Egypt Exploration Society

A Note on the "Repeating of Births"

Author(s): Jaroslav ern
Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 15, No. 3/4 (Nov., 1929), pp. 194-198
Published by: Egypt Exploration Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3854114 .
Accessed: 15/02/2015 03:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 196.204.161.200 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 03:17:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

194

A NOTE ON THE "REPEATING OF BIRTHS"

BY JAROSLAV UERNY
Readers of this Journal are aware that there exist several hieratic documents
manifestly of the second half of the Twentieth Dynasty dated in the years not of a king,
but of whm ms.wt, "Repeating of Births" or "Renewal of Births." Such a dating is
so strange and completely contradictory to Egyptian custom that it has long been
believed that the expression whm msrwt must here conceal the name of an Egyptian
king, namely that of Ramesses X, who elsewhere bears the prenomen Khepermarer.
Peet was the first1 to recognize that this view is no longer tenable, and rightly suggested
that wkm ms-wt may designate some sort of epoch or era. He has devoted several
discussions to this interesting question, but although all these appeared in the Journal2,
it is perhaps not quite useless to recall once more all the known facts before going any
further into the details which have led the present writer to the conclusion found at the
end of this paper.
Dating by means of the expression "Repeating of Births" occurs in five papyri:
Years 1 and 2 in Pap. Mayer A,
Year 1 in Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052,
Year 2 in Pap. Brit. Mus. 10403,
Years 4 and 5 in Pap. Turin, Cat. 1903/180, and
Year 6 in Pap. Vienna, No. 30.
It is thus evident that "Repeating of Births" lasted at least six years; but the
question where in the Twentieth Dynasty this epoch is to be placed is very difficult.
Fortunately in this we are somewhat helped by the text on the verso of Pap. Abbott,
which is itself dated "Year 19 corresponding to (hft) Year 1." In the sequel the text
gives a list of thieves precisely those whose trial occupies a great part of Pap. Mayer A
and Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052, both of them dated, as has been said, in Years 1 and 2 of
the "Repeating of Births." Consequently it seems quite legitimate to consider the Year 1
of Abbott as identical with the Year 1 of the "Repeating of Births," and further this
latter as identical3 with the Year 19, probably of a king. As the recto of Abbott is dated
in the Year 17 of Ramesses IX Neferkerer, the probability has been admitted that the
Year 19 of the verso refers to the same Pharaoh, and that therefore the "Repeating of
Births" either followed the reign of Ramesses IX Neferkerer or rather, in view of the
word "corresponding," is another name for the part of his reign from Year 19 onwards.
Plausible as was this assumption at first sight, it was nevertheless not altogether certain
that the texts of both the recto and verso of Pap. Abbott were written within a short
I The Mayer Papyri A and B, 4-5.
2 Journal, xi, 40; xII, 256 and 258, and especially xiv, 65-72.
3 That hft of the Abbott expresses identity, is beyond all doubt.
Cf. the example quoted by Gardiner,

Eg. Grammar, 169, 4, from Newberry, Beni Hasan, I, 8, 3, "Year 43...... correspondingto year 25," and
note that here too the official dating precedes the local one.

This content downloaded from 196.204.161.200 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 03:17:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NOTE ON THE "REPEATING OF BIRTHS"

195

space of time, and it was just possible that the Year 19 belonged to the reign of a successor
of Ramesses IX, more definitely to that of Ramesses XI, whose Year 27 is attested,
less probably to that of Ramesses X, whose highest known date is only Year 3. And in
fact, as the personnel of the documents dated in whm ms-wt is different from that of the
reign of Ramesses IX and points rather to the reign of Ramesses XI Menmarer, Peet in
his recent discussion of the problems of the Twentieth Dynasty chronology1 is inclined to consider the epoch of "Repeating of Births" as a part of the reign of the last Ramesses (XI).
This is in the view of the present writer the only solution which explains satisfactorily
three facts observable on a closer study of the documents of the "Repeating of Births."
These three facts are:
1. The occurrence of an official named Menmarernakht, overseer of the treasury, in
two documents of whm ms.wt (Pap. Mayer A, 1. 6 and Pap. Brit. Mus. 10052, 1. 4)2. Even
when we recognize the difficulty of identifying various persons occurring in the papyri
of that epoch3, nobody will doubt that this Menmarernakht must be identical with a
man of the same name and title found in Pap. Turin, P.R. LXI, 6, a document which
can with confidence be assigned to the reign of Ramesses XI Menmarer4. Now this
Menmarernakht is certainly named after a king5, much more probably after Ramesses XI
Menmarer, than after Sethos I, who had reigned some one and a half centuries before.
If so, it becomes evident that whmnrnswt must have followed the reign of Ramesses XI
or, if not, have been contemporaneous with it.
2. Occurrence of two buildings named after a king Menmarer Sety in the documents
of the epoch of whm ms-wt. These two buildings are:
\\ I Q
--' a~
'
(Pap. Mayer A, 1. 3), clearly identical with
~ ~
p of Pap.
~
I
C
Brit. Mus. 10403, 1. 9, and U
:
in Pap. Turin, Cat.
:
( :B~:~
verso
12.
Mnmrntrr
is
of
I
Nineteenth
course
2.
The
Sti
Sethos
of
the
1903,
Dynasty,
king
but the writing of his name in this form is quite exceptional and contrary to the use of
the late Twentieth Dynasty. At that time a dead king was always named by his prenomen6,
never with his nomen7 either alone or with the prenomen as well. The curious form
Menmarer Sety instead of the simple Menmare",which would be quite sufficient, can only
be explained if we admit that at the epoch of wAhmmswt it was necessary to distinguish

1 Journal, xiv, 71-72.

2 Quoted Journal, xiv, 66.

4 For the dating cf. Peet, ibid., 66.
5 Just as WesermareCnakht(Pap. Turin, P.R. xxxv, 3) is named after Ramesses III, Nebmarernakht
(Abbott, 4.15 and elsewhere) after Ramesses VI Nebmarer, and Neferkerefemperamufn(Abbott, 1. 6) after
Ramesses IX Neferkerer. That Menmarernakhtmust be named after Ramesses XI was seen also by Peet,
Journal, xII, 259, note 2, though he did not dare to draw the necessary conclusion from this.
6 The tomb-robberypapyri of the Twentieth Dynasty contain a mass of examples. They speak of the
temples of fAkheperkere(, Nebmarer, Wesermaref-setepenrer,Binerer-meriamuin,Wesermarer-meriamun,
etc., never of Tuthmosis, Amenophis, Ramesses or Merenptah. So too the temple of Sethos I is called
3 Cf. Peet's remarks in Journal, xiv, 69.

0 L

p ')

'

under Ramesses III (Pap. Turin, P.R. XLVIII, 17) and

v>

under Ramesses IX (Pap. B.M. 10068, vs. 2. 4). The early Nineteenth Dynasty is not so rigorous in this
respect, e.g., the account-papyri of the epoch of Sethos I (published by Spiegelberg, Rechnungenaus der
Zeit Setis L) use both -J] i
4qq jI
(Pap. Bibl. Nat. 209, 3, 7. 10; 211, a, 20) and [-2
~

l i
(Pap. Bibl. Nat. 209, 2, 9. 12), or
(Pap. Bibl. Nat. 211, b, 20; 211, vs. c, 5).
7 The only exception known to me is
Amenophis I, who became patron of the Theban Necropolis and
is mostly referredto as Amenophis par excellence(so too in the month name Phamenoth). His temple is
named pr 'Inuhtp (e.g., Abbott 1, B 13; 2, 3. 8; Pap. B.M. 10068, vs. 1, 6, etc.).

This content downloaded from 196.204.161.200 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 03:17:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAROSLAV CERNY

196

between Menmarer Sety (Sethos I) and another king Menmarer, i.e., Ramesses XI1; in other
words we are forced to place whm ms.wt at least in the reign of Ramesses XI, if not after it.
3. Among the "foreigners" (irr) to whom the papyri of whm ms.wt make constant
reference and who are mostly implicated in the thefts in the Theban Necropolis, one at
~
least,
Vl
)
-q
\l ,, I
~
i of Abbott, verso, B 8, occurs once
again in Pap. Turin, P.R. xcvi, col. 2. 5 as
L I
Ik
q
." '
This latter papyrus is in reality the verso of the papyrus published by Pleyte-Rossi on
Pls. 100, 155 (= 101), 156 and 157 (= 97). The recto is dated in Year 12 (of Ramesses XI
Menmarer as shown by Peet)2, the verso in Year 14 of an unnamed king, who in this
case, too, is almost certainly Ramesses XI, as both recto and verso have the same contents
(grain accounts) and name the same persons.
Now the crime of Pakamen, son of Pauaramin was so serious that he can hardly
have escaped condemnation to death. Accordingly we cannot place his mention in the
dockets of Abbott before Year 14 of Ramesses XI, in which year he is still at liberty
and supplies a certain quantity of grain for the Necropolis people, probably as a tax
from the fields cultivated by himself. I think we must deduce from this that the verso
of Abbott (i.e., Year 1 of whm ms-wt) is posterior to Year 14 of Ramesses XI Menmarer'.
I do not imagine that, taken separately, each of the above facts proves very much
or is indisputable, but taken together they support one another and seem to me to speak
very strongly for the reign of Ramesses XI as the epoch in which whm ms-wt is to be
placed. And Peet found my reasoning not unjustified, when I had the opportunity cf
putting it before him in Cairo last winter, some days before Professor Spiegelberg brought
from Upper Egypt a document which we at first believed to give definite evidence as
to the position of whm ms.wt in the Twentieth Dynasty.
This new document is a limestone ostracon, measuring about 16'5 cm. in height and
19 cm. in length. Professor Spiegelberg bought it in Luxor, realizing its possible importance
for the chronology of the Twentieth Dynasty, and kindly resold it to the Cairo Museum,
where it provisionally bears the number J. 52543 in the Journal d'entree. Professor
Spiegelberg first suggested that Peet should publish it in connexion with the tomb-robbery
papyri, but Peet kindly surrendered his claim in my favour. I am greatly indebted to
these two scholars for their generosity.
One side only of the ostracon is inscribed in its upper half with three lines of coarse
hieratic writing. The second and third lines are incomplete at the end, and before the
lost end several signs are very pale. The inscription runs as follows:
d

ifww = >
I(
I

9 \

2.

\Z 4

y
-

3.
n

\\

~a-

e,~

.__O

*,* .

This may also explain why the temple of Sethos I in the epoch whmnms-wt is sometimes named
(ibid., 1. 30).
(Pap. B.M. 10403, 1. 28) and [ n l
0P ~ qq2
i n
2 Journal, xiv, 65. The papyrus was
correctly assigned to the last Ramesses already by Lieblein, En
Papyrus i Turin (Christiania Videnskabs-Selskabs
Forhandlinger, 1875), 11.
3 The king's name is
considerablyfaded, but the reading is beyond doubt. My tracing shows what is
to be seen in front of the original.
4
is corrected over an erased E and the following _ is crowdedin between and E.
5 Indecipherable trace.

This content downloaded from 196.204.161.200 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 03:17:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A NOTE ON THE "REPEATING OF BIRTHS"

197

This may be translated:

1. "Year 2 (of) the Repeating of Birth (of) the King of Upper and Lower Egypt
Menmarer.
2. What is credited in (the way of)1 very large inht-vases at the descending in the
possession of......
3. What is credited in (the way of) small inht-vases at the great raising in the
"
possession of .......

Lines 2 and 3 may or may not be rendered correctly, and in any case their sense is
very obscure. But it does not matter. What here concerns us is the first line, which is
fortunately quite plain. It contains a date of Year 2 of whm ms.wt which is clearly
connected with a king Menmarer. All three of us, Professors Spiegelberg, Peet and
myself, felt at first no doubt that this Menmarer was no other than Ramesses XI Menmarer,
rnswt seemed settled: wAhmrnswt was a part of the reign of
and the question of whmrn
Ramesses XI.
1

as variant writing for the usual

occurs also Pap. Turin, P.R.

L,

3. 6, where, too, the expected

preposition _U is omitted after it.

This content downloaded from 196.204.161.200 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 03:17:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JAROSLAV CERNY

198

However, on examining the ostracon more closely, one doubt occurred to me which
I feel obliged to put before scholars: Is it certain that Menmarer here is Ramesses XI,
not Sethos I? Firstly it is only the palaeography which allows us to decide whether the
ostracon belongs to the Twentieth Dynasty rather than to the beginning of the Nineteenth,
i.e., to the reign of Sethos I, who also was a Menmarec. Now such a criterion as mere
palaeography is not absolutely reliable, especially as there are no sufficient materials for
comparison, the ostracon containing in its three lines only a very limited number of signs.
It is true that the general aspect of the writing seems to be really of the Twentieth
Dynasty, and the form of j without a cross above speaks for the Twentieth Dynasty,
when both forms, with and without a cross, are in use, whereas the Nineteenth Dynasty,
so far as I am aware, never omits the cross; the spelling of hIi without I and of tsi
(influenced by ts "bind") would be rather curious in the Nineteenth Dynasty. But the
spelling 4]k instead of 3~ is suspicious. It is so rare in hieratic that I am inclined to
consider it as a peculiarity of an epoch1. From the published documents I can quote
only one instance of 4Vk, Pap. Bibl. Nat. 203, 12, from the reign of Sethos I, that is
from a period which would alternatively come into consideration for our text. I found
several instances of the writing this year in unpublished texts. The excavations of the
Institut frangais d'Archeologie orientale au Caire at Der el-Medinah in January-March 1929
furnished two more ostraca, both dated in the reign of Ramesses II, which show the same
rare spelling 4e. Lastly, an ostracon acquired by Professor Steindorff in Luxor in the
winter 1928-29 and now in the collections of the Egyptological Institute of the University
in Leipzig3 bears the remains of a dating ...H
though here the
]
(
.~
palaeography allows the same doubts as in the case of our Cairo ostracon.
In view of all this, it is perhaps possible that 4~ was a writing peculiar to the period
of Sethos I and Ramesses II. Moreover, the appearance at the same time of all these
ostraca containing the spelling 34e lends some ground to my suspicion that the provenance
of both Cairo and Leipzig ostraca is Der el-Medinah, and that they were either found
by the natives in their clandestine excavations or stolen by them from the excavations of
the French Institute. If this is so there seems to be a strong case for assigning the
Cairo ostracon to the Nineteenth, and not to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty.
Indeed, ostraca of the latter period are even rarer at Der el-Medinah than those of as
early a date as Sethos I; the great bulk of ostraca from that site belong to the reign of
Ramesses III or thereabouts. That Sethos I did occasionally use an whm ms.wt dating we
j/.
know from one of his inscriptions at Karnak4 which begins { ,~I '~ i Z ~
It is worthy of notice that the two Pharaohs who employ this dating, namely Sethos I
and Ramesses XI, both bear the prenomen Menmarer. I imagine that Ramesses XI
copied in this, for some reason unknown to us, his homonymous predecessor, just as
Ramesses III in several things imitated Ramesses II. Peet's suggestion to see in whm
ms.wt an epoch "of restoration after a period of foreign invasion5" might be right
after all, though the last known invasion of Libyans under Ramesses X Khepermarer
becomes now separated from whm ms.wt by at least 19 years.
1 In the words for " bee" and " honey " the group 4 is quite regular of course.
2

Published in Spiegelberg, Rechnungen aus der Zeit Setis I, PI. 1.

ProfessorSteindorff has put me under a great debt by lending me for study all the hieratic ostraca
he bought in Luxor.
4 Cf. Gauthier, Le livre des rois, in, 11. Elsewhere the expression whm ms-wt is
always included in the
U-name, from his Year I onwards (Gauthier, op. cit., iii, 11, 13, etc.).
5 Journal, xiv, 67.

This content downloaded from 196.204.161.200 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 03:17:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions