to suppose that
a foreign enemy in South-west Asia is meant. Since it does not seem possible that
the Thebans could attack Asia prior to the unification of the country, one has to
assume that *hmAw enrolled in the Egyptian army after the event.'
willems is undoubtedly correct when he remarks that no independent evidence
places the aAm.w south of the Second Cataract and, for that reason, it is unlikely that
+Aty is located in Upper Nubia.224 However, this does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that a foreign enemy in South-west Asia is meant. Indeed, another
possibility presents itself: that the Asiatic stronghold of +Aty attacked by
Mentuhotep II was located in Middle Egypt. +Aty is determined with the 'hill
country' or 'foreign land' determinative in the Abisko graffiti, but so too is Sn %bk,
'the Fayum'.225 It is important to take note of the fact that after +Aty is overthrown,
the very next action is to 'raise sail in sailing southwards'. There is no reference
here to a land journey to return to the Nile. Nor is there earlier mention of a voyage
by river or sea to reach +Aty, only that the king 'traverses the entire land' (Xn.n.f tA r
Dr.f) to reach this locale. Redford remarks that this phrase would be wholly baffling
if the reference were to a local fray in wawat. He believes wherever +Aty is it
cannot be located in Nubia; and the fact that the expedition had to pass clear
through Egypt to reach it, and then returned southward, militates in favor of its
being north of and, outside of, Egypt proper.226
It should be noted, however, that Abisko Graffito 3, which probably continues the
above narrative, and which speaks of going to ^mAw, a term which can be used at
this time to denote that portion of Upper Egypt held by the vassals of the
Heracleopolitan kings,227 expands on the above phrase when it speaks of the
Theban fleet sailing north and transversing spAwt nb tA r-Dr.f 'all the nomes of the
entire land'. The expression used here presumably denotes all the nomes under the
control of the Theban king, and it is very likely in a similarly restricted sense that it
is used in Grafitto 1.

60

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

At the start of the reign of King Khety, father of Merikare, as the Instruction for
Merikare makes clear, the eastern and central portions of the Delta along with the
east bank of the Nile were overrun with Asiatics. Upper Egyptian nomes 16
through 22 in particular appear to have been affected and the invaders infiltrated as
far south as Hebenu (@bnw), that is, Zawiyet el-Amwat, the capital of the Oryx
nome in which Beni Hasan was located.228 King Khety goes on to say that he
attacked and overcame the strongholds of the Asiatics with the aid of his Lower
Egyptian subjects and carried off their inhabitants and herds (P. 95-97). Victorious,
he resettled the east from Hebnu to the Road-of-Horus, the frontier region that
borders the eastern Delta (see above). In the process, he restored Medenyt, the
metropolis of U. E. 22, to its nome and returned that nome to cultivation as far as
the Fayum (P. 98-99). The latter passage is particularly important in demonstrating
that the locale involved is Middle Egypt, so Hebenu cannot be a town in the Delta,
as was proposed by Scharff and Volten.229
Given his success against the invaders, it is curious that King Khety still found it
necessary to caution Merikare against the Asiatic. He specifically states that
Medenyt is strongly garrisoned against the foreigners. His picture of the Asiatic as
one who lies in wait for and seizes the wayfarer, but cannot attack a populous
town, probably characterizes the nature of the on-going Asiatic threat.
Elsewhere I have equated the reign of King Khety with the early part of the reign
of Mentuhotep II, probably up to and well beyond the 'rebellion of Thinis' in year
14 of the latter, while the reign of King Merikare has been placed parallel to that
latter part of the reign of Mentuhotep ending with the reconquest of the North in or
about the latter's year 39, 230 an event probably signaled by the change to the latter's
final Horus name, %mA-tAwy.231
Interestingly, inscriptional and pictorial evidence seems to indicate that
Mentuhotep II smote Asiatics (%Ttyw) (along with Nubians and Libyans) in the
middle period of his reign, while still the Horus NTry-HDt.
On a block from a chapel of Mentuhotep II at Gebelein,232 another relief from
which bears the Horus name NTry-HDt, the king, wearing the crown of Upper Egypt,
is shown raising his mace to dispatch a figure dressed in a pleated SnDyt-kilt, thus
in all probability an Egyptian opponent. Behind the latter, kneeling figures of a
Nubian (%tyw), an Asiatic (%Ttyw), and a Libyan (*Hnwy) await their turn.233 The
text above the scene reads: waft tpw tAwy grg ^maw &A-mHw xAswt idbwy psDt niwty
[], 'Subduing the chiefs of the Two Lands, setting in order Upper and Lower
Egypt, the foreign countries, the Two Banks, the Nine Bows, the towns [...]'.
On the rear wall of the Dendera chapel of King Mentuhotep,234 whose walls once
again bear the Horus name NTry-HDt,235 the king, this time wearing the Double
Crown, once again raises his mace and smites two plants bound together which
may represent Lower Egypt alone or possibly both Upper and Lower Egypt.236 The
61

EDwARD BROVARSKI

accompanying text reads @r aAmw xAswt iAbtt dAi Dww rht zmwt bAk NHsyw [] rsy
MDAw WAwAt *mH [pHww?] in @r NTry-HDt nswt-bity [Nb]-Hpt-[Ra], 'Horus who
clubs the eastern foreign countries, who strikes down the hill countries, who
tramples the deserts, who enslaves the Nubians, southern [...], Medja-land, wawat,
the Tjemehu-Libyans, [the marsh lands?], by the Horus Netjery[-hedjet], the King
of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nebhepetre'. Below this scene kneeling figures of a
falcon-headed god (Horus ?) and a destroyed divinity bind the smA-symbol of
unification.
willems (p. 96) dismisses the evidence of the Gebelein and Dendera reliefs as
propaganda and remarks: 'while there is no doubt that these reliefs depict a victory
of Mentuhotep, who succeeded in uniting Egypt again, their propagandistic nature
reduces their value for drawing historical conclusions. They do not tell us how the
victory was won.'
Less easy to dismiss is a scene of Egyptians and their allies attacking an Asiatic
town in the tomb of the Theban General In-it.f (TT 386).237 The scene actually
occurs on the side of a painted pillar (II b) in the portico of the general's tomb. This
part of the tomb is definitively dated to the earlier part of Mentuhotep II's reign by
and not yet
on pillar side
the appearance of king's Horus name spelled
VI b of the portico.238 willems, in another context, nevertheless remarks that the
'construction of a tomb could demand a lot of time ... [and] that the occurrence of
the early form of the king's name in the portico does not prove that all parts of the
decoration of the tomb antedate the Unification'.239 His observation regarding tomb
construction may or may not be correct; nevertheless, we possess very little data
concerning how long it took to construct and decorate a tomb at this time.240 Still,
the fact remains that the early form of the Horus name occurs in the portico of the
tomb where the siege scene is also located, and the scene must therefore be
assigned to the middle part of Mentuhotep II's reign.241
The siege scene comprises five registers, in the upper two of which an assault on an
Asiatic town with the help of a portable seige tower is represented. In the registers
below are scenes of hand-to-hand combat, with naked prisoners being led off by
Egyptian soldiers, while other Asiatics flee the advancing Egyptians. A large figure
of General In-it.f at the left brackets two registers of prisoners, including Asiatic
women and children, at the right. The skin of the Egyptian soldiers (and the
general) is painted dark red and they either wear their hair cut short or shoulderlength. In a number of instances, it is bound by a fillet. In addition to a simple short
kilt, several of the Egyptian soldiers wear linen cross-bands on their chests. They
carry tall, straight-sided cowhide shields with rounded tops, and their close-combat
weapons include spears, curved sticks, battle-axes (of both the long, narrow bladed
epsilon and the half-moon bladed, socketed types),242 but not bows and arrows.
Intermingled with the attacking Egyptians in the two uppermost registers are five
Nubian bowmen with dark brown skins. Their hair is cut short and bound with a
fillet. They too wear simple short kilts but are distinguished from the Egyptian
62

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

soldiers by the characteristic sporran-like codpiece at their waists,243 while one at

least has a feather in his hair. Unlike the Egyptians, the dark-skinned soldiers do
not wear crossbands.244 It is interesting to observe that here are Nubians, like
*hmAw, fighting with Egyptians against Asiatics, as *hmAw does!
The skin of the Asiatic men is yellow-brown, that of their women and children
more markedly yellow. The hair of the men, which is brown in contrast to the black
of the Egyptians' and Nubians' hair, is shoulder length and confined by a fillet. The
men wear short, overlapping, decorated kilts. The kilts are red striped and spotted
or red-and-blue checked. The long dresses of the women are also brightly patterned
in red and blue. The Asiatic men carry square shields with indentations on all sides.
Their weapons are spears and bows, but one boomerang or war club is also evident.
Corroborative testimony for the presence of Asiatics in Middle Egypt, and in
particular in the Oryx Nome, is to be had from the siege scenes in the tombs of
BAot III (No. 15), his son $ty I (No. 17), $nm-Htp I (No. 14), and Imn-m-HAt (No.
2) at Beni Hasan. The date of the first two scenes, late Tenth-Eleventh Dynasty in
the opinion of the present writer, has already been discussed. The latter two tombs
belong to the Twelfth Dynasty. In the aftermath of King Khety's offensive in
Middle Egypt, it is possible that certain of the Asiatics who remained were pressed
into service as mercenaries by the nomarchs of the Oryx nome.
Most commentators appear to accept the genuine historical character of these
scenes. On the other hand, Schulman remarks that, 'each of these scenes has a
certain inherent, if not intrinsic, value as an historical document and source, and, as
such, prompts a number of questions, paramount of which is their validity,
credibility, and reliability as historical documents. In other words, do these scenes
of battle depict actual historical events, or are they merely stock, genre scenes
'.245 Further along in the same article, Schulman notes the 'almost remarkable
degree of homogeneity' in the battle scenes which are preserved in the four Beni
Hasan tombs.246 That homogeneity could be an argument for the stock character of
the scenes. As a result Schulman describes fully only one of the Beni Hasan scenes,
what most scholars agree is the earliest of them, that from tomb No. 15, of the
nomarch BAot III. One salient fact in all the siege scenes is the presence of yellowskinned Asiatics.
The battle scene on the east wall of the tomb of BAot III shows soldiers in two long
registers storming a fortress.247 In a third register below, hand-to-hand combat
between the attacking force and the defenders, who have sallied forth from the
fortress, is portrayed. Gaballa248 and Schulman249 agree that the defending garrison
of the fortress seems to be made up of Egyptians. Although the latter remarks that
Newberry's drawings do not give any real details of the individual figures in the
fortress, the defenders below are dressed in an identical manner to some of the
assailants and likewise have short hair. Even given the limitations of the drawings,
it is evident that the attacking force includes both Nubian archers and Egyptian
63

EDwARD BROVARSKI

spearmen. The former are dressed in their characteristic sash with a pendant piece
in front, worn over a kilt, and tied at the back,250 while some have feathers in their
hair. In contrast to General In-it.f's scene, certain individuals among them wear
crossed chest-bands. The Egyptians, on the other hand, wear either plain kneelength kilts or a form of the SnDyt-kilt with a very small projecting tab251 and carry
tall, straight-sided shields with rounded tops.252 In addition to the spears, the closecombat weapons of the Egyptians include axes and curved sticks.253 Newberry's
drawings are rendered in black and white, so it is impossible to distinguish
differences in skin pigmentation between the Egyptians and the Nubians, especially
since the outlines of both in the drawings are filled in with black.254
In contrast to the Egyptians and Nubians, the figures of two groups of attackers
were drawn in outline by Newberry. Although he does not specifically say so, this
was evidently done because these individuals are yellow-skinned.255 They are, in
fact, Asiatics, distinguished not only by their pigmentation but by other features as
well. For instance, the first group of Asiatics, engaged in the attack on the fortress
in Register 7, wears decorated kilts. The kilts have a tab between the legs and the
design in each instance consists of wavy or zigzag lines. The second group of
Asiatics appears at the right end of the bottom register. Here the kilts are plain and
lack the tab.256 Both groups of Asiatics in BAot III are equipped with axes, maces,
and boomerangs, or war clubs, but the first group also has slings,257 while the
second is provided with bows and one man appears to hold a dagger. Only one of
the Asiatics carries a shield and this appears to be of Egyptian type with rounded
top.258
In addition to Egyptian soldiers and Nubian bowmen, Asiatics also participate in
the attack on a fortress in the tomb of BAot III's son $ty I (No. 17).259 Two groups
of four and five Asiatics respectively, with their figures drawn in outline, are
separated by a single individual whose plain kilt would seem to identify him as an
Egyptian. Except for the man in the middle, they are all dressed in decorated kilts
with tabs essentially identical to the first group of Asiatics in the tomb of BAot III.
However, they also carry small, straight-sided shields, with a vee-shaped notch cut
out of both the top and bottom.260 Several Asiatics use slings, as does the Egyptian
(?) in their midst. In fact, it may well be that Newberry erred here in filling in the
outlines of this figure in black, as he almost certainly did in the case of two figures
at the foot of the fortress to the left who wear decorated kilts but whose figures are
black-filled. In the latter case at least, the two individuals are definitely yellowskinned.261 The Nubians once again have cross-bands on their chests and sporrans
at their waists.262 The Egyptians as customarily are attired in plain or SnDyt-kilts
and carry round-topped shields. The cross-bands are not confined to the Nubian
warriors, however; they are also worn by the Egyptians in the fortress and others at
the right end of Register 7.

64

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

In $ty's case, the defenders of the fortress can be more readily identified as
Egyptian. They wear cross-bands like certain of the Egyptians at the right end of
Register 8 and carry round-topped shields as well.
As previously noted, fortresses under attack are also represented in the tombs of the
nomarch $nmw-Htp I, who dates to the time of Amenemhat I, and of the nomarch
Imn-m-HAt, who belongs to the reign of Senusert I. According to Newberry the
scenes on the east wall of the tomb of $nmw-Htp I are arranged in six registers. 263
The first three registers show wrestlers in different attitudes, while the bottom three
registers portray an attack on a fortress.264 Regrettably, the paintings are much
mutilated and Newberry was only able to copy the south ends of Registers 4-6. The
soldiers who attack the fortress comprise Egyptians and possibly Nubians. There is
also a contingent of Asiatics in patterned kilts and beards who carry slingshots
along with other armaments. The prisoners brought off in $nmw-Htp I's case appear
to be Libyans,265 however, and the scene could well bear witness to the campaign
against the Libyans in year 30 of Amenemhat I in which Sinuhe took part.266 As we
have already seen, Schulman has remarked that the apparent homogeneity of the
siege scenes in the Beni Hasan tombs might be an argument for the stock character
of the scenes. It seems though that the fortress under siege in $nmw-Htp's tomb was
Libyan, not Egyptian, as in the earlier tombs of BAot III and $ty. Even if the siege
scene itself was indeed part of the stock in trade of the painters at Beni Hasan, it
appears that it could be adapted to meet historical demands. Consequently, the
Libyan campaign depicted in $nmw-Htp's tomb can be seen as testifying to the
genuine historical character of the earlier scenes.
The scenes on the east wall of the tomb of the nomarch Imn-m-HAt are also arranged
in six registers. In the top three registers wrestlers are once again depicted. The
bottom register is devoted to a different topic, the posthumous pilgrimages of the
deceased to Abydos and Busiris. The siege scene is portrayed in the remaining two
registers, separated by the entrance to the statue shrine, so that the fortress itself is
on the left of the entrance and the sortie by the defenders to the right. Once again,
Newberry provides no detailed description of the scene, but the attacking army
appears to include Egyptian, Nubians, and Asiatics. The Asiatics are readily
distinguishable by their yellowish skin color and patterned kilts. Thanks to line
drawings by Champollion267 and Montet,268 it is seemingly possible to identify two
Nubians by their hair treatment, which features a dotted pattern that may be an
attempt to represent tightly curled or kinky hair.269 Otherwise, it is difficult in the
case of both the defending forces and of the attacking army to distinguish 'Nubian'
archers from Egyptians, since both now wear the sporran-like codpiece that is
donned by warriors and hunters in the Twelfth Dynasty.270 Nor is it possible to
detect differences in the flesh tones of the two groups in a color detail of the scene
published by Shedid.271 It might be possible to connect this scene with internecine
strife at the assassination of Imn-m-HAt I, but there is no hint at all of this in the
nomarch's autobiography in which he simply reports he accompanied Senusert I on
an expedition against Upper Nubia (Kush) in the latter's year 18272 and made two
65

EDwARD BROVARSKI

further trips south to bring gold ore from the mines behind the city of Coptos.273 On
the other hand, it is possible the theme of the siege of a fortress may, by this time,
have passed into the realm of the conventional at Beni Hasan.
At Beni Hasan we have two scenes in the early tombs of BAot III and $ty I which
appear to show a fortress manned by Egyptians under siege by an Egyptian force
aided and abetted by Nubian and Asiatic allies. It seems unlikely that either tomb
owner would have depicted his own city under siege, especially since the defenders
appear to be getting the worst of it. Then too, in the other battle scenes we possess
(Dishasha, Saqqara, Thebes, Deir el-Bahari),274 it is consistently an enemy fortress
that is under attack. It thus seems logical to conclude that it is BAot's and $ty's forces,
accompanied by Nubian and Asiatic mercenaries, who are shown storming the two
fortresses manned by opposing Egyptian forces. Assuming that the siege scenes in
the two tombs of BAot III and $ty are indeed genuine historical documents, we could
have here evidence for prolonged warfare between two different parties stretching
over two generations. But another possibility presents itself.
At Hatnub +Hwty-nxt V and his brother KAy are described as taking part in a battle
which took place in year 5 (or earlier) of their father, the nomarch NHri I.275 At
Hatnub it is a question of a verbal presentation, not a pictorial representation.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the NHri graffiti that two generations took part in a
battle at a locale identified as Shedyt-sha. At Beni Hasan, two closely similar
depictions of a siege are pictured in the tomb of another father and son, BAot III and
$ty I. It is a distinct possibility that one and the same battle are intended, in which
two generations of the ruling family of the Oryx and Hare nomes participated.
It will be recalled that NHri I was evidently attacked by a united force composed of
men of Medja-people and wawat-people, Asiatics, and both Upper and Lower
Egyptians.276 The forces that stormed the fortresses in the tombs of BAot III and $ty
I are similarly composed of Egyptians, Nubians, and Asiatics. In the wars that
preceded the reunification of Egypt, one faction in particular is known to have
utilized Nubian mercenaries. That faction was, of course, the Thebans, under the
nascent Eleventh Dynasty.277
All this leads to a somewhat startling conclusion: the Beni Hasan nomarchs BAot III
and $ty I, allied with the Thebans and their Nubian mercenaries, fought against
NHri I and his sons as representatives of the Heracleopolitan king.
As surprising as this hypothesis may be, not least because of the geographic
circumstances of the two nomes, the Oryx nome being located to the north of the
Hare nome as it is, the fact is that the Oryx nome appears to have had an even
earlier connection with the Thebans. A fragmentary stele found at Dendera within
the Theban realm by the University of Pennsylvania Expedition makes mention of
a Great Overlord of the Oryx Nome. It is dated by a cartouche to a king Intef,
presumably Intef II or III.278
66

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

The late H. G. Fischer kindly provided the writer with a copy of his reconstruction
of the stele along with his textual notes and comments (letter, 1 October 1981). The
stele, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,
location number 23.492, was found in the same tomb at Dendera where Petrie
found the stele of Rdw-$nm, CG 20543,279 and bears the name Rdw-$nm. CG
20543 is in the style of the reign of Nxt-nb-tp-nfr Intef III.280 Fischer pointed out
that the style of the hieroglyphs on the fragmentary stele is different from CG
20543, and so is the orthography. It seemed unlikely to him that the two steles were
made by the same craftsman and doubtful that they were made at the same time. He
thought it alternately possible that the stele belonged to a like-named son of Rdw$nm (otherwise unattested). However, consideration should also be given to the
possibility that the fragmentary stele was made at a somewhat earlier date for the
Rdw-$nm of CG 20543.
Fischer also believed it likely that the owner of the stele was himself the nomarch of
the Oryx nome. He thought the theophoric name Rdw-$nm itself suggests a link with
the Oryx nome, since Khnum is not otherwise attested in names from Dendera,
whereas Khnum, lord of Herwer, is frequently mentioned at Beni Hasan.281
The presence of the nomarch at Dendera is conducive of a number of
interpretations. Gomaa believes it provides evidence that the Thebans late in the
reign of Nxt-nb-tp-nfr Intef III or in the time of his successor Mentuhotep II had
extended the borders of their kingdom to U. E. nome 16. He suggests the nomarch
was driven out by the Heracleopolitans for his pro-Theban activities.282 If so, his
collaboration perhaps bears testimony to a forward policy of the Thebans for which
no evidence survives elsewhere. Alternatively, the nomarch could have been a
fugitive from the Asiatic invaders of Middle Egypt who sought safety in the far
south.
It is, in fact, difficult to fit the Great Overlord of the Oryx Nome into the known
sequence of rulers of that province. Since BAot I and II were father and son and RAmw-Snti was father of BAot III and grandfather of $ty I, the only available position
is after BAot I and II and before RA-mw-Snti
If this hypothesis is accepted and the nomarch of the Oryx nome known from the
Dendera stela had a substantial tenure of office before being driven south, the
correspondence between the nomarchs of the Oryx and Hare nomes offered above
would have to be amended to the following extent:
BAot I
#ww's son +Hwty-nxt II
BAot II
+Hwty-nxt III
Rdw-$nm (?)
aHA-nxt I
RA-mw-Snti
+Hwty-nxt IV
aHA-nxt II
BAot III
NHri I
$ty I
+Hwty-nxt V
67

EDwARD BROVARSKI

Four generations or 80-100 years would make aHA-nxt I and Rdw-$nm

contemporaries at the end of the reign of wahankh Intef II or of Nakhtnebtepnefer
Intef III, at a point in time when the Thebans had not yet expanded beyond the
head of the south.283 If the resurgence under King Khety, the father of Merikare,
occurred in the time of RA-mw-Snti and the generation of +Hwty-nxt IV and aHA-nxt
II, it could help explain why BAot III and $ty I adopted the extended title Hrj-tp aA n
MAHD mi-od.f, 'Great Overlord of the Entire Oryx Nome'.284 This would be the
direct result of King Khety's having restored those parts of the Oryx nome, which
had been occupied by Asiatics to the Heracleopolitan kingdom. It would not
explain why BAot III and $ty I ultimately rebelled against Khety's son Merikare,
but an explanation is perhaps to be sought in the changing political circumstances
of the time. All this assumes, of course, that my explanation of the battle scenes in
tombs No. 15 and 17 at Beni Hasan and the correspondance between these scenes
and the battle of Shedyt-sha is the correct one. At the same time, two generations
or 40-50 years would make NHri I and BAot III contemporaries of the later reign of
Mentuhotep II and the final Theban initiative to conquer the north.
None of this settles the location of the Asiatic fortress depicted in the tomb of the
General In-it.f. The area occupied by Asiatics and restored to the Heracleopolitan
Kingdom by Merikare's father stretched from the Road-of-Horus on the frontier
region of the eastern Delta to Hebenu in U. E. nome 16, a little to the north of Beni
Hasan (see above). Mentuhotep II could not have battled Asiatics here early in his
reign because just to the south lay the Hare nome, presumably allied with the
Heracleopolitans. It is possible that it was in the 'no man's land' of U. E. nomes 1014 on the east bank extending from Gebel Abu Feda on the north to Gebel Sheikh
el-Hardi on the south that King Mentuhotep fought and conquered Asiatics. There
is admittedly no evidence for Asiatics in this area like there is for the Oryx and
Hare nomes further north. King Khety makes no mention in his Instruction of
Asiatics this far south. Nevertheless, the siege scene in the tomb of the General Init.f and the autobiography of *hmAw (see above) provide clear testimony that
Mentuhotep did fight Asiatics, and the zone seems to be a logical area for this to
have occurred. Alternatively, Mentuhotep II may have fought with Asiatics in the
Eastern Desert. The inscription quoted above on the rear wall of his Dendera
chapel specifically asserts that the king clubbed the 'eastern foreign lands'.
The *hmAw Graffiti
willems (p. 98) observes that in the third graffito at Abisko mention is made twice
of a 'man of the North' or 'the North'. Murnane's and the present writer's
interpretation entails that this is a term for the Heracleopolitan king, who is
described in this vein elsewhere.285 At the end of the graffito, however, *hmAw,
according to willems, calls himself 'one whose arm was strong on account of what
he did for the North'. Since the expression iri n has the meaning 'help, support',
willems finds it hard to reconcile this with *hmAw's alleged role as supporter of the
Thebans. He notes that Murnane and the present writer interpreted the n in this case
68

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

as a dative of disadvantage, but he points out that none of our evidence features the
complete expression iri n.
willems is correct that iri n usually means 'act for, on behalf of,' etc. The usage of
iri n 'act against' is much rarer.286 Nevertheless, the dative of disadvantage is well
attested, and the translation 'his arm being strong due to what he did to the North'
perfectly defensible.287
Even if willems were correct about the final passage in the third graffiti, this does
not disprove *hmAw's role as supporter of the Thebans during the unification war.
*hmAw may well have considered his role in the reunification of Egypt as
beneficial to the North, as Mentuhotep II undoubtedly also did.
As a consequence of his observations about iri n, willems remarks that he is very
doubtful whether 'the North' denotes the kingdom of Heracleopolis. He suggests it
may instead refer to Egypt as a whole (whether united or not), since this would not
be unnatural from the viewpoint of a Nubian. But I know of no single instance where
mHty is used by a dweller in Upper or Lower Nubia to refer to Egypt as a whole.
willems's observations concerning the meaning of iri n at the end of the third
graffito does nothing to contravene the identity of the 'man of the North' (rmT mHty)
in line 10.288 The Heracleopolitan king is indeed described in this vein elsewhere.
In a Theban stele dating to Mentuhotep II, the expedition leader $ty informs us that
he earlier served 'in the houses of the Northerner'.289 MHty in the stele is determined
with a seated man , but the inference seems clear enough. In contrast, rmT mHty in
*hmAw's graffito appears to have a uraeus on his head. The context here is clear, for
*hmAw leads a mixed force of Nubians and Sand-dwellers (?) in order to 'put to
flight the man of the North'.290
willems (p. 98) observes, after his long digression on the date of the Abisko
graffiti, that it may have become clear that there is no justification for considering
these texts testimony for the unification war; the encounter in the Fayum must have
taken place later in the Eleventh Dynasty. I have given my reasons above for
thinking that this is not that case and that the *hmAw texts indeed document
episodes in the conquest of the Heracleopolitan kingdom by Mentuhotep II.
Having down-dated the *hmAw graffiti to late Dynasty Eleven, willems finds that
other evidence for a unification war is similarly vague. He observes the 'sixty slain
soldiers' buried near Mentuhotep II's temple at Deir el-Bahri need not have been
killed during the siege of Heracleopolis.291 willems does not take into account the
Beni Hasan war reliefs because he down dates them to the beginning of the Twelfth
Dynasty. I have already given my reasons for thinking that they do belong to the
time of the unification. willems (pp. 98-99) thinks the war reliefs at Thebes do not
depict an inner-Egyptian war. One relief in the Theban tomb of General In-it.f
depicts armed Nubians on ships, but willems (n. 136) observes that it is not clear
69

EDwARD BROVARSKI

when and where they were deployed, nor are their enemies shown.292 He points out
that Jaro-Deckert argued that some fragments of a battle scene represent the
unification war,293 but it is not certain whether these scenes are relevant to our
concern.294 Finally, he observes that not one of the numerous autobiographical texts
from this period refers to a war with Heracleopolis. He remarks295 that not even the
biography of Mentuhotep's General In-it.f seems to record such a war.296
willems certainly means that Theban autobiographical texts make no allusion to
the unification war. whatever the reason for the lack of references to a war with
Heracleopolis on the part of the Thebans, the fact is that their Heracleopolitan
opponents recorded episodes from that war in some detail in the autobiographical
texts of &f-ib.i and $ty II at Asyut.
willems feels (p. 99) that 'while it is perhaps hard to believe that no military force
at all was used by the Thebans to reach their political goals, nothing suggests a
process in which nome after nome was mopped up by an advancing Southern
army'.297 In fact, the Asyut texts record a gradual advance by the Thebans and their
southern allies northwards as far as the Lycopolite nome.
$ty I of Asyut formed a troop of spearman and a troop of bowmen. He makes
mention of no specific battle, although he claims to have been 'strong of bow, mighty
of arm' and much feared by his neighbors. He also claims to have had a fine fleet,
which he apparently used in support of his king, when the latter sailed south.298
It.f-ib.i (&f-ib.i), in the time of King Khety, father of Merikare, fought with the
southern nomes on two separate occasions.299 On the first of these he sailed far
south and seized an important town from the enemy. On a second occasion he
fought with an enemy fleet, evidently in the vicinity of Asyut, and forced part of it
aground. He then chased the remaining ships all the way south.
Clearly, if we are to believe It.f-ib.i (&f-ib.i), he got the better of the southern forces
on two separate occasions. By the time of his son $ty II, a contemporary of King
Merikare, the situation had deteriorated from the Heracleopolitan point of view.
$ty appears to have been driven out of Asyut by the Thebans, but with the support
of a Heracleopolitan fleet, he managed to expel the Theban troops and gain
possession of his territory once again.300
with regard to the famines recorded at Hatnub, willems (p. 99) remarks that no
famine is attested in texts from Nebhepetre's reign. For that matter, no famine is
attested in texts from the late Eleventh Dynasty, one of two periods to which
willems (pp. 101-102) would assign the NHri-texts. willems (n. 143) notes that the
Prophecy of Neferti repeatedly mentions drought in the period just preceeding
Amenemhat's reign. If the references to drought are not simply in the nature of a
literary topos,301 they may represent an historical memory of the famine alluded to
in the Asyut tomb of $ty I302 and the NHri-texts at Hatnub.
70

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

Alternatively, willems (pp. 101-102) would allocate the NHri-texts to the beginning
of the Twelfth Dynasty. If he means by this the early reign of Amenemhat I, the fact
is that no famines are recorded for the sole reign of that king either. In fact,
Amenemhat I specifically says in his Instruction for his son, Senusert I: 'Hapy gave
me honor on every field, so that none hungered during my years/none thirsted
therein.'303 The earliest evidence for famine in the Twelfth Dynasty seemingly dates
to the first decade of the reign of Senusert I, the period of that king's coregency with
his father,304 when the ka-priest @oA-nxt claims the famine was so bad that they have
started to 'eat people'.305 The nomarch Imn-m-HAt at Beni Hasan refers to 'years of
hunger' that came to pass during an unspecified period of years in the same reign.306
The Overseer of Priests of Armant, Mntw-Htp, son of @py, also mentions that a 'low
Nile' occurred in Year 25 of a reign that is almost certainly Senusert I's.307
If the famines only recurred during the joint reign of Amenemhat I and Senusert I, and
this were a determining factor in the date of the NHri-texts, this would bring these texts
down close to the date Schenkel originally suggested, that is, the period of the
assassination of Amenemhat I, a date which willems specifically endeavored to refute.
Conclusions
An examination of the relevant palaeographic, phraseological, iconographic and
archaeological data justifies a date prior to the Twelfth Dynasty for tombs of aHA-nxt I
and NHri I at Bersheh and the NHri graffiti at Hatnub. 'Generation counting' helps to
place the rulers of the Hare and Oryx nomes in their proper chronological position in
Dynasties Ten/Eleven. This yields a correlation between aHA-nxt I and the Theban
rulers Intef II or III, at a point in time before the Thebans broke out from the far
south, when the Heracleopolitan kingdom was still theoretically united. Similarly,
NHri I at Bersheh and BAot III at Beni Hasan lived at the time of the final Theban
thrust northwards and the reunification of Egypt by Mentuhotep II. Their sons,
+Hwty-nxt V and $ty I also participated in the battles surrounding the reunification
of the country and probably lived on into the first years of the Twelfth Dynasty.
I have also given my reasons for thinking that the *hmAw graffiti indeed document
episodes in the conquest of the Heracleopolitan kingdom by Mentuhotep II and
record an advance by the Thebans northwards. willems (with Redford and others)
are right to question the location of the Asiatic fortress of +Aty in Nubia, but did
not consider the possibility that it could be located in Middle Egypt or the Eastern
Desert, inside Egypt proper. This certainly follows from the dating of the
Mentuhotep II's Dendera and Gebelein chapels and the tomb of his General In-it.f
in the middle part of that sovereign's reign. Confirmation of the presence of
Asiatics in Middle Egypt in the late Tenth and Eleventh Dynasties comes first of all
from the Instruction for Merikare and secondly from the NHri-texts at Hatnub and
the siege scenes in the tombs of BAot III and $ty I at Beni Hasan. The NHri-texts
and the siege scenes may attest to a conflict between the Hare and Oryx nomes,
between the Heracleopolitans and their allies and the Thebans and their allies.
71

EDwARD BROVARSKI

4
5
6

9
10
11

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19

E. Brovarski, 'Ahanakht of Bersheh and the Hare Nome in the First Intermediate Period
and the Middle Kingdom', in w. K. Simpson and w. M. Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient
Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan. Essays in honor of Dows Dunham on the occasion of
his 90th birthday, June 1, 1980 (Boston, 1981), 14-30.
H. O. willems, 'The Nomarchs of the Hare Nome and Early Middle Kingdom History',
JEOL 28 (1983-1984), 80-102.
E. Blumenthal, 'Die Datierung der NHri-Graffiti von Hatnub: Zur Stellung der gyptischen
Gaufrsten im frhen Mittleren Reich', AoF 4 (Berlin, 1976), 35-62.
w. Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien (Bonn, 1962), 84-95.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 91-92.
For the tomb, see F. L. Griffith and P. E. Newberry, El Bersheh II, ASE 4 (London, 1894),
30-35, pls. 12-17; Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the
Aegean, and the Sudan, 14-21. The graffiti are R. Anthes, Die Felseninschriften von
Hatnub nach dem Aufnahmen Georg Mllers, UGA 9 (Hildesheim, 1964), Gr. 10-12 and
Gr. 31(?).
For aHA-nxt II, see E. Martin-Pardey, 'Beispiel (Opfertafel des aHA-nxt)', GM 21 (1976), 3336. +Hwty-nxt IV is mentioned in Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 14.
For his tomb, see Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, 29, pls. 10-11; E. Brovarski, in D.
P. Silverman (ed.), Bersheh Reports I (Boston, 1992), 28-30, figs. 30, 31, 53. The graffiti
are Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 14-30. willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 82, n. 16, citing Schenkel,
Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 87, 32 b, where the relative dates of Anthes, Hatnub, Gr.
11 and 14, are discussed, observes that NHri I must be later than aHA-nxt I.
See e.g. Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 14, 1.
See e.g. Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 14, 15-16.
willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 82, n. 19, observes that +Hwty-htp has always been
recognized as +Hwty-nxt V's mother, but Blumental, AoF 4 (Berlin, 1976), 45, doubted
whether KAy, too, was a son of hers. However, willems thinks that offering table CG
23069 (A. Kamal, Tables d'offrandes [Cairo, 1909], 58-59) leaves little room for doubt.
KAy is here described as NHri sA KAy, 'Nehri's son Kay' and as sDAw.ty-bity KAy msi.n
+Hwty-htp, 'sealbearer of the king of Lower Egypt KAy whom +Hwty-htp conceived'.
willems notes that the KAy represented in NHri I's tomb has the same title (Griffith and
Newberry, El Bersheh II, pl. XI, 4). He also observes that the latter inscription calls both
KAy and +Hwty-nxt V 'eldest son' of NHri I. willems thinks the reason for this may be that
KAy died early and was 'succeeded' as 'son' by his brother. He cites a comparable case at
Beni Hasan, see H. G. Fischer, Egyptian Studies, I. Varia (New York, 1976), 86, and
remarks that one might also argue that the brothers were twins, although the evidence for
twins both being called 'eldest son' is scarce and ambiguous (cf. N. Kanawati, 'The
Mentioning of More than One Eldest Child in Old Kingdom Inscriptions', CdE 51, no. 102
(1976), 248-249).
Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, 12.
Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, pls. 6, 7, etc..
CG 28046: Kamal, Tables d'offrandes, 42. H. G. Fischer, Egyptian Studies, III. Varia
as xtmty in
Nova (New York, 1996), 50-52, has subsequently defended the reading of
most titles. As I am unaware of willems's opinion in this matter, I have retained here and
elsewhere in quotes from him the reading sDAwty.
P. E. Newberry, El Bersheh I, ASE 3 (London, 1893), pl. 33.
Newberry, El Bersheh I, pl. 33.
In AoF 4 (Berlin, 1976), 46-47.
See n. 14.
See e.g., J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt I (New York, 1962), 691- 693.

72

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

20
21

22
23
24

25

26

27
28

29
30
31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38
39

40

H. O. willems, Dayr al-Barsh I (Leuven, 2007), 106.

See Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 23.
A. Moret, Catalogue du Muse Guimet. galerie gyptien (Paris, 1909), pl. 51 [58].
H. O. willems, Chests of Life (Leiden, 1988), 75.
At a later date and for reasons unknown, a sloping passageway was excavated in the
shrine; see Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, 37, pl. 18. Perhaps the intent was to
excavate a burial chamber at the bottom of the passage but, if so, the project was never
completed.
In February 2008, in the course of a doctoral defense in Leuven, H. willems informed the
present writer that there is no trace of ceiling texts in the tomb of Imn-m-HAt.
Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, 27, pl. 10; Brovarski, in Silverman (ed.), Bersheh
Reports I, 27-28. At Asyut this sort of faade treatment dates back to the Heracleopolitan
Period; see E. Brovarski, in K. A. Bard (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient
Egypt (London and New York, 1999), 318.
See M. Robinson, in Silverman (ed.), Bersheh Reports I, figs. 9, 10.
CG 28091/28092: P. Lacau, Sarcophages antrieurs au Nouvel Empire II (Cairo, 1906),
37-64.
See willems, Dayr al-Barsh I, 86 and n. 15.
Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 26-28.
Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 32. On the name, see Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies
in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan, 27, n. 107.
Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 11. willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 84, n. 33, observes that the name in
this graffito is slightly damaged. In fact, the nxt element of the name is missing, but aHA- is
preserved, so it is highly likely that the graffito belongs to aHA-nxt I. Anthes, Hatnub, Gr.
10 records his Year 20, as willems also notes.
A generation of twenty-five years just about corresponds to the average of 26 years
established by M. B. Rowton, 'The Date of Hammurabi', JNES 17 (1958), 100-101, for the
throne tenure of seven generations of ancient Near Eastern rulers. M. L. Bierbrier, The
Late New Kingdom (warminster, 1975), 112-113, at first suggests that 20 years represents
the average generation during the period of Dynasties Nineteen to Twenty-six, but then
rejects the possibility as too low and argues in favor of a generation average of 25 years.
Bierbrier adds that 'any increase of the time span of each generation over 25 years is
suspect'. D. Henige, 'Generation-counting and late New Kingdom chronology', JEA 67
(1981), 182-184, calls Bierbrier to task and instead suggests that it is normal for dynasties
(or any succession through a male line to a particular office over time) to have generations
which cluster in a range from twenty-five to thirty-five years. we have decided to err on
the side of caution in the present case and assume a generation lasted 20-25 years.
willems believes that he has now found the tomb of aHA-nxt II; see willems, Dayr alBarsh I, 16, 44, fig. 6.
For these two individuals, see Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient
Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan, 23.
The text is partly published by Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient
Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan, 21, fig. 10.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 28(c); stele Louvre C1, line 8 (w. K. Simpson,
The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos [New Haven, 1974]), pl. 14.
Anthes, Hatnub, 14.
Cf. Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 26-27, n. 103.
C. R. Lepsius, Denkmler aus gypten und thiopien. Text II (Leipzig, 1904), 122a.

73

EDwARD BROVARSKI

41
42
43
44
45

46

47

48

49

50

51
52

53
54
55
56

57

58

59

60

61
62
63

64
65

AoF 4 (Berlin, 1976), 49-53.

AoF 4 (Berlin, 1976), 53.
G. Mller, Hieratische Palographie I (Leipzig, 1927), n. 3.
Mller, Hieratische Palographie I, nos. 42; 98; 132; 169; 217; 258; 326, etc.
Mller, Hieratische Palographie I, nos. 26, 91, 105, 111, 113, 146, 158, 197, 201, 215,
229, 268, 294, 314, 379, 388, 467, 478, 564, LVIII, LIX, etc.
Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 27, fig. 13. In the chart I somehow neglected to add that
and
appear in the tomb of NHri I (Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, pl. 11), as well as in
the tomb of aHA-nxt I, on the offering table of aHA-nxt II, and in the tomb of +Hwty-nxt V.
C. J. C. Bennett, 'The Growth of the Htp-di-nswt Formula in the Middle Kingdom', JEA 27
(1941), 78 (4).
See Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, fig.13. Cf. G. Lapp, Typologie der Srge und Sargkammern von der 6. Bis 13.
Dynastie (Heidelberg, 1993), pls. 4-7.
Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 27, fig. 13.
For a discussion of the formula prt xrw nt from its origins in Dynasty Six to Dynasty
Twelve, see L. Postel, 'Une variante septentrionale de la formule d'offrande invocatoire
la Premire Priode Intermdiaire prt-xrw nt', in L. Pantalacci and C. Berger-el-Naggar
(eds), Des Nferkar aux Montouhotep, Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient et de la
Mditerrane 40 (Lyon, 2005), 255-278.
P. E. Newberry, Beni Hasan II (London, 1894), pls. 5, 11, 12.
H. O. Lange and H. Schfer, Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs im Museum von
Kairo II (Cairo, 1908), 76.
Lacau, Sarcophages antrieurs au Nouvel Empire I, 73.
Lady w. Cecil, 'Report on the work Done at Aswan', ASAE 4 (1903) 69, pl. [5].
willems, Chests of Life, 22.
In P. der Manuelian (ed.) and R. E. Freed (Project Supervisor), Studies in Honor of
William Kelly Simpson I (Boston, 1996), 312-314.
See E. Brovarski, 'False Doors and History: the First Intermediate Period and Middle
Kingdom', in D. P. Silverman, w. K. Simpson and J. wegner (eds), Archaism and
Innnovation. Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt (New Haven and
Philadelphia, 2009), pp. 394-395.
Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 27-28.
J. J. Clre and J. Vandier, Textes de la Premire Priode Intermdiaire et de la XIe
dynastie, Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 10 (Brussels, 1948), 33, 8 (hereafter TPPI).
See E. Brovarski, 'A Second Style in Egyptian Relief of the Old Kingdom', in L. Lesko
(ed.), Ancient Egyptian and Mediterranean Studies in Memory of William A. Ward
(Providence, 1998), 52-54.
willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 90.
Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, pl. 13, lines 23-24.
Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 27.
CG 20502: Lange and Schfer, Grab und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs II, 93.
willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), n. 77, cites gmi Ts m gAw.f; see J. M. A. Jannsen, De
traditioneele Egyptische autobiografie voor het Nieuwe Rijk (Leiden, 1946), part 1, II, Gb;
nba sxr, see part 1, IV, Ac, nos. 41-42.

74

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

66

67

68
69

70

71

72
73

74

75

76
77
78
79
80

81
82
83
84

85

86

87

88

89

90
91

92

Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 27, n. 126.
CG 20001: J. Vandier, 'La stle 20.001 du Caire', in Mlanges Maspero I (Cairo, 19351940), 137-140.
F. L. Griffith, The Inscriptions of Siut and Dr Rfeh (London, 1889), pl. 16, line 9.
Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 28, n. 120.
Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, pls. 13, line 10; 17 (bottom). The expression is also
used of NHri I's son KAy; Hatnub Gr. 20, 20; 24, 4.
H. G. Fischer, Dendera in the Third Millenium B. C. (Locust Valley, New York, 1968),
130-131.
Fischer, Dendera in the Third Millenium B. C., 142, 146 [m].
w. Helck, Historisch- biographische Texte der. 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18.
Dynastie (wiesbaden, 1983), 26.
Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, pl. 17 (top) and Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis
(eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan, fig. 2.
R. O. Faulkner, 'The Stela of RidjaaHau', JEA 37 (1951), 47-52, pl. 7. For the date, see
Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 28, n. 124; see also E. Brovarski, The Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate
Period from Naga-ed-Dr (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1989), 1041 (u).
AoF 4 (Berlin, 1976), 53-57.
AoF 4 (Berlin, 1976), 53.
AoF 4 (Berlin, 1976), 56-57.
AoF 4 (Berlin, 1976), 57.
Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 28.
Newberry, Beni Hasan II, 7.
P. E. Newberry, Beni Hasan I (London, 1893), pl. 47.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 80-81.
willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), n. 97, observes that A. R. Schulman, 'The Battle Scenes of
the Middle Kingdom', JSSEA 12 (1982), 165-183, holds the same view.
H. Brunner, Die Anlagen der gyptischen Felsgrber bis zum Mittleren Reich (Glckstadt,
1936), 67-68.
A. Badawy, A History of Egyptian Architecture. The First Intermediate Period, the Middle
Kingdom, and the Second Intermediate Period (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1966), 128129.
willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 93, n. 99, citing Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien,
82(h), notes that tomb No. 17 is probably later than No. 15, on both genealogical and
stylistic grounds.
In his conclusions, willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 101-102, dates NHri I to the end of the
Eleventh Dynasty or the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. He dates aHA-nxt I to about the
last three decades of the Eleventh Dynasty.
Cf. H. G. Fischer, 'Kopfsttze', in w. Helck, E. Otto, w. westendorf (eds) Lexikon der
gyptologie, 7 vols. (wiesbaden, 1975), III (1979), 686, n. 3.
willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 93, n. 106.
I would like to thank David P. Silverman for sending me some years ago a sketch by
Roberta Dougherty of the object friezes on the Philadelphia coffin.
See B. George, 'Drei altgyptische wurfhlzer', Medelhavsmuseet Bulletin 15 (1980), 715.

75

EDwARD BROVARSKI

93

94

95
96
97
98

99
100
101
102

103

104
105

106

107
108
109

110
111
112
113

114
115
116

117
118

119

Two oval objects flanking a headrest in the coffin of _Agi (T 2 C: CG 28084) from Thebes
(C. R. Lepsius, Denkmler aus gypten und ethiopien II (Berlin, 1849-1859), pl. 47), are
actually designated pAdw nw snTr.
See w. V. Davies, 'Tutaankhamun's Razor Box: A Problem in Lexicography', JEA 63
(1977), 109-110.
For the tomb chamber of +Hwty-nxt, see willems, Dayr al-Barsh I, 23-60.
E.g., CG 28083, 28089; Cairo JE 37566, 37567.
willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 94, n. 107.
See E. L. B. Terrace, Egyptian Paintings of the Middle Kingdom (New York, 1968), pls.
21-31.
See Terrace, Egyptian Paintings of the Middle Kingdom, pls. 1, 9-12.
Newberry, El Bersheh I, pls. 24, 30.
A. Kamal, 'Fouilles Dr-el-Barsheh', ASAE 2 (1901), p. 34.
Yale University Art Gallery 1937.5905 a. I would like to express my appreciation to Susan
Matheson, Curator of Ancient Art, for photographs of the coffin.
See S. Fleming et al., The Egyptian Mummy. Secrets and Science, University Museum
Handbook 1 (Philadelphia, 1980), fig. 14.
Badawy, A History of Egyptian Architecture, 128-130.
Had it been finished, the latest of the 'nomarchs' tombs at Beni Hasan, No. 4 of $nm-Htp
III, would probably have been of Type III; see Newberry, Beni Hasan I, pl. 40.
In the course of a paper presented at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 29 October 1991;
see also, C. Hlzl, 'The Rock-tombs of Beni Hasan: Architecture and Sequence', in Sesto
Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia. Atti I (Turin, 1992), 279-283.
Newberry, Beni Hasan II, 25, 77, pls. 20-21.
See Badawy, A History of Egyptian Architecture, 128-136.
C. Hlzl, paper presented at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 29 October 1991. A few of
the shafts are 'squarish' with two sides slightly long than the others. Nonetheless, they are
quite distinct from the long rectangular shafts of the Twelfth Dynasty. It may be noted that
No. 27, the tomb of RA-mw-Snti (Newberry, Beni Hasan II, pl. 26) has a long, narrow pit
close to the door. It seems likely that this pit is intrusive and added at a later date.
Newberry, Beni Hasan II, 25.
Newberry, Beni Hasan II, 77.
See Newberry, Beni Hasan II, 62, pl. 18.
See Newberry, Beni Hasan I, pl. 25, lines 13-53. It would make perfectly good sense for
Amenemhat I to rectify the boundaries of the Oryx nome with the Hare and Jackal nomes
at the same time that he straightened out the boundaries of the eastern and western parts of
the Oryx nome.
willems, Chests of Life, 65.
See especially Newberry, Beni Hasan II, 16.
See now, w. K. Simpson, 'Studies in the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty III: Year 25 in the Era
of the Oryx Nome and the Famine Years in Early Dynasty 12', JARCE 38 (2001), 7-8.
Simpson, JARCE 38 (2001), 8.
For his tomb, see Newberry, Beni Hasan II, 27-29, pls. 23-24. The tomb was made or
inscribed by $nm-Htp II. Like the latter, he was Overseer of the Eastern Deserts and
Overseer of Priests (of Horus, Smiter of the Rekhyt), but evidently not Count in Menatkhufu.
Beginning in the reign of Amenemhat II, the rulers of the Oryx nome are no longer Great
Overlord but simply Count in Menat-Khufu; see D. Franke, 'The career of Khnumhotep III
of Beni Hasan and the so-called 'decline of the nomarchs', in S. Quirke (ed.), Middle
Kingdom Studies (New Malden, Surrey, 1991), 51-67. Neither $nm-Htp II or IV, insofar as

76

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

120

121

122

123

124
125
126
127
128
129
130

131

132

we know, was Great Overlord of the Hare Nome; see Franke, in Quirke (ed.), Middle
Kingdom Studies, 53-54. $nm-Htp II was Mayor in Menat-Khufu, Overseer of Priests, and
Overseer of the Eastern Deserts (Newberry, Beni Hasan II, passim). The only titles
preserved for $nm-Htp IV in his Beni Hasan tomb (No. 4) are Hereditary Prince and
Count. He is presumably the son of $nm-Htp shown in the fowling scene in his father's
tomb, where he is identified in the accompanying caption as: 'Son of the count of his body,
to whom is given the heritage of the rulership, Khnumhotep, justified, in Menat-Khufu,
when his son was appointed to the rulership of [...] (unreadable town-name)'. Franke, in
Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies, 58, n. 15, feels that this does not really mean that
$nm-Htp IV was 'heir of his father in full sense', but I am unclear why.
See w. A. ward, 'The Case of Mrs. Tchat and Her Sons at Beni Hasan', GM 71 (1984),
51-59. $nm-Htp II's second son by his first wife, $nm-Htp III, went on to a distinguished
career at court; see Franke, in Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies, 51-67.
G. A. Reisner, 'Archaeological Fieldwork', Department of Art of the Ancient world,
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 26.
For a defense of the standard chronology, see Gary Greenberg, 'Manetho's Twelfth
Dynasty and the Standard Chronology', JSSEA 25 (1995), 50-58.
Ipw is HAty-a, imy-rA Hmw-nTr, wr diw m [pr] +Hwty and jmj-rA kmt nfrt nt +Hwty nb $nmw
on his Abydene stele (CG 20025). So far as we know, the titles wr diw and wr diw m pr
+Hwty, which were a prerogative of the High Priest of Thoth at Hermopolis, were only
held by nomarchs at Bersheh; see J. A. wilson, 'The Egyptian Middle Kingdom in
Megiddo', AJSL 58, no. 3 (July, 1941), 228 (d); william A. ward, Index of Egyptian
Administrative Titles of the Middle Kingdom (Beirut, 1982), 88.
Newberry, El Bersheh I, pl. 5.
In Simpson and. Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan, 25.
Chests of Life, 79.
willems, Chests of Life, 76, 160 (Subtype IIab), 163.
willems, Chests of Life, 66, 162.
Chests of Life, 75, 77.
willems, Chests of Life, 79, pace Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in
Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan, 23, 25. More recently, B. Fay, The Louvre
Sphinx and Royal Sculpture from the Reign of Amenemhat II (Mainz, 1996), 53, and w.
Grajetzki, 'Bemerkungen zu den Brgermeistern (HAtj-a) von Qaw el-Kebir im Mittleren
Reich', GM 156 (1997), 58-59, 62, date Ibw to the reign of Amenemhat II. If the date is
correct, the all-round palace faade panelling will have occurred earlier at Qau el-Kebir
than Bersheh, at least as far as stone sarcophagi are concerned.
It is not possible to date closely a WpwAwt-Htp, whose titles Hat-a, xrp nsty are preceded by
the emblem of the Hare Nome on a scarab in the Oriental Institute Museum (18647), but
he is presumably later than all of the above; see Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds),
Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan, 23.
The tomb of the Vizier, Overseer of Upper Egypt, and Great Overlord of the Hare nome,
#ww, was discovered by Osiris Ghobrial and Mahmud Hamza in the village square of
Deir el-Bersheh in 1972; see now willems, Dayr el-Barsh I, 15, 106-108. Mr. Ghobrial
very kindly showed me his notes and drawings from the tomb in Cairo in 1987. The burial
chamber of #ww's tomb contains extensive wall decorations, including scenes from daily
life. The false door from the tomb remained in the village square at Bersheh until it was
moved to the Belgian dighouse in 2004 (willems, Dayr el-Barsh I, 106). The present
writer made notes and sketches of the false door during during a visit to Deir el-Bersheh in
1990. The false door shares a number of features with the false doors of +Hwty-nxt and
IHA, contemporaries of aHA-nxt I. Prominent among these is the presence of two arf-bags

77

EDwARD BROVARSKI

133

134

135

136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143

144
145
146
147
148

149
150
151

152
153

154
155

alongside the wedjat-eyes on the false doors of #ww and IHA (willems, Dayr el-Barsh,
pl. 53). In the false door of #ww, the bags appear to contain hetep-offerings and green eye
paint (?), while they contain green and black eye paint in IHA's case. A feature shared by
the false doors of #ww and +Hwty-nxt (willems, Dayr el-Barsh I, pl. 47) is the presence
of unguent jars on the lintel of the former and the tablet of the later. These iconographic
features and structural similarities between the false doors suggest that #ww's false door is
at least as early as the time of aHA-nxt I. For that reason, he is in all likelihood identical
with #ww, the father of the nomarch +Hwty-nxt, mentioned in Hatnub Gr. X; cf. willems,
Dayr al-Barsh I, 15, 106-107.
See Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 22-23.
For a recent discussion of the identity of +Hwty-nxt III, born of &ti, see M. De Meyer, Old
Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barsha (PhD. dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, 2008), 100-108.
See w. C. Hayes, 'Chronology I: Egypt --- to End of the Twentieth Dynasty', in I. E. S.
Edwards et al. (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History I (Cambridge, 1971), pt. 1, 181;
Brovarski, Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dr, 27-33.
A. H. Gardiner, The Royal Canon of Turin (Oxford, 1959), pl. 2.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 30 a-k.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 16 b.
Clre and Vandier, TPPI, 23, 2; 24, 2.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 2 d.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 2 c.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 30 f.
D. B. Spanel, 'The Herakleopolitan Tombs of Kheti I, Jt(.j)jb(.j), and Khety II at Asyut',
Orientalia 58 (1989), p. 309 and n. 40.
Spanel, Orientalia 58, 309 and n. 40.
See Newberry, Beni Hasan II, pl. 5.
A. M. Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir 5 (London 1953), pls. 6, 8.
Blackman, Meir 5, pl. 28.
'Palaeographic and Epigraphic Distinctions between Texts of the So-called First
Intermediate Period and the early Twelfth Dynasty', in der Manuelian (ed.) Freed (Project
Supervisor), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson 2 (Boston, 1996), fig. 1, p. 767, n.
12.
w. M. F. Petrie, Athribis (London, 1908), pl. 13.
N. Kanawati, The Tombs of El-Hagarsa I (Sydney, 1993), pls. 6, 26.
Lepsius, Denkmler II, pl. 113 b; N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Sad, ASE
10 (London, 1901), pls. 21 (= Lepsius, Denkmler II, pl. 112e), 30 (= Lepsius, Denkmler
II, pl. 113c); Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, 10, 57. These texts and four others
from tombs on the south side of the wadi en-Nakhleh at Deir el-Bersheh have been copied
or copied anew by M. De Meyer, Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barsha, pls. 2027A; see also M. De Meyer, 'Restoring the Tombs of His Ancestors? Djehutinakht, Son of
Teti, at Deir el-Barsha and Sheikh Said', IBAES 5 (2005), 125-135.
Pace willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 87.
Davies, Sheikh Said, pl. 21 (=Lepsius, Denkmler II, pl. 112e); Griffith and Newberry, ElBersheh II, 65 (Tomb S s, mDH zSw nswt Imy, on the south side of the wadi en-Nakhleh);
Tomb S (likewise on south side of wadi). The better part of the latter text is preserved
and was photographed by the Bersheh Expedition.
Davies, Sheikh Said, pl. 30 (= Lepsius, Denkmler II, pl. 113c).
Lepsius, Denkmler II, pl. 113 b.

78

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

156

157

158
159

160
161
162
163
164
165

166
167

168

169
170

171
172

173

174

175

176
177

178
179

180

181
182
183
184
185

Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 22, fig. 13.
See M. De Meyer, Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barsha, pls. 25-26. The text
published in Lepsius, Denkmler II, pl. 113b, is completely destroyed today.
De Meyer, Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barsha, pl. 26.
Brovarski, Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dr, 466479.
w. M. F. Petrie, Abydos I, EES 22 (London, 1902), pl. 54.
'Marginalia', GM 122 (1991), 26; Fischer, Varia Nova, 20 and n. 44.
Denkmler aus gypten und thiopien: Text. 2, pl. 122a.
De Meyer, Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barsha, 111.
De Meyer, Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barsha, 110-112.
Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, fig. 13.
De Meyer, Old Kingdom Rock Tombs at Dayr al-Barsha, 111.
Lowie Museum of Anthropology, Berkeley, LMA 6-20130; Harvard-Boston Expedition
Photograph A 8281_OS.
Brovarski, Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dr, 913918.
Anthes, Hatnub, 14, pl. 6, Insc. X.
Anthes, Hatnub, 14. Compare, for example, the forms of the owl (G 17), the pintail duck
(G 39), the ripple of water (N 35), and the placenta (Aa 1) in the two parts of the graffito.
See Anthes, Hatnub, 14.
J. von Beckerath, 'Die Dynastie der Herakleopoliten (9./10. Dynastie)', ZS 93 (1966), 16
[5], fig. 1.
See e.g., w. M. F. Petrie, Koptos (London, 1896), 4, pl. 6 [7]; H. M. Stewart, Egyptian
Stelae, Reliefs and Paintings in the Petrie Collection 2 (warminster, 1979), 7 [21], pl. 3
[2]; The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids (New
York, 1999), cat. no. 176; K. Sethe, Urkunden des Alten Reiches, Urkunden des
gyptischen Altertums 1 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1903), 287, 8; H. Goedicke, Knigliche
Dokumente aus dem Alten Reich (wiesbaden, 1967), fig. 9.
ZS 93 (1966), 19. See also the red jasper weight from Tell Retabeh with the throne and
personal names of the [nsw]t [bi]ty $ty Nb-kAw-<Ra> in a cartouche; w. M. F. Petrie and
J. G. Darrow, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, BSAE/ERA 12 (London, 1906), 32, pl. 22 A.
See Brovarski, in Simpson and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the
Sudan, 22.
Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 2 b 3.
Typologie der Srge und Sargkammern von der 6. bis 13. Dynastie, 163ff., pl. 33 (T 24
a/b; T 34).
Chests of Life, 110-114.
J. P. Allen, 'Some Theban Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom', in der Manuelian (ed.)
and Freed (Project Supervisor), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson 1, 12-15 and
fig. 3.
D. P. Spanel, Beni Hasan in the Herakleopolitan Period (PhD. dissertation, University of
Toronto, 1985), 2-3.
Spanel, Beni Hasan in the Herakleopolitan Period, 4.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 30 f.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 6.
w. M. F. Petrie, Dendereh 1898 (London, 1900), pl. 8 = Fischer, Dendera, fig. 27.
Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 41 g.

79

EDwARD BROVARSKI

186
187
188
189
190
191

192
193
194

195

196
197
198

199

200
201

202
203
204

205

206
207
208
209
210
211

Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 6 a.
Dendera, 130ff.
Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 30 f.
Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 11.
N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of Deir el-Gebrwi II (London, 1902), pl. 8.
D. Dunham, Naga-ed-Dr Stelae of the First Intermediate Period (London, 1937), 84-85,
pl. 25 (2).
See Clre and Vandier, TPPI, 8, 1; 9, 1; 10, 1; 13, 1; 17, 1; 19, 1; 27 e 3; e 6; t3, phi 3.
Dendera, 85-91, 170-75.
Brovarski, Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dr, 535-37,
579.
Brovarski, Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dr, 258, n.
320.
Dendera, p. 84 [15], n. 373.
Brovarski, Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dr, 176.
Brovarski, Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dr, 209, n.
171.
E.g., A. Mariette, Les Mastabas de l'Ancien Empire (Paris, 1889), 367-369 (CG 1453); J.
E. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara (1905-1906) (Cairo, 1907), pls. 13 (Merikare), 15
(Merikare); egyptische Inschriften aus den kniglichen Museen zu Berlin I, 132
(Merikare); C. M. Firth and B. Gunn, Teti Pyramid Cemeteries I (Cairo, 1926), 257
(Merikare); vol. II, pls. 27 B, 68. On the date of these false doors, see K. A. Daoud,
Corpus of Inscriptions of the Herakleopolitan Period from the Memphite Necropolis
(Oxford, 2005); Brovarski, in. Silverman, Simpson and wegner (eds), Archaism and
Innovation, pp. 365-378.
See Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 86 and 93.
Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 26, 5. Anthes, Hatnub, 61 (5), compared the expression HD n-Hr r to
Middle Egyptian Hwny-r-Hr, 'face-to-face encounter' or the like; for the latter term, see R.
Anthes, 'Eine Polizeistreife des Mittleren Reiches in die westliche Oase', ZS 65 (1930),
110 and J. A. wilson, 'The Descendants of Hwny-r-Hr r', ZS 68 (1932), 56-57; J. Janssen,
Trad. Autobiogr. II, 180 (Ad). R. O. Faulkner, 'The Rebellion in the Hare Nome', JEA 30
(1944), 63, translates Hatnub Gr. 26, 5, literally as 'a valiant citizen of club-in-the-face of
the forces of the king'.
Anthes, Hatnub, 61-62.
Cf. Janssen, Trad. Autobiogr. II, B1.
Anthes, Hatnub, 119, under nsw; pr nsw. See particularly Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 20, 4-5.
Although Faulkner, JEA 30 (1944), 61-63, sees NHri I as a rebel against the
Heracleopolitan king, who was later reconciled with his sovereign, I agree with willems
that the evidence supports the interpretation of of NHri as a partisan of the Heracleopolitan
ruler.
These have been collected in Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 92; and Anthes,
Hatnub, Gr. 26, 5 'day of fighting'.
Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 24, 6-7.
Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 23, 4; 24, 7-8; for a related, but damaged, passage, see Gr. 25, 12-13.
Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 20, 9; 23, 5; 24, 9; rnp.wt n.t Tsw: Anthes, Hatnub, Gr. 20, 11.
See Faulkner, JEA 30 (1944), 61-62; Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien, 86.
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I (Berkeley, 1973), 107 (10).
The state of the central Delta is unclear, since the various commentators differ as to
whether Merikare P. 84 (annw tw iww Hry-ib) means that this portion of the Delta was in
chaos or disaffected from Heracleopolis or had been returned to the Heracleopolitan fold;

80

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

212

213
214
215

216

217
218

219

220

221
222

223
224

225
226
227
228

229

see e.g., J. A. wilson, in J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts (2nd ed.,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1955), 416; R. O. Faulkner, in w. K. Simpson (ed.), The Literature
of Ancient Egypt (New Haven and London, 1973), 187, as opposed to A. Volten, Zwei
altgyptische politische Schriften (Copenhagen, 1945), 42; V. A. Tobin, in Simpson (ed.),
The Literature of Ancient Egypt (New Haven and London, 2003), 160. A lacuna in
Merikare P. 83-84, deprives us of the knowledge as to whether the Asiatics in the eastern
part of the Delta were paying or withholding their taxes; see e.g., Tobin, in Simpson (ed.),
The Literature of Ancient Egypt, 160, as opposed to Faulkner, in Simpson (ed.), The
Literature of Ancient Egypt, 187.
Merikare P. 88-90. See D Valbelle, 'La (les) route(s)-d'Horus', in C. Berger, G. Clerc and
N. Grimal (eds), Hommages Jean Leclant IV, Bd 106/4 (Cairo, 1994), 379-386. Most
commentators have argued that the WAt-@r was a fortress or series of fortresses on the
northeastern frontier, on the main road to Palestine; see A. H. Gardiner, 'The Ancient
Military Road between Egypt and Palestine', JEA 6 (1920), 115, n. 3; M. Bietak,
'Horuswege', L III (1977), 62-64; M. Bietak, Tell el-Dabaa II (Vienna, 1975), fig. 10
opposite p. 84; F. Goma, Die Besiedlung gyptens whrend des Mittleren Reiches II
(wiesbaden, 1987), 225.
Merikare P. 91-98; see Faulkner, in Simpson (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt, 188.
H. Beinlich, 'Assiut', in L I (1973), 490.
G. Roeder, Debod bis Bab Kalabsche I (Cairo, 1911), 103-111 ( 279-297); vol. II, pls.
106-108.
G. Posener, ' propos des graffiti d'Abisko', ArOr 20 (1952), 163-166; T. SveSderbergh, Aegypten und Nubien (Lund, 1941), 58-60; H. E. winlock, The Rise and Fall
of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes (New York, 1947), 32; Hayes, in Edwards et al. (eds),
The Cambridge Ancient History I, pt. 2A, 482; w. Schenkel, Memphis.Herakleopolis.
Theben (wiesbaden, 1965), 274, n. e.
Abisko I, lines 3-12.
E. Brovarski and w. J. Murnane, 'Inscriptions from the Time of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep II
at Abisko', Serapis I (1969), 21-22.
Redford is of the opinion that *hmAw fought under more than one king (D. B. Redford,
'Egypt and western Asia in the Old Kingdom', JARCE 23 (1986), p. 129 and n.42) but in
that case one would expect a reference by name to *hmAw's other sovereigns; see e.g.,
Clre and Vandier, TPPI, 20, 23, 24.
Recently, J. C. Darnell, 'The Rock Inscriptions of Tjehemau at Abisko', ZS 131 (2004),
34, has even argued that *hmAw saw active service in the reign of Amenemhat I.
Schenkel, Memphis.Herakleopolis.Theben, 222, no. 359, with bibliography.
Schulmann, JSSEA 12 (1982), 167-176; B. Jaro-Deckert, Das Grab des Jnj-jtj.f (Mainz
am Rhein, 1984), 37-47, pl. I(c): XIV.
Brovarski and Murnane, Serapis 1 (1969), 13 (11).
Redford, JARCE 23 (1986), pp. 125-143, concludes that no text of the Old Kingdom
unequivocally locates the aAm.w, much less their homeland, anywhere in northeast Africa
or the Sinai. As the Instruction for King Merikare and other sources informs us, this
situation had changed by the First Intermediate Period.
Goma, Besiedlung, 391.
Redford, JARCE 23 (1986), p. 130.
See Brovarski and Murnane, Serapis 1 (1969), 15 (1).
A. H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica II (London, 1947), 90-92; Goma,
Besiedlung, 307, 311, 317, 334, n. 1.
A. Scharff, Der historiche Abschnitt der Lehre fr Knig Merikar (Munich, 1936), 30;
Volten, Zwei altgyptische politische Schriften, 46.

81

EDwARD BROVARSKI

230

231

232

233

234
235
236

237
238
239

240

241

242
243

244

245
246
247

Brovarski, Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dr, 52-53,
1055-1057.
On Mentuhotep II's name changes; see D. Arnold, 'Zur frhen Namensform des Knigs
MnTw-Htp Nb-Htp-ra', MDAIK 24 (1969), 38-42, with citations to earlier literature.
L. Habachi, 'King Nebhepetre Menthuhotep: His Monuments, Place in History,
Deification and Unusual Representations in the Form of Gods', MDAIK 19 (1963), 39-40,
fig. 17, pl. 11 B; E. F. Marochetti, 'The Temple of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep at Gebelein:
Preliminary Report', in Pantalacci and Berger-El-Naggar (eds), Des Nferkar aux
Montouhotep, 147, fig. 2.
H. G. Fischer, 'The Nubian Mercenaries of Gebelein during the First Intermediate Period',
Kush 9 (1961), p. 53, n. 14, remarks that the labels for the otherwise similar
representations of the Nubian and Asiatic have probably been transposed.
Habachi, MDAIK 19 (1963), 21-23, fig. 6, pl. 5.
Habachi, MDAIK 19 (1963), figs. 7-8; pls. 6, 8.
willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), 96, n. 122, remarks that Habachi's proposal (MDAIK 24
(1969), 21) to interpret the two plants as a symbol of Lower Egypt only seems improbable
to him. Still, the only preserved flowers are papyrus umbels.
Jaro-Deckert, Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, Faltkarten 1, 3.
Jaro-Deckert, Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, 63, fig. 15.
Review of Grab des Jnj-jtj.f by Jaro-Deckert in BiOr 46, no. 5/6 (September-November
1989), 598.
Even if _Agi's tomb was built over a long period (Jaro-Deckert, Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, 131;
willems, BiOr 46, no. 5/6 [September-November 1989], 598), this does not mean this was
the case with all tombs.
An iconographic feature that also dates the General In-it.f s tomb to the earlier part of the
king's reign is the appearance of a lion-headed stool (Jaro-Deckert, Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, fig.
29). The lion-headed stool is met with in the Dendera chapel of Mentuhotep II (L.
Habachi, MDAIK 19 (1963), fig. 7, pl. 8), at Deir el-Bahri on the sarcophagus of ASyt and
the shrine of Queen Henhenet (E. Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari II
(London, 1910), pl. 20; H. E. winlock, Excavations at Deir el BaHri (New York, 1942),
pl. 8), and on the stele of RwD-aHAw (Faulkner, JEA 37, pl. 7), all of which antedate the
reunification of Egypt by Mentuhotep II. Cf. Jaro-Deckert, Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, 86, n. 491.
Schulman, JSSEA 12 (1982), 169, n. 25.
Fischer, Kush 9 (1961), 62-75, provides an in-depth discussion of this item of apparel. At
first he distinguishes the Middle Kingdom sporran, worn by important Egyptian officials
when hunting, from the Nubian kilt and sash of the First Intermediate Period. Ultimately,
he says one would not hesitate to conclude that the two types of codpieces are themselves
only variations of the same thing, if it could be proved that any of the Middle Kingdom
soldiers who wear them are definitely Nubians. The proof lacking in 1961 seems to be
provided by the siege scene in TT 386 where the wearers of the sporran-like codpiece are
painted dark brown.
The skin of a sixth bowman with feather in his hair and sporran in the third register below
is the same red color as the Egyptians. The artist may have erred in painting him this
color. On the other hand, he may have been the offspring of a mixed Egyptian-Nubian
marriage; on such unions, see Fischer, Kush 9 (1961), 56-59. Two other red-skinned, bowwielding individuals in the lowermost register also have sporrans. General In-it.f also
holds a bow and arrows.
JSSEA 12 (1982), 168.
JSSEA 12 (1982), 176.
Newberry, Beni Hasan II, pl. 5.

82

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

248
249
250

251

252

253

254

255
256

257
258

259
260
261

262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274

275
276

G. A. Gaballa, Narrative in Egyptian Art (Mainz am Rhein, 1976), 39.

JSSEA 12 (1982), 176 and n. 66.
According to J.-F. Champollion, Monuments de l'gypte et de la Nubie IV (Paris, 1854),
pls. cccxxxviii [5], ccclxiv [2, 3], the sporran consists of strings of beads suspended from a
belt; the belt is tied in a knot at the back.
For this type of kilt, which is frequently used in the region of Gebelein and Moalla, see
Fischer, Kush 9 (1961), 66-67.
At least four Egyptians in the lowermost register appear to wear cross-bands. They are
identifiable by their simple wrapped kilts.
See H. G. Fischer, 'Notes on Sticks and Staves in Ancient Egypt', MMJ 13 (1978), 9-14. It
is possible the intent was to distinguish two different ethnic group or tribes of Asiatics,
since several of these individuals also have shoulder length hair. On the other hand, there
may have been other reasons why the individuals elected to dress in grey-painted (leather
?) kilts.
It is of interest to note that one of the archers in the hunting scene in the top register of the
north wall of BAot III's tomb (Newberry, Beni Hasan II, pl. 4) is painted dark brown (in
places almost black); see A. G. Shedid, Die Felsgrber von Beni Hasan in Mittelgypten
(Mainz am Rhein, 1994), 24, fig. 27. This individual has shoulder-length hair confined by
a filet, white crossbands, and a red (leather ?) kilt. It looks from Shedid's plate as if he is
wearing a sporran. Although the sporran is damaged in this case, Newberry shows a
sporran at the waist of two other archers.
As in in two 35 mm slides taken by the present writer in 1979 and by D. P. Silverman.
In the tomb of the nomarch Imn-m-HAt, in addition to the decorated kilts, one Asiatic also
wears what appears to be a plain, grey-painted kilt without tab; see Shedid, Beni Hasan,
69, fig. 116.
See w. Decker, 'Schleuder', in L V (1984), 656.
In the scenes of individual hand-to-hand combat at the right end of register 6, one pair
seems to be composed of an Asiatic in a decorated kilt and a cross-banded Egyptian or
Nubian (?).
Newberry, Beni Hasan II, pl. 15.
See Schulman, JSSEA 12 (1982), 177.
See Shedid, Beni Hasan, 37, fig. 53. The same feature appears in a detail of the scene in a
35 mm slide taken by the writer in 1979.
See also Champollion, Monuments de l'gypte et de la Nubie IV, pl. ccclxxix [2, 3].
Newberry, Beni Hasan I, 85, pl. 47.
wrestlers also appear in registers above the siege scenes in the tombs of BAot III and $ty.
Newberry, Beni Hasan I, 85; J. Osing, 'Libyen, Libyer', in L III (1979), 1018.
Sinuhe R, 11-16.
Monuments de l'gypte et de la Nubie IV, pl. 396 (upper left, bottom right).
P. Montet, 'Notes sur les tombeaux de Beni Hasan', BIFAO 9 (1911), pl. 3.
For the hair treatment of Gebelein Nubians, see Fischer, Kush 9 (1961), 19.
Fischer, Kush 9 (1961), 68.
Beni Hasan, 69, fig. 114.
Newberry, Beni Hasan I, 23-27, pl. 8; Simpson, JARCE 38 (2001), 7-8 with n. 1.
See Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt I, 516.
For a brief discussion of these scenes, see w. S. Smith, Interconnections in the Ancient
Near East (New Haven and London, 1965), 32-33.
See Anthes, Hatnub, 95.
Faulkner, JEA 30 (1944), 61, and Fischer, Kush 9 (1961), 78, n. 86, interpret Hatbub Gr.
16, lines 5-6, differently, and think that NHri I numbered both Nubians and Asiatics among

83

EDwARD BROVARSKI

277
278

279
280

281
282

283

284
285
286

287

288

289
290

291

292
293
294
295

his forces. But NHri specifically states, 'It was I who formed its rearguard in Shedyt-sha,
while there was no man with me except my followers'. However, another passage in
Hatnub Gr. 25, lines 14-15 says of NHri that 'in Medjay, Asiatics and inhabitants of the
deserts (?) has the love of him penetrated'. The love of NHri may have penetrated these
foreigners in the aftermath of Shedyt-sha. If not, it is indeed possible that NHri numbered
foreign mercenaries among his troops.
See Fischer, Kush 9 (1961), 44-80.
See Fischer, Dendera, nn. 500, 807. Mention is made of a sA Ra In-it.f (all in a cartouche)
and his mother Nfrw, thus either WAH-anx or his successor Nxt-nb-tp-nfr, both of whom
were 'born of Nfrw'; see e.g., Clre and Vandier, TPPI, 15-18, 20; w. Schenkel,
'Knigsmutter Nfr.w: Phantom oder Realitt', GM 96 (1987), 93-94.
Petrie, Dendereh, pl. 15.
See Brovarski, Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dr,
1031-1036.
Newberry, Beni Hasan II, 22.
F. Goma, gypten whrend der Ersten Zwischenzeit, TAVO 27 (wiesbaden, 1980), 152153.
Even though the far south was lost, the fact that the Heracleopolitans at this time
controlled parts of Upper Egypt and the North could explain aHA-nxt's boast that he was
one 'under whose governance the South was content while the Northland was under his
command' (Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II, pl. 13, 11-12; see Brovarski, in Simpson
and Davis (eds), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan, 21).
Newberry, Beni Hasan II, pls. 4-5, 15.
Cf. w. Helck, 'Zur Reichseinigung der 11. Dynastie', ZS 80 (1955), 75-76.
For an example, see Erman, Neugyptische Grammatik (2nd ed., Hildesheim, 1968), 600,
5.
For the dative of disadvantage, see E. F. wente, Late Ramesside Letters (Chicago, 1967),
p. 23, n. m, who cites w. F. Edgerton, 'Vowel Quantity and Syllable Division in Egyptian',
JNES 6 (1947), p. 227, n. 64a, where examples are given. In addition to the specific
Ramesside example discussed by wente (J. Cerny, Late Ramesside Letters, Bibl.Aeg. 9
[Brussels, 1939], 6, 3V1), he notes a Middle Kingdom example in A. de Buck, The
Egyptian Coffin Texts I, OIP 34 (Chicago, 1935), 322 b, where variants have r.
In his recent treatment of the Abisko grafitti, Darnell, ZS 130 (2003), 40 and n. m, reads
xr in place of rmT, but still translates 'the northern king'. I am unable to provide a parallel
to the writing of nswt with the ideogram alone, however, and prefer to retain the earlier
rendering of rmT mHty (Brovarski and Murnane, Serapis 1 (1969), 16 [10]). Darnell denies
that this is a reference to a king of Lower Egypt and, if I understand his remark correctly,
thinks nswt mHty, 'the northern king', refers to the triumphant Mentuhotep II.
A. H. Gardiner, 'The Tomb of a Much-Travelled Theban Official', JEA 4 (1917), 35, pl. 9.
I continue to think that the passage here reads swar rmT mHty (see Brovarski and Murnane,
Serapis 1 (1969), 16 [9]) rather than Darnell's r war xr nswt mHty, 'to flee (?) before the
northern king' (ZS 130 (2003), 40 and n. m).
In fact, Allen, in der Manuelian (ed.) and Freed (Project Supervisor), Studies in Honor of
William Kelly Simpson I, 21, n. 89, argues on prosopographical grounds that the burial of
the soldiers dates to the Twelfth Dynasty.
Jaro-Deckert, Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, pl. XIV, Faltkarte 2.
Jaro-Deckert, Grab des Jnj-jtj.f, 76-77, pl. 23.
See willems, BiOr 46, no. 5/6 (September-November 1989), 599.
willems, JEOL 28 (1983-84), n. 136a.

84

THE HARE AND ORYX NOMES

296

297

298

299
300

301
302

303
304

305

306
307

See J. Settgast, 'Zu ungewhnlichen Darstellungen von Bogenschtsen', MDAIK 25

(1969), 138.
willems refers to a recent attempt on the part of H. Goedicke ('The Unification of Egypt
under MonthuHotep Neb-hepet-Rea', JSSEA 12 (1982), 157-164) to interpret the Theban
victory as the outcome of a political settlement. As willems himself notes, the argument is
speculative.
H. Brunner, Die Texte aus den Grbern der Herakleopolitenzeit von Siut (Glckstadt,
1937), 66 (Siut V, 16-19). For a recent English translation of $ty's inscriptions, see M.
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom (Freiburg,
Switz. and Gttingen, 1988), 26 (8).
Brunner, Texte aus den Grbern der Herakleopolitenzeit von Siut, 45 (Siut III, 16-37).
Brunner, Texte aus den Grbern der Herakleopolitenzeit von Siut, 52-54 (Siut IV, 1-19).
For this interpretation of $ty's inscription, see J. Kahl, Ancient Asyut: The First Synthesis
after 300 years of Research (wiesbaden, 2007), 7, 129.
See e.g. Lichtheim, Autobiographies, 9-10, 135, 139.
Brunner, Texte aus den Grbern der Herakleopolitenzeit von Siut, 64 (Siut V, 1-4); see
Lichtheim, Autobiographies, 28.
See Tobin, in Simpson (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt, 169.
Recently, C. Obsomer, Ssostris Ier: etude chronologique du rgne (Brussels, 1995), 35135, argues against a coregency between Amenemhat I and Senusert I, but see K. Jansenwinkeln, 'Zu den Korregenzen der 12. Dynastie', SAK 24 (1997), 115-35.
J. P. Allen, The Heqanakhte Papyri (New York, 2002), 17; see 127-141, 171 for the date
of the letter.
Newberry, Beni Hasan I, pl. 8, lines 19-21; Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt I, 523.
H. Goedicke, 'A Neglected wisdom Text', JEA 48 (1962), 25-35, pl. 2. The stele fails to
mention the king under whom the low Nile occurred, but that sovereign was almost
certainly Senusert I; see. Simpson, JARCE 38 (2001), 8 and n. 6; Allen, The Heqanakht
Papyri, 171, n. 147; R. E. Freed, 'The Development of Middle Egyptian Relief Sculptural
Schools of late Dynasty XI with an Appendix on the Trends of early Dynasty XII (20401878 B.C.)' (Ph. D. dissertation, New York University, 1984), 210, n. 796.

85