K. Cahail JARCE 51 (2015), A Family of Thirteenth Dynasty High Officials: New Evidence from South Abydos

A Family of Thirteenth Dynasty High Officials: New Evidence from South Abydos Kevin M. Cahail

Abstract During recent University of Pennsylvania excavations in the tomb of Woseribre Senebkay at South Abydos, we discovered that the burial chamber incorporated a number of limestone blocks deriving from earlier monuments. Three of these inscribed blocks in particular still retain the images and offering texts belonging to a small group of high officials, including the Overseer of Fields, Dedtu. Analysis of the texts upon the blocks demonstrates that the named individuals probably all belonged to the same family, and that their careers spanned the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty. This paper examines the texts and images upon the reused blocks from the tomb of Senebkay in detail, along with other contemporary evidence, in order to ascertain the identities of the people pictured upon them, where the reused blocks originally came from, and of what types of buildings they may once have been part.

Following the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty, a long series of short-reigning kings ruled Egypt. During this period, now called the Thirteenth Dynasty, the destabilization of the royal house seems to have had a secondary effect upon the funerary archaeology of the upper elite. Already during the Twelfth Dynasty, funerary beliefs of this societal stratum had begun shifting away from the use of lavishly decorated coffins and wooden tomb models, toward the use of apotropaic implements, and court-style burials.1 Yet, during the Twelfth Dynasty, many high officials still opted to place their decorated tombs within court cemeteries near the tombs of their kings.2 In the subsequent Thirteenth Dynasty, the rapid royal succession resulted in fewer large royal funerary monuments being built.3 As a consequence, the use of the royal court cemetery seems to have fallen out of favor among high-ranking governmental officials. Hence, we are left with a significant gap in our understanding of the funerary archaeology of the elite during the Thirteenth Dynasty. Were these high officials still motivated to link their tombs with those of the kings, or did they seek other locations or institutions with which to associate their funerary cults? What architectural form did their tombs take, and how were their chapels decorated? Recent excavations at South Abydos have begun to shed light on this problem. In January, 2014, the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology’s expedition to South Abydos revealed the tomb of the previously unknown Second Intermediate period pharaoh Woseribre Seneb1   The seminal works on this topic are J. Bourriau, “Patterns of Change in Burial Customs during the Middle Kingdom,” in S. Quirke, ed., Middle Kingdom Studies (Malden, 1991), 3–20; and idem, “Change of Body Position in Egyptian Burials from the Mid XIIth Dynasty until the Early XVIIIth Dynasty,” in H. Willems, ed., Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms (Leuven, 2001), 1–20. See also W. Grajetzki, Tomb Treasures of the Late Middle Kingdom (Philadelphia, 2014), 17–93, for court-type burials. 2   For instance, see Di. Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture at Lisht (New York, 2008). 3   As outlined in the introduction of J. Wegner and K. Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment of a King Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the Tomb of Sobekhotep IV?” JARCE 51 (2015), 123–25.

Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 51, pp. 93–122 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5913/jarce.51.2015.a005 93

94

JARCE 51 (2015)

kay (South Abydos, Tomb CS.9).4 While the implications of this discovery have rekindled debate about our understanding of political history of the late Thirteenth Dynasty and Second Intermediate period, the walls of the tomb’s burial chamber concealed another secret. Identified by fragmentary inscriptions, the high-quality white limestone blocks that compose Senebkay’s tomb are in fact spolia, usurped from earlier Thirteenth Dynasty funerary monuments. Almost certainly deriving from decorated tomb chapels once located on the Abydene landscape, these blocks are decorated with images of high-ranking governmental officials of the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty. Datable to the period between Sobekhotep III and Sobekhotep IV (ca. 1749–1720 BCE), these blocks offer a unique glimpse into the nonroyal funerary archaeology of the governmental elite during the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty. The following work will analyze the carving upon these spolia in order to answer a number of key questions surrounding the identity of these officials, and the possible location and architecture of their now lost tombs. §1 The Reused Blocks: Background During the documentation of Senebkay’s tomb, we identified nine blocks bearing carved figural and textual decoration, and at least one further block whose shape bore clear hallmarks of reuse.5 The inscribed blocks were distributed randomly throughout the burial chamber. The north wall contained four inscribed blocks (R1, R2, R3, and R4), and one uninscribed reused block (R10) (fig. 1). Of these, two (R2 and R3) were set into the wall with their original decoration upside-down. The south wall held four blocks (R5, R6, R7, and R9), with the decoration of two (R6 and R9) being upside-down (figs. 2 and 3). Finally, block R8 was placed face-up in the central part of the chamber’s floor (fig. 3). In all cases, the original carved decoration was smoothed down before installation within CS.9, leaving only the deeper lines on some blocks intact. In a few cases, most notably R4, the images of certain individuals were singled out, and attacked with chisels.6 Once set into the walls, most of the remaining decoration was covered with a thin coat of gypsum, creating a smooth white surface upon which the painted decoration was applied. Through this treatment, Senebkay’s builders hid the original decoration from sight. There are three decorative motifs within the small corpus of spolia: 1) images of attendants and musicians; 2) depictions of individuals engaged in various production activities; and 3) scenes showing deceased individuals with associated offering spells. We will first analyze the scenes of attendants, musicians, and production activities, before moving on to the blocks with genealogical information. We will then turn to explore possible architectural forms from which these blocks may derive, and where theses buildings may have been located. §2 Scenes of Attendants, Musicians, and Production Activities The majority of reused blocks from South Abydos bear scenes of attendants, musicians, and various production activities. Scenes of so-called “daily life” appear almost invariably in tomb chapels of the Old and Middle Kingdoms.7 The Middle Kingdom tombs at Beni Hassan and Meir, in particular, contain 4   See J. Wegner, “Kings of Abydos: Solving an Ancient Egyptian Mystery,” Current World Archaeology 64 (2014), 20–27. The siglum CS.9 refers to the ninth tomb excavated in the area known as Cemetery S, the area surrounding the subterranean tomb of Khakaure Senwosret III. 5   The limestone of the blocks is very pure, lacking a significant number of flint nodules, which is a defining characteristic of the local Abydene limestone. This fact indicates that the stone was almost certainly imported to Abydos. Based upon the homogeneity of the stone, it is also probable that all the blocks within CS.9 derive from earlier monuments. 6   This is possible evidence of a damnatio memoriae. See also Wegner and Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment,” 162–63. 7   For a discussion of these “daily life” scenes, see J. Kamrin, “Monument and Microcosm: The 12th Dynasty Tomb Chapel of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan,” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1992, 59–64. See also more recently A. McFarlane and A. Mourad, Behind the Scenes: daily life in Old Kingdom Egypt (North Ryde, 2012).

Fig. 1. Schematic showing the positions of reused blocks in the burial chamber’s north wall.

Fig. 2. Schematic showing the positions of the reused blocks in the burial chamber’s south wall.

Fig. 3. Schematic showing the position of reused blocks in the burial chamber’s walls and floor.

98

JARCE 51 (2015)

virtually all of the same decorative motifs, and although these tomb chapels are slightly older than the CS.9 spolia, they are important comparanda for the scenes upon the blocks. Visible only on the outside of the CS.9 burial chamber, the edge of block R1 retained a small scene of four kneeling men (fig. 4). As a result of its position, we could only document about half of its carved surface, which measured 47 cm high, and 13 cm wide. The rest of the scene to the right was hidden inside the thickness of the burial chamber wall.8 The scene consists of two superimposed registers, with a band of text between them, and a decorative border below them. Two small, badly damaged inscriptions remain on this block, one behind the kneeling figure in the upper register, and another in the band separating the two registers. Both captions appear to be names, while the text in the band also includes the filiation: zA=f mr=f rdj[…], “His beloved son, Redi[…].” The suffix pronoun probably refers to the deceased, originally pictured somewhere to the left. Since the right hand edge of the block is a corner, and the decoration does not continue onto the block’s smoothed side, the lower border probably turned upwards to enclose the whole scene.9 As such, the block was originally at the bottom of a much larger scene. Since the kneeling figures are each about 18 cm tall, and assum- Fig. 4. Reused block R1 from outside of the north wall of the ing that the images of the deceased was larger, CS.9 burial chamber. The reconstructed gray area is hidden the entire original scene must have been quite within the burial chamber wall. expansive. Images of kneeling men and women upon three additional blocks were carved in the same style, and at the same scale as those upon R1.10 These three blocks (R2, R6, and R5) fit together into a complete horizontal zone of a larger scene (fig. 5). Two registers of figures are depicted, separated by a badly effaced central band of text. On both the right and left of the scene is a vertical border, indicating that the blocks represent the full 1.76 m width of the original wall.11

8   Two faces of this block were finished, but only the short one was decorated. The top of the block near the decorated face also had a butterfly tenon or cramp, meant to join two blocks. These facts indicate that the block was originally a corner block. The method of joinery using butterfly tenons was quite common, being employed, for instance, at Lisht, in the tomb of Djehuty, Di. Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture, 53. For this type of joinery in wood, see R. Gale, et al., “Wood,” in P. Nicholson and I. Shaw, eds., Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (Cambridge, 2000), 365–66; and G. Killen, Egyptian Woodworking and Furniture (Princes Risborough, 1994), 15. For two examples of late Middle Kingdom wooden tenons from Lahun now in the Petrie Museum, see W. Petrie, Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara (London, 1890), pl. 9.29. 9   Compare the decorative border to that on blocks R2 and R5 (fig. 5). 10   Hence it is probable that blocks R1 and the series R2-6-5 come from the same building. 11   The border pattern is very common, especially in stelae of the period, as in W. Simpson, The Terrace of the Great God at Abydos (New Haven-Philadelphia, 1974), pl. 11 (ANOC 4.4), pl. 15 (ANOC 6.3), and pl. 24 (ANOC 15.2).



CAHAIL 99

Fig. 5. Extended scene consisting of blocks R2, R6 and R5. Portions of Senebkay’s painted cartouche and titulary can be seen on the left and right blocks, rendered here in light gray.

The figures all face toward a focal point in the middle of the scene, demarcated by two vertical lines within the central text band. Though the carving is highly effaced in some areas, we can identify three different activities upon the blocks: 1) musicians in the center-right of the upper register; 2) kneeling attendants in the left and extreme right of the upper register, and the right of the lower register; and 3) offering bearers in the left half of the lower register. The scene of five musicians in the upper register follows a well-documented tomb chapel motif.12 The first musician on the left rests with both knees flat on the floor, playing a harp, depicted in profile.13 To the right of the harper is a singer with her right arm up, and her left hand by her ear.14 She is followed by two kneeling women, who have their hands raised in a clapping gesture.15 Finally, the last musician in the line at the right is a kneeling man, who plays a long flute.16 Aside from the musicians, the series R2-6-5 also includes depictions of fifteen kneeling attendants at the right and left of the upper register, and the right of the lower register. The best-preserved figures position their right fists across their chests, with their left hands in their laps holding folded handkerchiefs.17 On the left side of the upper register (block R2), there is even the depiction of a child with a stylized side-lock. Unlike the similar scene of kneeling men upon block R1, the carvings on these blocks do not preserve any names associated with the figures. Registers of individuals related to the deceased such as these appear regularly on late Middle Kingdom stelae,18 as well as in tomb chapels, such as that of Ukhhotep, son of Ukhhotep (B, No. 4) at Meir.19 In these examples, individuals associated with the deceased sit or kneel in registers, all facing the same direction, toward the deceased. In the tomb of

12   For instance, Newberry, Beni Hasant II, pls. 14 and 16; and Blackman, Meir II, pls. 3 and 15. The scene on blocks R6 and R5 includes four women and one man. In the story of the birth of the kings in pWestcar, Re tells the five gods Isis, Nephthys, Meskhenet, Heket, and Khnum to attend the birth. They disguised themselves as musicians, making a troupe of five, consisting of four woman and one man, quite reminiscent of the present scene. For a translation, see W. Simpson, The Literature of Ancient Egypt (New Haven, 2003), 21. 13   According to K. Krah, Die Harfe im pharaonishcen Ägypten (Göttingen, 1991), the Egyptians depicted harps either frontally or in profile. See also H. Schäfer, Principles of Egyptian Art, translated by J. Bains (Oxford, 1974), 95–103. 14   The image is somewhat damaged. The woman holds her right arm up, but her left arm does not cross her body like the two clapping figures behind her. The closest parallel is to singers, who hold their forward arms up, and their rear arms folded against their bodies, with the hand at the ear. See B. Dominicus, Gesten und Gebärden (Heidleberg, 1994), 167–73. A similar image of a singer and harper occurs in the tomb of Khety at Beni Hasan (T17) in Newberry, Beni Hasan I, pl. 12, and for the definitive hand positions of singers, see A. Schlott, “Einige Beobachtungen zu Mimik und Gestik von Singenden,” GM 152 (1996), 55–70. 15  Dominicus, Gesten und Gebärden, 175–78; and see also the musicians in the tomb of Amenemhat at Beni Hasan. 16   For comparable figures, see Blackman, Meir I, 8, and Blackman, Meir II, passim. 17   H. Fischer, “An Elusive Shape within the Fisted Hands of Egyptian Statues,” MMJ 10 (1975), 14. 18   For example, Simpson, Terrace, pl. 3 (ANOC 1.6), as well as the slab groups ANOC 52 and ANOC 57. 19  Blackman, Meir III, pl. 9 and 11.

100

JARCE 51 (2015)

Ukhhotep, borders which are identical in form to those on blocks R2 and R5, bound the scene on both sides. The last group of figures appearing upon the block R2-6-5 series are poorly preserved, but they seem to be carrying offerings toward the central portion of the scene.20 Two standing males hold their arms up, with traces of unknown objects drawn near their hands. As with the scenes of kneeling attendants, comparable images of offering bearers occur frequently in both tombs and stelae of the period. Images of offering bearers also decorate block R9 (fig. 6). Here, the top register is only a scant trace, with no indication of the scene type it originally held. The bottom register originally extended past the lower edge of the block. In both the middle and lower registers, men carry items toward the left. Another man at the right of the middle register bends down, with his arms reaching toward a table or object, engaged in some type of production activity, though the majority of his image was purposefully chiseled out of the block. The figures appearing on block R9 bridge the logical gap between scenes depicting the bringing of offerings to the deceased, and those showing the production of those very offerings. Furthermore, since this scene does not link with that of blocks R2-6-5, it is probable that this block derives from a different monument than the R2-6-5 sequence. Finally, the scenes upon block R3 are perhaps the most complex (fig. 7).21 Set upside-down in the central portion of the north wall of the CS.9 burial chamber, the block measures 70 cm wide, and 45 cm tall. The carved scenes extend past the stone’s edges, indicating that the block was originally part of a much larger wall scene. There is a scant trace of a register at the top of the block, while the botFig. 6. Visible portion of Reused Block R9. Set upside-down, tom edge of the block was used as the ground line the rest of the scene to the left is hidden inside the walls of for the lower register. Senebkay’s tomb. The depiction of a pottery workshop dominates the center of the middle register (fig. 8). In this scene, figure (B) represents the beginning of the fabrication process. Across his shoulders this man carries a yoke, from which two containers of raw clay are suspended.22 Traces of a figure in front of the 20   The fact that these figures are in the lower register may indicate that the deceased was originally pictured below the preserved R2-6-5 scene. 21   Blocks R9 and R3 are very similar in both scale and layout, suggesting that they may have belonged to the same monument, even though the visible elements do not actually join. 22   Workmen in the tomb of Rekhmire who are fabricating bricks carry the mud and clay in the same shaped vessels. See D. Arnold, An Introduction to Ancient Egyptian Pottery: Fasicle 1 (Mainz am Rhein, 1993), 11, fig. 1.



CAHAIL 101

Fig. 7. Reused Block R3 from the North Wall of the CS.9 Burial Chamber. The bottom register depicts plowing and reaping, while the middle register has figures engaged in pottery production.

kiln,23 (C), is the potter himself, shown shaping a large vessel by hand.24 At the far left, above figure (A), is a group of completed pottery vessels placed outside to dry before firing.25 To the right of the kiln, figure (D) carries two completed pottery vessels in rope slings attached to a wooden yoke. Finally, another individual (E) stands at the right, though his role in the scene is not entirely clear. At the left side of the pottery production scene, a man below the drying vessels, (A), holds an implement handle in his hands. A comparable image from the tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan, indicates that this man is probably engaged in chopping wood.26 Near this scene in the Khunmhotep II version is a depiction of boat-building. Logically, both boat-building and firing pottery make use of wood, with the boats made from the substance, and the pottery fired by burning it. Hence, while block R3 does not seem to include a boat-building scene, the fuel created by the woodcutter, (A), is directly related to the firing of pottery. Looking now at the lower register of block R3 (fig. 9), there are three distinct scenes: 1) a scene of plowing to the left (F); 2) a harvest scene in the center (G-I); and 3) an offering scene including the deceased tomb owner at the right (J-L).27 In the first scene, a man (F) drives his cattle with a goad. He holds 23   In Newberry, Beni Hasan II, pl. 7, the kiln on the left bears the caption, “firing (pottery),” making the purpose of the structure clear. With vessels depicted atop the kiln, the image on block R3 is larger, but formally identical to that at Beni Hasan. 24   For the various ways in which the Egyptians formed vessels, see Arnold, Egyptian Pottery I, 15–83. 25   For comparanda, see Arnold, Egyptian Pottery I, 84. 26   See Newberry, Beni Hasan II, pl. 29. 27   For a similar scene, see J. Kamrin, The Cosmos of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan, (London-New York, 1999), 72ff.; and Newberry, El Bersheh I, pl. 29.

102

JARCE 51 (2015)

Fig. 8. Reconstruction of the middle register of decoration from block R3, showing a man chopping wood, and figures engaged in the production of pottery vessels.

Fig. 9. Reconstruction of the lower register plowing, harvest, and offering scene on Block R3.

onto the plough with his left hand, and below his feet the artist has indicated the resulting furrows.28 To the right of this man, figure (G) drinks from a vessel, while figures (H) and (I) cut grain with sickles. In the third scene at the right, two men stand facing each other (J and K). The man on the right (K) wears a plaited wig, and a long translucent garment tied well above his waist, and holds a long walking stick. All these elements indicate that he is probably an official, and perhaps the deceased owner of the scene himself.29 The smaller figure (L) is a child, standing behind the official (K), holding his hand. Traces of a long walking stick echo that held by the adult official, and though awkwardly placed floating by the child’s arm, its presence may indicate that he held a certain elevated status, vis-à-vis the other workers in the scene. The CS.9 spolia blocks which depict attendants, musicians, and production activities are reminiscent of images that appear in tomb chapels of the Old and Middle Kingdoms. Scenes in these chapels were meant to sustain the spiritual elements of the dead, and hence the images upon the CS.9 spolia appear   In the Khnumhotep II version of this scene, one man drives the cattle, while the other holds the plough with both hands.   G. Robins, The Art of Ancient Egypt (London, 1997), 118, and figs. 131–32. The figure is in the same stance as the image of Senebef from block R4, and both images include depictions of a child in close proximity to the official. These points are tantalizing evidence that this block may have originally belonged to the same building as the Senebef block (R4), discussed below. 28 29



CAHAIL 103

to fulfill the same goal of preserving the longevity of offerings directed to deceased individuals, one of whom may be depicted in the lower register of block R3. Thankfully, three additional spolia which we documented within the tomb of Senebkay shed more light on the identities of the individuals who may have owned these blocks. §3 The Overseer of Fields, Dedtu, and His Family Inscriptions upon the last three reused blocks from the tomb of Senebkay name a handful of known personages from the Thirteenth Dynasty. The men depicted on two of these blocks, R7 and R8, are father and son.30 The first of these individuals bears the following string of ranking titles:31 jr.j-pa.t, HA.tj-a, xtm.tj-bj.tj, jm.j-r-Ax.wt, dd.tw, mAa-xrw “Hereditary Nobleman, 32 Mayor, 33 Royal Seal-bearer, 34 Overseer of Fields,35 Dedtu,36 true of voice” (block R8, fig. 10). Dedtu himself sits upon a chair with animal-paw feet, holding a lotus to his nose with his right hand, and grasping a folded handkerchief in his left. Before him is an offering table, and behind him stands a female figure, whom the text identifies as Hm.t=f, nb.tpr37 Ab.t, [//]38 “His wife, Lady of the House, Abet.” She rests her right arm on her husband’s shoulder in a loving embrace, while holding what appears to be a lotus in her left hand, which hangs at her side. Similarly, the man represented on the second block of this family group (block R7) also sits upon a chair with animal-paw feet (fig. 11). He faces to the right, holding an unguent jar to his nose with his left hand. An offering table protrudes awkwardly from behind his legs, filling the small space between him and the image of a kneeling woman. The offering formula above him reads:39 Htp-dj-nswt wsjr nb Dd.w dj=f [TAw nDm] n anx40 n kA n Hr.j-xA.wt jb-jaw mAa-xrw jr=n [jm.i-r-Ax.wt d]d.tw mAa-xrw, “A royal offering of Osiris, Lord of Busiris, that he might give the sweet breath of life to the ka of the Offering Table Overseer, Ibiau, 41 true of voice, engendered of the [Overseer of Fields, De]dtu, true of voice.” The small

30   Interestingly, both of these blocks retained strong indications of their original paint, mainly within the deeper recesses of the carved decoration, which had escaped the surface smoothing carried out by Senebkay’s builders. 31   For the use of these ranking titles during the late Middle Kingdom, see D. Franke, “Probleme der Arbeit mit altägyptisches Titeln des Mittleren Reiches,” GM 83 (1984), 103–24, and W. Grajetzki, Höchsten Beamten der ägyptischen Zentralverwaltung zur Zeit des Mittleren Reiches (Berlin, 2000), 220–28. 32   See D. Jones, An Index of Ancient Egyptian Titles (Oxford, 2000), 315, Title 1157. 33   For this title, see W. Ward, Index of Egyptian Administrative and Religious Titles of the Middle Kingdom (Beirut, 1982), 104–5, Title 864; and H. Fischer, Egyptian Titles of the Middle Kingdom: A Supplement to Wm. Ward’s Index, (New York, 1985), 66, for the translation of “Mayor.” 34   For this title, see H. Fischer, Varia Nova (New York, 1996), 50–52; Ward, Index, 170–71, Titles 1472–1476a; and the comments in S. Quirke, Titles and Bureaux of Egypt 1850–1700 BC (London, 2004), 12. Here the title is written with the red crown as opposed to the bee, a peculiarity which appears in Ward’s Title 1476a, and regularly in the late Middle Kingdom stelae from Abydos, as documented in Lange and Schäfer, CG 20001–20780 III, 76–77. 35   For this title, see Ward, Titles, 10, Title 29. 36  Ranke, PN I, 103.21 37  Ward, Index, 99, Title 823. 38   There are traces of a long horizontal sign here which may be sign X4. This reading would fit with the name in Ranke, PN I, 18. Two lines at the end of the text may be the remains of a mAa.t-xrw. 39   For the Htp-dj-nswt formula in general, see Barta, Opferformel. P. Smither, “The Writing of Htp-di-nsw in the Middle and New Kingdoms,” JEA 25 (1939), 34-37, followed by C. Bennett, “Growth of the Htp-di-nsw Formula in the Middle Kingdom,” JEA 27 (1941), 77–82, who attempted to date these formulae within the Middle Kingdom by their spellings, but D. Franke (“The Middle Kingdom Offering Formulas - A Challenge,” JEA 89 [2003], 39–57) rejected their conclusions. More recently, A. Ilin-Tomich, (“Changes in the Htp-dj-nsw Formula in the Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period,” ZÄS 138 [2011], 20–34) has collected a catalogue of 479 dated monuments, concluding that quantifiable changes do occur to the formula during the late Middle Kingdom. 40  Barta, Aufbau, 78, Bitte 78a. 41  Ranke, PN I,19.4

104

JARCE 51 (2015)

Fig. 10. Epigraphic copy of reused block R8, depicting the Field Overseer Dedtu seated before an offering table. His wife, the Lady of the House, Abet, stands behind him with her arm on his shoulder.

Fig. 11. Reused Block R7, showing Ibiau, son of Dedtu, seated at the left, and the Sole Royal Ornament Nekheteni, kneeling at the right.

epigraph above the kneeling female figure identifies her as the Xkr.t-nswt-wa.tt, NH.t.n(=j) mAa.t-xrw, “Sole Royal Ornament,42 Nekheteni,43 true of voice.”44 Dedtu is a fairly well-attested high official of the Thirteenth Dynasty.45 Two stelae belonging to him are known: Louvre C.58,46 and Odessa 52970.47 The Louvre example derives from Mariette’s excavations at North Abydos, and despite the fact that Porter and Moss included the Odessa stela in their 42   For the title, see Ward, Index, 143, Title 1234; Jones, Index, 795-96, Title 2900; and D. Stefanovic, The Non-Royal Regular Feminine Titles of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period (London, 2009). See also the brief discussion in H. Fischer, Egyptian Women of the Old Kingdom and of the Heracleopolitan Period (New York, 2000), 31; and D. Nord, “Xkrt-nswt = ‘king’s concubine’?” Serapis 2 (1970), 1–16. For general comments, see H. Grajetzki, Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (London, 2009), 158. 43  Ranke, PN I, 207.13. The seated man (Gardiner sign A2) is not a determinative for the woman, but rather a part of the name nH.t, derived from the verb nHj, “to pray.” See R. Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch II (Mainz am Rhein, 2006), 1310. Ranke analyzes the name as a perfect relative (sDmt.n=f). The image of Nekheteni below the text serves as the suffix pronoun =j in the same way that the images of Ibiau, Senebef, and Montu also serve as determinatives to their names among these blocks. 44   It is not clear why the woman Nekheteni is not on the same ground-line as Ibiau. It is possible that the image of this individual and the epigraph relating to her were added after the main scene of Ibiau was completed. If we assume she was Ibiau’s wife (for which, see below), they may have married after he commissioned the block, leading to her image being added afterwards in the free space in front of Ibiau, as opposed to behind him, like the image of Dedtu and his wife Abet on block R8. 45   M. el-Rabi’i, “Familles abydéniennes du Moyen Empire,” CdÉ 52, no. 103 (1977), 20, ANOC XX; D. Franke, Personendaten aus dem Mittleren Reich (Wiesbaden, 1984), Doss. 769; and Grajetzki, Höchsten Beamten, 135. For Dedtu’s other monuments, see G. Andreu, “Recherches sur la Classe Moyenne au Moyen Empire,” BSAK 4 (1990), 15–26. 46   K. Awad, “Eine Stele des Mittleren Reiches im Louvre,” GM 197 (203), 43–48 47   O. Berlev and S. Hodjash, Catalogue of the Monuments of Ancient Egypt (Fribourg, 1998), 41–43.



CAHAIL 105

Theban volume,48 Berlev and Hodjash have indicated that the stela’s provenance is “almost certainly Abydos.”49 Both stelae list Dedtu’s family members, but Louvre C.58 includes not only his wife, a certain jr.jt-pa.t HA.t-Sps.wt “Hereditary Noblewoman, Hatshepsut,” but also one of his sons, the Hr.j-xA.wt-n-Jmn Jb-jaw “Overseer of the Offering Tables of Amun, Ibiau.” An identification of this Ibiau with the man pictured on reused block R7 from CS.9 is certain, given that his name, paternity, and title match well among the sources. Two peculiarities among the texts of block R7, Louvre C.58, and Odessa 52970 may betray a chronological progression in the creation of Dedtu’s monuments. The first concerns the string of titles which Dedtu holds. Both Louvre C.58 and Odessa 52970 record that he is simply a xtm.tj-bj.tj, jm.j-r-Ax.wt. However, block R7 from South Abydos prefaces these titles with both and jr.j-pa.t, and HA.tj-a. A number of scholars have pointed out that during the Middle Kingdom, titles such as jr.j-pa.t, HA.tj-a, xtm.tj-bj.tj and smr-wa.tj refer to a system of title ranking.50 According to this system, the string jr.j-pa.t, HA.tj-a, Htm. tj-bj-tj, jm.j-r-Ax.wt, which Dedtu bears on CS.9 block R8, is a higher office than simply Htm.tj-bj-tj, jm.jr-Ax.wt of Louvre C.58 and Odessa 52970.51 This may indicate that the reused block from South Abydos was created later than the two stelae, and that Dedtu’s position was elevated at the end of his career, after the carving of his two stelae.52 Furthermore, Ibiau does not appear on the Odessa stela, probably indicating that it predates the Louvre example.53 The second discrepancy among these sources (CS.9 block R8, Louvre C.58, and Odessa 52970) concerns Dedtu’s wife. Two different women appear with Dedtu bearing the distinction of being Hm.t=f. If we accept that the two stelae (Odessa 52970 and Louvre C.58) were produced earlier than reused block R8, then it seems logical to theorize that Dedtu’s first wife, the Hereditary Noblewoman Hatshepsut, died sometime between the carving of Louvre C.58, and the creation of block R8. During this time period, Dedtu remarried a woman by the name of Abet, who held the lower rank of nb.t-pr. Since Hatshepsut appears on the same stela with Dedtu’s son Ibiau, we can infer that she was Ibiau’s mother, rather than Abet. In sum, this information allows us to infer that stela Odessa 52970, which does not include Dedtu’s son Ibiau, was created first. Sometime later, stela Louvre C.58 which does include Ibiau, was carved. Finally, Dedtu commissioned block R8 as part of a much larger funerary monument, which reflected his elevated string of ranking titles, and the name and image of his second wife Abet. Returning to the scene depicting Ibiau and a kneeling female on block R7, the identity of this Xkr.tnswt-wa.tt, NHt.n=j, “Sole Royal Ornament, Nekheteni,” is of great importance to understanding possible interconnections between the owners of the majority of the reused blocks from the tomb of Senebkay. The text upon block R7 is silent as to Nekheteni’s relation to Ibiau, and unlike the image of Abet who embraces her husband Dedtu, Nekheteni kneels in front of Ibiau. Women in very similar poses and positions appear in a handful of contemporary stelae from Abydos. On Louvre C.18 (ANOC 52.3), for instance, a kneeling woman is said to be the sister of the deceased,54 while on Hermitage 1063 and 1064 (ANOC 57.1-.2), the woman kneeling directly in front of the deceased and his offering table is his wife.55

48  PM I, 810. It is not clear what led Porter and Moss to this conclusion. The only other known monument belonging to the family is an unpublished statue base which appears in MMA Photo M.8.C.413, which is probably from Thebes, perhaps leading to Porter and Moss including this stela in their Theban volume. 49   Berlev and Hodjash, Catalogue of the Monuments, 41. Furthermore, the stela of Dedtu’s father, Burekhef (Cairo CG20540), also derives from Abydos. See Lange and Schäfer, CG 20001–20780 II, 158–61. For Burekhef, see Franke, Personendaten, Doss. 220. 50   D. Franke, “Probleme der Arbeit mit altägyptisches Titeln des Mittleren Reiches,” GM 83 (1984), 103–24; and Grajetzki, Höchsten Beamten, 220–28. 51   See, for instance, the hierarchy tree in Grajetzki, Höchsten Beamten, 220–28. 52   One or both of the stelae may derive from a maHa.t structure that was dedicated during Dedtu’s career, while the reused block may come from Dedtu’s actual tomb chapel, and reflects the highest titles he held in life. 53   See Andreu, “Recherches sur la Classe Moyenne,” 15–26. 54  Simpson, Terrace, pl. 70. 55  Simpson, Terrace, pl. 78.

106

JARCE 51 (2015)

Since none of the other sources listing Dedtu’s family include a daughter by the name of Nekheteni, it seems more likely that she was Ibiau’s wife, than his sister. Another Thirteenth Dynasty stela (Cairo JE37507), which Georges Legrain discovered during his 1902 excavations within the Kushite Chapel of Osiris, Nebankh, at Karnak,56 is the only other known source to name a Royal Ornament, Nekheteni. This woman’s parents were the xtm.tj-bj.tj Hm-nTr-n-Jmn57 %nb=f, 58 “the Royal Seal-bearer, Priest of Amun, Senebef,” and his wife the Xkr.t-nswt sbk-rsj, “Royal Ornament, Sobekresi.”59 Bazin and el-Enany cite two other women named Nekheteni from the late Middle Kingdom, though neither one of them bears the title Royal Ornament. Consequently it is likely that Ibiau’s wife, the Sole Royal Ornament, Nekheteni, is one and the same as the Royal Ornament, Nekheteni, daughter of the Priest of Amun, Senebef. As with Dedtu, during the course of Nekheteni’s life, her title was raised from Royal Ornament, to Sole Royal Ornament, perhaps by her association with Dedtu’s family. Based upon the connection between Ibiau and Nekheteni, we can reconstruct the first extensive genealogy for this family of Thirteenth Dynasty high officials (fig. 12). Interestingly, the men appearing upon the final inscribed block (R4) from South Abydos may be related to the same family. The scene on block R4 retains a central inscription, flanked by images of three standing male figures, two to the left and one to the right (fig. 13). The main figure on the left stands with his right arm by his side, and his left arm extended, resting upon a long walking stick.60 Directly to the right of this figure stands a much smaller male, perhaps meant to represent a young boy, with his left arm crossed over his chest. In the lower portion of the scene is the top of an offering table. Another adult male figure who is slightly smaller than the primary figure stands to the right of the table. He faces left, and wears what appears to be the sash of a Lector Priest across his chest. Though the faces of these two secondary figures exhibit damage, neither one was attacked to the same level as the individual on the left, who almost certainly represents the deceased owner of the block. Three lines of text situated between the two adult males contain a dedicatory statement, including two sets of names and titles: jn zA=f sanx rn=f, Hr.j-xAw.t-n-Jmn Mnt.w, jr.j [p]a.t %nb=f nb-jmAx, “It is his son, the Overseer of the Offering Tables of Amun,61 Montu,62 who perpetuates his name, the Hereditary Nobleman, Senebef,63 possessor of honor.” 64 The title nb-jmAx confirms that Senebef is the deceased 56   G. Legrain, “Le temple et les chapelles d’Osiris à Karnak, III,” RecTrav 24 (1902), 213, reports that the stela “a été trouvée in place, debout, contre la muraille.” For the chapels generally, see C. Jurman, “The Osiris Chapels of the Third Intermediate Period and the Late Period at Karnak,” Aegyptus et Pannonia 3 (2006), 107–30. 57   During the late Middle Kingdom, the title Hm-nTr-n-Jmn referred to the position which was later called the Hm-nTr-tp.j-n-Jmn, and therefore represents the High Priest of the Amun complex at Thebes. See Ward, Index, 108, Title 898; and Grajetzki, Höchsten Beamten, 110. 58   Upon the stela, Senebef appears to have a second name which is spelled , perhaps reading “Mesnesut.” Mesnesut does not appear in Ranke as a personal name, but according to Wb. II, 139.7, it is an epithet used to refer to princes. The phrase is also tied up with the idea of the Heb-sed, for which see Kaiser, “Zu den msw-nswt der älteren Bilddarstellungen und der Bedeutung von rpwt,” MDAIK 39 (1983), 261–96. For the practice of double naming in general, see P. Vernus, Le Surnom au Moyen Empire (Rome, 1986). Bazin and el-Enany read it as one name, Senebefmes, following Clère’s suggestion that the seated king is an error for Gardiner Sign B3, used as a determinative for ms. However, there are also no comparanda for the name Senebefmes, and while the reading Mesnesut is somewhat provisional, it has the benefit of not requiring any emendation to the text of the stela. 59   Legrain, “Le temple et les chapelles d’Osiris a Karnak III,” 213. One of Nekheteni’s sisters is a Xkr.t-nswt xnsw, who is probably to be identified with the owner of CG 28028, the Xkr.t-nswt xnsw, for which see below. 60   For contemporary images of a deceased individual in a similar pose with the stick under the arm, see Simpson, Terrace, pl. 70 (ANOC 52.3), and Pl. 78 (ANOC 57.2). In earlier scenes of this type at Beni Hasan, for instance, the deceased holds the long walking stick in the fist, as opposed to leaning upon it as here. See also the discussion above on block R3. 61   Wb. II, 226.18. For the base title Hr.j-xAw.t, see Ward, Index, 116, Title 973, which he reads Hry wdHww. The full title Hr.j-xAw.tn-Jmn also appears on the Juridical Stela, Cairo JE 52453, belonging to Ay, which is dated to the Second Intermediate period. For chronological implications of this stela, see W. Davies, “Renseneb and Sobekhakht of Elkab: The Genealogical Data,” in M. Marée, ed., The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects (Leuven-ParisWalpole, 2010), 223–40. 62   For this alternate spelling of mnT.w, see Ranke, PN I, 153.20; and Lange and Schäfer, CG 20001–20780 III, 115. 63   For the name, see Ranke, PN I, 314.5. 64   Wb. I, 81.18, indicates that the title is used “als Beiwort der Verstorbenen.” See also R. Hannig, Wörterbuch II, 251ff.

Fig. 12. Genealogy of Ibiau and Nekheteni. The titles of the individuals appear below their names in hieroglyphic script.

CAHAIL 107

108

JARCE 51 (2015)

Fig. 13. Reused Block R4 from the Northwest Corner of the CS.9 Burial Chamber.

individual whose name his living son Montu perpetuates. Other than this epithet, Senebef bears only the title jr.j-pa.t, “Hereditary Nobleman,” which according to Grajetzki, when used by itself, represents a very high status individual.65 His son Montu holds the same title as that which Ibiau possessed, namely, the Overseer of the Offering Tables of Amun, thus showing a possible official connection between these families through the Amun Temple at Karnak. The question that this block poses is whether or not Senebef, father of Montu is the same man as Senebef, father of Nekheteni. Senebef’s title of jr.j-pa.t upon block R4 is not the same as those of the Royal Sealer, Priest of Amun, Senebef. However, the famous Treasurer Mekhetre set a precedent for abbreviating his high-ranking string of titles with a single jr.j-pa.t upon one of his tomb models, as well as upon the silver scarab belonging to Wah.66 By employing this shorter, but higher-status title upon the reused block R4, Senebef’s name both fits the confines of the scene better, and proclaimed his upperclass standing quite succinctly.67 On the other hand, Senebef does not include a son named Montu upon his Karnak stela (JE37507). Yet, as with the first stela of Dedtu (Odessa 52970), Ibiau does not appear with his other brothers, probably due to the fact that he was either not born yet, or was too young to hold office. Three coincidences help to bolster the argument for identifying these two men as the same Senebef. Firstly, the existence of these three blocks (R8, R7, and R4) together at South Abydos may indicate that 65  Grajetzki, Höchsten Beamten, 221–22; and idem, Court Officials of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, (London, 2009), 7, where he indicates that an official bearing only the title jr.j-pa.t was “second only to the king.” Grajetzki also maintains that no individual held the sole title of jr.j-pa.t after the end of the Twelfth Dynasty. Given the Neferhotep I / Sobekhotep IV date of the other blocks belonging to Dedtu and Ibiau, it seems likely that this Senebef probably possessed other titles which have been omitted in this scene. 66  Grajetzki, Höchsten Beamten, 45, collected the sources. See especially objects c. and d. 67   If we assume that these two men named Senebef are the same person, a transition from xtm.tj-bj.tj Hm-nTr-n-Jmn to jr.j-pa.t may reflect a promotion in rank at the end of his life akin to that demonstrated by Dedtu’s titles. Furthermore, since there was only one Priest of Amun at any one time during this period, if Senebef ceased to perform this function in his old age, he may have been precluded from employing the title upon his funerary monuments for reasons of decorum. Whether or not a connection exists between the Priest Senebef, and the jr.j-pa.t Senebef, does not change the fact that Senebef and Nekheteni from Stela JE 37507 still belong to the family of Ibiau and Dedtu.



CAHAIL 109

the individuals depicted upon them were connected in some way.68 Secondly, both Ibiau and Montu held the identical title: Overseers of the Offering Table of Amun at Karnak. The Priest of Amun, Senebef would have ultimately overseen both Ibiau and Montu, who were at the very least colleagues, and at most brothers by marriage. Finally, Montu’s name itself points to a Theban connection for his family, highlighting the possibility that Montu and Senebef, like Dedtu and Ibiau, lived in Thebes. While the scant remains we currently possess are insufficient to answer this question definitively, it remains a distinct possibility that the Nobleman, Senebef, from block R4 is the same man as the Royal Sealer, Priest of Amun, Senebef, the father of Nekheteni.69 §4 The Date of Dedtu and his Family Having ascertained that all the individuals depicted on the three blocks R4, R7, and R8, are not only contemporary, but may belong to the same extended family, the question remains as to when they may have lived. Grajetzki follows Franke in dating Dedtu generally to the Thirteenth Dynasty.70 Discussing the stylistic features of the stela Odessa 52970, Berlev and Hodjash state the following: [The stela’s] dating to the period of Dyn. XIII follows from the fact of its having the scene of a worship of an idol, not found before Sobekhotep II on dated monuments (Leiden, 42), whereas the pair of eyes in the lunette is characteristic of Dyn. XIII. Moreover, the eyes without eyelashes can only be postulated for the second half of Dyn. XIII, as well as the hands with libation vases, primarily extended by the ideograms of West and East, as in CM 20540, but stylistically the stelae bear unmistakable signs of the design which came into vogue in the times of the famous brother-kings Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV.71

The stela Cairo CG20540 which they mention belongs to Burekhef, Dedtu’s father, and was also found at North Abydos.72 Hence, based solely upon style, the family members who owned the South Abydos reused blocks date to the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty.73 Papyrus Bulaq 18 corroborates this conclusion. Franke74 was the first to notice that Dedtu’s son, the AT.w-aA-n-njw.t75 “Chief Administrator of the Town,” Neferhotep, appears in pBoulaq 18,76 as part of a group of officials attending the Festival of Montu.77 Franke dated pBoulaq 18 to the reign of Sobekhotep II, but Ryholt’s more recent analysis has singled out the three predecessors of Sobekhotep III—namely, Imyremeshaw, Antef V, and Seth—as the most likely candidates for the unnamed king alluded to in the documents.78 Hence, the date derived from pBoulaq 18 for Dedtu’s son Neferhotep indicates that the   The texts of blocks R8 (Dedtu) and R7 (Ibiau) make their familial connection quite clear.   We have included Montu in the family tree (fig. 12) as a son of the Priest of Amun, Senebef, with a dashed line, indicating the conjectural nature of this connection. 70  Franke, Personendaten, Doss. 769; and Grajetzki, Höchsten Beamten, 135. 71   Berlev and Hodjash, Catalogue of the Monuments, 41. See also M. Malaise, “Inventaire des stèles Égyptiennes du Moyen Empire porteuses de représentations divines,” SAK 9 (1981), 259–83. 72   Lange and Shäfer, CG 20001-23780 II, 158–61. Burekhef’s name is a very early attestation of the Late Egyptian negative aorist within the late Twelfth Dynasty. See F. Junge, Late Egyptian Grammar, translated by Warburton, (Oxford, 2005), 100. 73   For chronological discussion of the era, see K. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, (Copenhagen, 1997), 191–97, and passim. 74  Franke, Personendaten, Doss. 314. 75   For this title, see Ward, Index, Title 698, which he reads war.tw n niw.t. 76   A. Mariette, Les papyrus égyptiens du Musée de Boulaq, Vol. II (Paris, 1872), pl. XLV, 2, l. 7. See also F. Griffith, “The Account Papyrus No. 18 of Boulaq,” ZÄS 29 (1891), 102–16; A. Scharff, “Ein Rechnungsbuch des königlichen Hofes aus der 13. Dynastie,” ZÄS 57 (1922), 51–68, pls. 1**–24**; S. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom, (Malden, 1990); Ryholt, Political Situation, 243–45; and G. Miniaci and S. Quirke, “Reconceiving the Tomb in the Late Middle Kingdom: The Burial of the Accountant of the Main Enclosure Neferhotep at Dra Abu al-Naga,” BIFAO 109 (2009), 339–83. 77   See Scharff, “Ein Rechnungsbuch,” pls. 20**–23**. 78  Ryholt, Political Situation, 243–45. 68 69

110

JARCE 51 (2015)

stelae belonging to his father Dedtu do indeed date to the period just before the reigns of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV. On Nekheteni’s side of the family, there is another chronological correspondence that requires some discussion. According to stela Cairo JE37507, one of Nekheteni’s sisters named Khonsu also held the title Royal Ornament.79 Significantly, a sarcophagus now in Cairo (CG 28028, CT siglum T6C),80 and a canopic box in Moscow (Moscow I ia 5358), are inscribed with the exact same name and title, “The Royal Ornament, Khonsu.” In a 1974 article, Berlev concluded that Khonsu’s burial set, and that of her probable husband Senebini (CG 28029, CT siglum T10C), which is virtually identical in design and decoration, dated to the reign of an elusive king named Sonbmijew Sewahenre.81 Though his name is not preserved in the fragmentary Turin King List, Ryholt theorized that Sewahenre would fit as the last ruler of the Thirteenth Dynasty, reigning some ninety years after the accession of Neferhotep I.82 Though some scholars see Khonsu and Senebini’s coffins as well-dated examples of late Thirteenth Dynasty burial assemblages, such a late date seems to preclude any identification between the Royal Ornament Khonsu from the Karnak stela (JE37507) and the Royal Ornament Khonsu from the Theban sarcophagus and canopic box. Assuming that these two sources belonging to the Royal Ornament Khonsu actually refer to one and the same woman, as seems probable, such a late date would confound the connection between the families of Dedtu and the Priest of Amun, Senebef. As a result, the evidence which led Berlev to date these coffins to the reign of Sewahenre in the first place is worthy of reexamination. All of the objects pertaining to Berlev’s argument, namely, the two coffins (T6C = CG28028, and T10C = CG 28029), the two canopic boxes matching the coffins (Moscow I ia 5358, and Moscow I ia 5359), and a walking stick inscribed with Sewahenre’s cartouche (Moscow I ia 1801, a, b), were purchased by Golénischeff from an antiquities dealer in the winter of 1888–1889.83 According to Golénischeff and Lacau, the staff inscribed with Sewahenre’s cartouche (Moscow I ia 1801, a, b) was found with the sarcophagus CG28030, not CG28028 and CG28029 (the sarcophagi matching the Moscow canopic boxes).84 Berlev considered the connection of the staff with CG 28030 to be a mistake, and following Turayeff’s analysis of the coffins and canopic boxes, concluded that they must date to the reign of Sewahenre. Berlev states that “Turayeff founded his dating on some other objects of the Golénischeff collection, and we shall hardly be mistaken if we assume the staff singled out by Lacau to be such an object.”85 This string of assumptions is ultimately based upon the antiquities dealer’s assertion that the staff, sarcophagi, and boxes all derived from the same tomb.86 Glossing over the possibility that the antiquities dealer’s information was flawed, Berlev continued his analysis, looking at the names and titles written upon the canopic box, coffin, and staff. Surprisingly, he asserted that “the names of the owner of the staff and that of the sarcophagus 28029 and one of the

79   L. Bazin and K. el-Enany, “La stèle d’un ‘Chancelier du Roi et Prophète d’Amon’ de la fin du Moyen Empire à Karnak,” Cahiers de Karnak 13 (2010), fig. 2. 80   P. Lacau, CG 28001-28126 II, 75–76, pl. 15; and de Buck, CT. 81   O. Berlev, “A Contemporary of King Sewah-en-Re,” JEA 60 (1974), 106–13. 82  Ryholt, Political Situation, 74, and 359 83   Berlev, “Contemporary,” 107, n. 11. 84   Berlev, “Contemporary,” 106. On the following page, he includes the information that Golénischeff wrote a later note indicating that the staff had been found in the same tomb as the boxes. It is not at all clear why he changed his mind at a later date. At the very least, the situation is highly confused, and being based upon the report of the antiquities dealer from whom the items were purchased, the connection among the objects is anything but certain. 85   According to Berlev, “Contemporary,” 106, it seems as though Turayeff first assigned the coffins and canopic boxes to the reign of Sewahenre, but never provided the evidence to back up his claim. Berlev assumed that Turayeff arrived at this date by connecting the canopic boxes to another object in the Golénischeff collection, leading Berlev to link the boxes with the staff in order to prove Turayeff’s attribution. 86   Perhaps significantly, Berlev, “Contemporary,” 106, indicates that the antiquities dealer who originally possessed the sarcophagus CG28030 at first said it had come from Deir el-Bahari, but later in 1906 swore it was from Gebelein.



CAHAIL 111

boxes are identical.”87 Yet this is not the case. The following comparison of the name and titles among these three sources demonstrates significant discrepancies:

Source

Title

Name

CG28029 (Sarcophagus)

rx-nswt 88

89

Moscow I ia 5358 (canopic Box)

rx-nswt

91

Moscow I ia 1801, a, b (staff)

Htm.tj-bj.tj jm.j-r-Ax.wt

,

,

90

92

93

888990919293

The title rx-nswt and the orthography of the names between the sarcophagus (CG28029) and the canopic box (Moscow I ia 5358) do indeed match perfectly, indicating that these two objects almost certainly belonged to the same individual. However, neither the titles Htm.tj-bj.tj jm.j-r Ax.wt, nor the orthography of the name Senebni as written on the staff match either of the other two sources. The name and titles on the sarcophagus and canopic box are the “King’s Acquaintance, Senebi-n(i)” or “Senebu-n(i).” On the other hand, the staff belonged to a “Royal Sealer, Overseer of Fields, Senebn(i). Berlev theorized that the name snb-n(=j) appearing on the staff had a fuller spelling snb=j-n(=j), which appears on the sarcophagus and the canopic box.94 While this is not impossible, the fact that his name is spelled identically between the sarcophagus and canopic box, but is different upon the staff, is somewhat troubling. Furthermore, the fact that the titles on the staff do not match those appearing on the sarcophagus and canopic box, and vice versa, casts serious doubt upon the equation of these two individuals, especially in light of the fact that we can never be certain whether or not the objects were indeed found together. As a result of these fatal flaws, it seems prudent to separate the sarcophagi and canopic boxes of Khonsu and Senebini from the reign of Sewahenre in the very late Thirteenth Dynasty. On the other hand, since the Royal Ornament, Khonsu appears on the Priest of Amun, Senebef’s Karnak Stela (JE37507), understanding Khonsu and her husband Senebini as part of Nekheteni’s family is much more plausible. Indeed, the sarcophagi of Khonsu and Senebini are both inscribed with the series of Coffin Texts (CT) Spells 777–785, which is otherwise only attested in the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty.95 In light of this new evidence, we can re-date the sarcophagi to the middle of the Thirteenth Dynasty, contemporary with the reigns of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV, and the family of Dedtu and Ibiau. The pBoulaq 18 dating of Dedtu’s son Neferhotep to the period directly preceding Sobekhotep III places the entire family solidly within the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty. If we posit that Dedtu’s son Neferhotep was somewhere in his mid-twenties when he appeared in pBoulaq 18, then he was theoretically born   Berlev, “Contemporary,” 107.   Berlev, “Contemporary,” 109, reads this title as “iry-xi niswt.” 89  Lacau, CG 28001-28126, pl. 15. 90   G. Darressy, “Notes et Remarques,” RecTrav 14 (1892), 34. See also Berlev, “Contemporary,” 108. 91   Berlev, “Contemporary,” 108, and pl. 27. 92   Berlev, “Contemporary,” 108. He states that this variant appears only once on the box, while the other appears four times. 93   Berlev, “Contemporary,” pl. 28. 94   Berlev, “Contemporary,” 108–9. 95   Of the eight known sources of this spell group, two can now be linked with the family of the Priest of Amun, Senebef. The only known royal source derives from the sarcophagus of Sobekhotep N, who was buried at South Abydos, probably in tomb S10. For a fuller discussion, see Wegner and Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment,” 149–56. See also Grajetzki, Zemathor, 68–87. Grajetzki’s Aby5, which he ascribes to a woman named Zemathor, in actuality belonged to a unnamed woman who holds the title of Zemat-Hor. This very rare title is also held by Nekheteni and Khonsu’s mother, Sobekhotep, and it is possible that the coffin Aby5 belonged to her. This would mean that three of the seven nonroyal attestations of the CT Spell 777–785 series belonged to the same family. 87

88

112

JARCE 51 (2015)

around the reign of Sobekhotep II. Working backwards from this point, Neferhotep’s father Dedtu, and his contemporary the Priest of Amun, Senebef, could also have been between twenty and thirty under Sobekhotep II. Therefore, these two men may have been born in the early phase of the Thirteenth Dynasty, and probably died sometime around the reign of Neferhotep I. Dedtu’s sons Neferhotep and Ibiau would have lived at least into the reign of Sobekhotep IV, if not slightly after. Having examined the dating correspondences for Dedtu and his family, we will now move away from the specific decoration upon the reused blocks, and proceed to investigate the architectural forms of which the spolia may have originally been a part. §5 Tomb Chapel or Mahat? Coming from Abydos, one of the fundamental questions that these reused blocks poses is from what kind of building they derive: a tomb chapel or a maHa.t (mahat)? 96 Alongside this question are the related issues of where these buildings were located, and how many monuments the corpus represents? Tomb chapels and mahats were both designed to commemorate the dead, and as a result, they can appear very similar in structure, decoration, and function. However, Simpson’s brief study of the maHa.tformula from Abydene stelae seems to indicate that the mahat actually served an important function, separate from that of a tomb chapel.97 As Nakhti states on his stela (CG20099), the reason for creating his mahat was “so that [I] may receive offerings in the presence of the great god, and that I may inhale incense....”98 In another case, Nebipusenwosret highlights the importance of actually seeing the god during his festival procession.99 Whereas both tomb chapels and mahats were designed to secure offerings for the deceased, the mahat was also a place where the soul of the dead could continue to take part in the earthly festival of the god Osiris.100 O’Connor’s excavations at North Abydos have shown that mahat structures were generally small, mud-brick buildings, with vaulted roofs, and a single small internal room meant to house commemorative stelae.101 Mahat stelae are rarely larger than 1 m in their longest dimension, and consequently the figures upon them are mainly small in scale.102 Unlike contemporary tomb chapels, most mahat buildings were not extensively decorated. Instead, they primarily served as protective buildings that housed either a single or a handful of small, inscribed stelae, set into their walls. Tomb chapels of the Middle Kingdom on the other hand, especially those belonging to members of the upper echelons of government, often took the form of multi-roomed rock-cut chambers, or freestanding mastabas with cruciform interior rooms.103 The walls inside these chapels were sometimes lined with large limestone blocks, which were extensively decorated with large-scale scenes depicting the deceased and his family, as well as production activities and offering scenes. Returning to the CS.9 reused blocks, a number of important points favor interpreting the buildings as tomb chapels, rather than mahat structures. Firstly, the continuous scene upon blocks R2, R6, and R5 has a border on both left and right edges, indicating that it represents an entire wall inside the structure (fig. 14). This wall measured 1.76 m wide, and the preserved portion of the scene was 0.33 m tall. Since the scene is symmetrical, an image of the deceased probably once existed either above or below the 96   Mahats are sometimes called “cenotaphs,” but this name is entirely unsuitable for referring to these buildings. For the structures at Abydos, see D. O’Connor, “The ‘Cenotaphs’ of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos,” FsMokhtar II, 161–77; and Simpson, Terrace. 97  Simpson, Terrace, 10–13. 98  Simpson, Terrace, 10–11 (Simpson’s translation). 99  Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III at Abydos, (New Haven-Philadelphia, 2007), 395–98. 100   In PT 1487a, the mahat (ahat) is specifically linked with the god Osiris and the protection of his body. 101   O’Connor, “Cenotaphs,” and more recently O’Connor, Abydos, 92–96. 102  Simpson, Terrace, 17ff. The stelae cluster around half a meter in their largest dimension. 103   Such as the mastabas of Anpy at Lahun, Djehuty at Lisht (both discussed below), and the rock-cut tombs of the nomarchs at Beni Hasan, to name but a few.



CAHAIL 113

Fig. 14. Plans of two possible mastaba chapel layouts incorporating the Abydene reused blocks. Block R1 belongs at the entrance, with its large blank surface in the doorway. The decoration on its short side begins the relief program inside either a cruciform or square chapel. The series of blocks R2, R6, and R5, which make up a continuous scene, were probably situated on one of the side walls of the chapel. Undecorated block R10 may have lined the portico of the cruciform style mastaba, or in theory may have been part of cladding on the exterior of the square-chambered mastaba.

preserved portion, indicating that the wall was much taller than the preserved area. This scene would have been far too large to fit inside any known mahat, and consequently it is more likely that these three blocks come from a tomb chapel. Secondly, block R1 preserves an original corner, with a large blank face, and a shorter decorated edge. There is one half of a butterfly tenon facing away from the large finished face of the block, indicating that the stone originally connected with another, which continued the decorated scene to the left (fig. 14). The kneeling figures on R1’s decorated surface face left, and given that attendants of this type normally face into the tomb chapel or mahat, toward the image of the deceased at the back, the most likely location for this block is at the entrance to the chapel (fig. 14).104 No known mahat had interior lining slabs which were as thick as this block, again pointing to a tomb chapel as their likely origin. Finally, the undecorated block R10 measured 1 m wide, with butterfly tenons at both ends parallel to the main smoothed surface. Like R1, this block was clearly a lining stone. While it may have been placed above or below the decorated sections, there are good comparanda which indicate that it could have lined part of an undecorated columned portico.105 Excavations near the tomb of Senebkay have uncovered portions of fragmentary, roughly carved limestone columns, perhaps also deriving from such a portico. Columns and external cladding are not normal features of Abydene mahat structures, but they do appear regularly in contemporary tomb chapel layouts. Based upon these indications, the tomb-chapel form is more likely than a mahat. Consequently, two architectural reconstructions are plausible, both representing large square mastabas with internal   For instance on ANOC 52 and ANOC 57, all the attendants and figures face the images of the deceased.   The columned portico of Djehuty’s tomb at Lisht was lined with identical limestone blocks, connected to one another with butterfly tenons in the same fashion, for which, see below. 104 105

114

JARCE 51 (2015)

chambers. The first reconstruction follows the cruciform layout of slightly earlier Twelfth Dynasty tomb chapels, discussed in greater detail below (fig. 14, left). The second mastaba reconstruction possesses a square internal room (fig. 14, right). In the latter layout, block R10 would seemingly only fit as the exterior cladding to the mastaba, whereas in the cruciform structure, it serves as part of the portico lining.106 Limestone lining slabs from two slightly earlier cruciform tomb chapels at the sites of Lahun and Lisht have striking similarities to the reused blocks from South Abydos. The first of these, the tomb of the Royal Architect,107 Anpy, at Lahun, possessed both a large mud-brick mastaba, as well as an associated funerary chapel carved into the side of the hill below (fig. 15).108 Anpy’s chapel measured roughly 7.3 m wide, and 8 m deep from the front of its columned portico to its back wall.109 The floor and walls were lined in slabs of fine white limestone, which were then carved and painted with both textual and figural decoration. Though later robbers almost totally destroyed the chapel’s decoration, Petrie and his team recovered small fragments of the smashed lining blocks.110 As with the wall decoration in the tombs at Beni-Hasan, Meir, and the CS.9 spolia, that of the Lahun blocks contains textual and figural references to the deceased receiving offerings, images of kneeling attendants, and at least one fragment bearing an image of an ox, possibly engaged in plowing.111 Middle Kingdom tombs at Lisht also included above-ground, stone-lined, decorated chapels.112 Though excavators discovered the chapels of the pyramid cemetery in various state of destruction and decay,113 one chapel belonging to a Hall Keeper (jr.j-a.t) named Djehuty was preserved well enough that a reconstruction of its architecture is possible (fig. 16).114 Di. Arnold surmised that the chapel dates to the reign of Amenemhat II or later.115 The decorated chapel above Djehuty’s tomb measured 14.2 m north–south, and 12.8 m east–west, with a cruciform interior room, fronted by a columned portico (fig. 16).116 Limestone slabs connected with butterfly tenons lined the interior walls of the chapel, and though they were mainly smashed into tiny fragments, excavators could identify scenes of offering bearers, standing female figures, and inscriptions relating to the deceased.117 Originally, a false door stood at the back of the chapel, inside its own niche, with the shaft running down to Djehuty’s burial in the floor to the north. Contemporary mastaba structures at North Abydos, belonging to members of similar societal rank to Djehuty, were of both truncated cruciform, and square chamber layouts. In a section of the North Cemetery which he called Cemetery S, Peet discovered the remains of numerous late Middle Kingdom 106   Since the block was set in the wall of the CS.9 burial chamber, it was impossible to ascertain whether its top and bottom edges were beveled, to give the mastaba cladding a traditional batter. The block was also not appreciably weathered or eroded, possibly leading to the conclusion that the cruciform chapel layout is more plausible for block R10. 107   Anpy’s impressive string of titles reads: jr.j-pa.t, HA.tj-a, xtm.tj-bj.tj, smr-wa.tj, mdw-rx.jt, jwn-sDm.t-dSr.t, Hm-nTr-MAa.t, jm.j-r-kA.tnb.t-n.t-nswt-m-tA-Dr=f, jm.j-r-arr.wt. See Petrie, Brunton and Murray, Lahun II, pl. 29. 108   Petrie, Brunton and Murray, Lahun II, 26. 109   Petrie, Brunton and Murray, Lahun II, pl. 27. By comparison, Mastaba L at North Abydos measured 3.5 m × 3.2 m in external dimensions, Peet, Cemeteries II, 39; and below. 110   Petrie, Brunton and Murray, Lahun II , 26–27, and pls. 28–31. Most of the fragments came from the large shaft fronting the chapel structure. The purpose of this shaft eluded its excavators, and is still somewhat unclear. Petrie himself believed it was meant to limit access to the chapel, which is possible, but seems unlikely, especially given the second smaller shaft within the north side-chamber. 111   Petrie, Brunton and Murray, Lahun II, pls. 30–31. 112  Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture. 113  Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture, e.g., 18, 40, 59. As a result of this destruction, reconstruction of complete relief decoration programs is speculative. 114  Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture, 52–54, fig. 12, pls. 93, 95–100. 115  Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture, 52. Arnold only relates the relative dating of the tombs, and does not actually name Amenemhat II, though this conclusion is based upon the logic of his argument. This structure is, therefore, earlier than those at South Abydos, but based upon the similarities of the lining blocks, they are probably fairly comparable. The name Senwosret appears in the tomb’s decoration, enclosed in a cartouche, but may refer to Senwosret I, II, or perhaps even III. 116  Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture, 53. 117  Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture, 53–54, pls. 98–99.

Fig. 15. Detail of the Chapel of Anpy at Lahun (L.620) (after Petrie, Brunton and Murray, Lahun II, 26). The heavy black lines represent the location of the original decorated limestone lining slabs.

Fig. 16. Elevation and plan of the tomb chapel of Djehuty at Lisht (after Arnold, Middle Kingdom Tomb Architecture, 53).

116

JARCE 51 (2015)

Fig. 17. Plan of Peet Cemetery S, Mastabas A, B, and C. The rear portion of Mastaba B was used in the construction of the courtyard of Mastaba A (after Peet, Cemeteries II, 30–47).

mastabas.118 The largest of these structures, Mastabas A and C, represent smaller versions of the Anpy and Djehuty tomb plans (fig. 17). Both structures contain small courtyards, giving access to a narrow doorway that leads into a transverse chamber. The offering stela is situated on the local west wall (magnetic southwest), like the tomb of Djehuty, but the Abydene mastabas lack the deep recess seen in both the tombs of Anpy and Djehuty. Three burial shafts to the local south are connected with Mastaba C, with their chambers extending to the local north, directly underneath the commemorative chapel. The chamber inside Mastaba A measured 1.65 m wide by 1.2 m deep, while that of Mastaba C was of similar depth, but wider.119 Neither structure contained stone lining or cladding blocks. Smaller mastabas within this cemetery were simple square mud-brick buildings, which had small square or rectangular internal chambers, but lacked a front courtyard or portico feature. One exemplary structure, Mastaba L, had an internal chamber measuring 1.42 m wide by 0.8 m deep, with three burial shafts to the local south (fig. 18). Like Mastabas A and C, none of these structures retained stone lining, or cladding. As Peet outlines, Mastaba C was built against the exterior face of Mastaba A, which protected the latter’s original external mud plaster.120 Given the shape of the CS.9 blocks, and the comparanda from Lisht, Lahun, and North Abydos, the South Abydos spolia most likely derive from large mastaba structures that probably had decorated cruciform chapels. These buildings follow a northern tomb model, consisting of a mud-brick mastaba, lined in limestone slabs which were bound together with wooden butterfly tenons. The large scale of the decoration upon the CS.9 spolia, as well as its theme of food production and offering, argues in favor of the buildings being tomb chapels, as opposed to mahat structures. In terms of the number of buildings the reused blocks represent, the decorated fragments include the names and images of three tomb owners: Senebef (R4), Ibiau (R7), and Dedtu (R8). Based solely on this information, the blocks derive from a minimum of three different tomb chapels. If the burial shafts associated with the chapels also contained the interments of Dedtu and Ibiau’s wives, Abet and Nekheteni, then the number of individuals associated with these structures increases to at least five, and possibly six if we posit the existence of a wife belonging with Senebef. Assuming that the other relations depicted in the scenes eventually also chose Abydos as their place of burial, the reused blocks represent  Peet, Cemeteries II, 30–47.  Peet, Cemeteries II, 37–38. Peet does not give the internal dimensions of Mastaba C, but quotes the external dimensions as “600 × 495 cm.” 120  Peet, Cemeteries II, 38. In other words, Mastaba A was never clad in stone. 118 119



CAHAIL 117 Fig. 18. Plan and elevation of Peet Cemetery S, Mastaba L (after Peet, Cemeteries II, 38).

the potential for a sizeable number of well-appointed tombs.121 Yet the question remains, where were these tombs situated? §6 North or South Abydos? Accepting the conclusion that the reused blocks derive from funerary chapels associated with actual burial places, we now turn to examine whether they were situated at South or North Abydos. One possibility is that a small court cemetery was once associated with the Thirteenth Dynasty royal tombs S9 and S10 at South Abydos.122 At least two of the men depicted on the reused blocks (Dedtu, and Senebef) held very high positions within the government, linking them closely with the royal house.123 During the Twelfth Dynasty, high officials like Anpy placed their tombs close to the much larger sepulchers of their kings, in order to link their cults with those of their royal patron. Yet, the instability of Thirteenth Dynasty kingship seems, in part, to have led to the abandonment of the court-cemetery model. Nevertheless, during the course of excavation in and around tomb S10, we uncovered the remnants of an enclosure wall, situated to the northeast of S10, and west of S9.124 Currently, this area contains a number of tombs belonging to kings of the Abydos Dynasty, yet the wall itself seems to predate these tombs. While it is theoretically possible that this enclosure wall once contained mastabas belonging to

121   At least twenty-three individuals appear upon these blocks who are not engaged in any activity or craft. The text on block R1 indicates that one of these kneeling individuals is the son of the deceased. However, Nekheteni’s sister, the Royal Ornament, Khonsu, was purportedly buried with her husband at Thebes, rather than Abydos. 122   See Wegner and Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment,” 137. 123   As Overseer of Fields, Dedtu was directly subordinate to the Vizier. Dedtu’s first wife, Hatshepsut, was also connected to royalty as indicated by her title jr.jt-pa.t. Senebef’s position as high priest of Amun made him second to the king, which may also be reflected in the single title jr.j-pa.t of block R4. 124   See Wegner and Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment,” 135, fig. 8.

118

JARCE 51 (2015)

Dedtu and other Thirteenth Dynasty high officials, the construction of the later Abydos Dynasty tombs would have wiped away all traces of them.125 On the other hand, certain tombs at North Abydos may hold the keys to unlocking the original location of the CS.9 spolia. A sizeable body of evidence indicates that the area known primarily as Mace Cemetery D, within the North Cemetery, once held the tombs of a number of Thirteenth Dynasty high officials. The burials of a father and son by the names Iyemiatuib and Khonsu serve to illustrate this point. During the excavation season of 1899–1900, Arthur Mace discovered a tomb, which he designated D62. His Cemetery D lies at the southeast end of the North Cemetery, on a rise overlooking the royal wadi. Tomb D62 contained an offering table, and an ebony offering tray, belonging to a Royal Sealer, Officer of the Ruler’s Crew, Iyemiatuib.126 A number of years later in virtually the same area of the North Cemetery, John Garstang discovered another limestone object naming the Royal Sealer, Leader of the Broad Hall, Khonsu, son of Iyemiatuib and the Royal Ornament, Id.127 The same Iyemiatuib also appears on a stela from el-Mahasna, now in Würzburg, which belonged to a relation of Queen Aya, who is named upon the document.128 This queen is the same woman mentioned in pBoulaq 18, who was married to one of the three kings preceding Sobekhotep III.129 From these sources we learn that both Iyemiatuib and his son Khonsu held the ranking title xtm.tj-bj.tj, Khonsu’s mother was a Royal Ornament, and that Iyemiatuib is contemporary with Dedtu’s son Neferhotep. These two tombs at North Abydos demonstrate that high-ranking members of the governmental bureaucracy, who lived at exactly the same time as Dedtu and his family, chose to be buried in one small area of the North Cemetery at Abydos. Other aspects of Senebkay’s tomb corroborate the idea that he targeted the North Cemetery when he harvested limestone blocks from earlier monuments. Within CS.9, we uncovered large fragments of a monumental Eleventh Dynasty stela.130 The preserved portions of this false-door shaped object measure some 1.2 m wide, and well over a meter tall, allowing Senebkay’s architects to use the stela as a roofing slab for CS.9. Since no mortuary or commemorative activity previous to the late Twelfth Dynasty has yet been discovered at South Abydos, and since the stela in question makes mention of the Neshmet bark and the region of por, it undoubtedly derives from North Abydos. Also contemporary with Senebkay, two additional shafts at North Abydos contained a set of related objects, which indicates that Thirteenth Dynasty tombs in the North Cemetery were the source of reused items. The first of these shafts, tomb D78, was also excavated by Mace. Though ransacked in antiquity, within the tomb was an apotropaion inscribed with the cartouche of the “Son of Re,131 Se[n]ebkay,”132 and a small stela belonging to a “Superintendent of the Ruler’s Crew, Sobekhotep,” and 125   Further excavation in the area near the tombs of the Abydos Dynasty may yield further evidence for earlier tombs of high officials, but as the situation stands currently, it seems unlikely that a large number of Thirteenth Dynasty nonroyal tombs once existed in this immediate area. 126   Randall-MacIver and Mace, El Amrah and Abydos, (London, 1902), 85, 100, pl. 34; and more recently S. D’Auria, P. Lacovara, and C. Roehrig, Mummies and Magic: The Funerary Arts of Ancient Egypt, (Boston-Dallas, 1988), 129-30. See also Franke, Personendaten, Doss. 23. 127   For this piece, see Grajetzki, Zemathor, 8–9, pl. 3, 9, and 10. Grajetzki calls it a stela, but it was composed of three pieces: two side runners, and a central slab with two holes at the top. We discovered a virtually identical set of uninscribed stones in the tomb of Senebkay, which were employed as a portcullis door blocking. Mace discovered identical door blocking within shaft tombs in his Cemetery D, for which see Randall-MacIver and Mace, El Amrah, 70, and pl. 15.3. Hence the Khonsu object is probably also a portcullis, and the CS.9 example may also be reused from a Thirteenth Dynasty tomb. 128   See Ryholt, Political Situation, 245. 129   Within tomb D41, Mace reported finding a “Fragment of paint-palette” with the cartouche of Sobekhotep III, thus corroborating Ryholt’s date of pBoulaq 18. See Randall-MacIver and Mace, El Amrah, 99. 130   This stela will be published separately at a later date. The orthography of the stela includes wA signs which exhibit a split tail, which appears during the First Intermediate period and Eleventh Dynasty. 131   Randall-MacIver and Mace, El Amrah, 69, 87, 92, and 100. Mace states that the apotropaion is made of ebony, but based upon a recent photograph of the piece, degraded bone or ivory are also possible. The piece is now in Cairo (CG9433 = JE34988). 132   The name is certainly to be read Senebkay, despite the fact that space did not allow for the inclusion of an n within the cartouche.



CAHAIL 119 Fig. 19. Stela discovered in Mace D78, belonging to the Superintendent of the Ruler’s Crew, Sobekhotep, and his wife, the Lady of the House, Neferuptah (UPM E9952).

his wife, the “Lady of the House, Neferuptah” (fig. 19).133 Though it is impossible to be absolutely certain whether or not the stela and apotropaion both belonged to this Sobekhotep, it seems quite possible given their close association within the same tomb. Roughly a decade after Mace’s excavations, T. Eric Peet began excavating a group of tombs lying partially within the exact same area covered by Mace Cemetery D. Peet called the area Cemetery X, and may have been unaware that Mace had already cleared some of these burials (fig. 20). Within the upper portion of a disturbed shaft, designated tomb X3, Peet found the decayed remains of a rectangular wooden sarcophagus.134 Decorated with CT Spells 777–785, the sarcophagus originally belonged to the Royal Ornament (?),135 Nefretnetresi.136 The funerary texts date the sarcophagus to the mid-Thirteenth 133   Randall-MacIver and Mace, El Amrah, 69, 87, 92, 100, and pl. 43. The stela is now in the Penn Museum (UPM E9952). For one possible interpretation of a small group of Abydene stelae with ankhs pierced through them, see J. Hill, “Window between Worlds: The Ankh as a Dominant Theme in Five Middle Kingdom Mortuary Monuments,” in J. Houser Wegner and Z. Hawass, eds., Millions of Jubilees: Studies in Honor of David P. Silverman, (Cairo, 2011), 227–46. Hill includes this piece in her study, but dismisses its context within a tomb, instead reconstructing the objects as being part of a mahat structure. The fact that the piece was found in such close proximity to the same man’s sarcophagus argues against it having derived from the votive zone, on the other side of the North Cemetery. 134  Peet, The Cemeteries of Abydos II, 61, pl. 36. See also now Grajetzki, Zemathor, 42. Being that the sarcophagus fragments come from the upper part of the shaft, they probably originated in another nearby tomb, perhaps Mace D78. 135   The orthography of the title is unusual. It begins with a tall straight sign which may represent Xkr.t, followed by a reversed sw sign, and an n above a t for nswt. Accidental reversal resulting from a scribe copying from a hieratic original is possible here. 136  Peet, Cemeteries II, 61, was unable to read the name, indicating only that it ended in “...iri.” The name is also unknown to Ranke, though he does include the feminine name Nefretresi, which may be related. See Ranke, PN II, 299.16. It is not clear why

120

JARCE 51 (2015)

Dynasty,137 and its position near Mace Cemetery D link it with the tombs of other high officials such as Iyemiatuib and Khonsu. At some point after her burial, Nefretnetresi’s sarcophagus was usurped, and the Superintendent of the Ruler’s Crew, Sobekhotep,138 had his name written over hers in ink (fig. 21). Since Peet found the sarcophagus fragments within the top of a tomb shaft, they almost certainly derive from another tomb in the immediate area, perhaps even Mace D78. Since the names and titles on the sarcophagus match that on the stela of Sobekhotep, and given that both objects derive from virtually the same small area of the North Cemetery, the stela and usurped sarcophagus almost certainly both belong to the same Sobekhotep. It is also quite possible that he owned the Senebkay apotropaion, itself possibly usurped from an earlier burial.139 A number of elements place this Sobekhotep within the Second Intermediate period. First, the crude nature of Sobekhotep’s stela belongs stylistically to the very late Thirteenth Dynasty or later.140 Second, upon Sobekhotep’s usurped sarcophagus, the scribe employed an incomplete quail chick, in accordance with the Thirteenth Fig. 20. Sketch map of the North Cemetery showing the overlapDynasty and Second Intermediate period writping positions of Mace Cemetery D and Peet Cemetery X. This 141 is the area in which the Sobekhotep stela and sarcophagus were ing practice. The inscription of the original sarcophagus is also in the incomplete hieroglyph found. script, indicating that the temporal separation between Nefretnetresi and Sobekhotep is not terribly long. Thirdly, pottery discovered in both Mace D78 and Peet X3 conforms to a Second Intermediate period date, and as Grajetzki states in regard to tomb X3, “pottery of the tomb is best comparable with vessels from Thebes dating to the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Dynasty.”142 Finally, the existence of the apotropaion inscribed with the name of Senebkay alongside the stela of Sobekhotep helps corroborate that the two men were contemporaries. These two tombs, Mace D78 and Peet X3, provide a second example of an individual contemporary with Senebkay targeting tombs in the North Cemetery as sources of raw materials. Sobekhotep’s usurpation of Nefretnetresi’s sarcophagus represents a model of reuse which we can apply to Senebkay’s the masculine form of mAa-xrw was employed on the sarcophagus, but the same gender alteration also occurs on contemporary stelae from North Abydos. 137   For further discussion, see Wegner and Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment,” 149–56. 138   On the front of the sarcophagus, Sobekhotep is spelled with the Sobek crocodile (sign I5), while on the back it is rendered phonetically s-b-k-Htp. 139   The inscription upon the apotropaion is unorthodox in that the first and third columns are carved in sunk relief, while the central column is in raised relief. The inscription may either be recarved, or may simply have been carved in a blank area of the apotropaion at a later date. 140  Mace, El Amrah, 87, dated the stela and the tomb to the period between the Thirteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties. 141   G. Miniaci, “The Incomplete Hieroglyphs System at the End of the Middle Kingdom,” RdE 61 (2010), 113–34. This is the same scribe who spelled Sobekhotep’s name phonetically, avoiding the Sobek crocodile hieroglyph. 142  Grajetzki, Zemathor, 42. See Randall-MacIver and Mace, El Arabah, pl. 54 for the pottery assemblage from tomb D78.



CAHAIL 121

Fig. 21. Two examples of Sobekhotep’s name written over that of Nefretnetresi upon the sarcophagus fragments from Peet X3. Letter A denotes the original inscriptions, B the composites, and C the isolated hieratic inscriptions of Sobekhotep. The text on the right has been reconstructed with dotted lines, based upon other examples on the sarcophagus.

reuse of tomb chapel blocks belonging to Dedtu and his family. The objects derive from the same location in the North Cemetery, and the reuse took place at the same time. Hence, the conclusion that the tombs of Dedtu and his family were originally situated in the area of Mace Cemetery D and Peet Cemetery X in the North Cemetery, is more tenable than positing the existence of a court-cemetery at South Abydos. A short time after Dedtu, Ibiau, and Senebef’s tombs were constructed, and their bodies laid to rest within them, the burials were reopened by contemporaries of Senebkay and the Abydos Dynasty. Not only were sarcophagi and other tomb goods appropriated for reuse, but elements of the tomb superstructures were removed, and perhaps even the tomb shafts themselves were altered to suit the funerary needs of the local Abydene population. §7 Conclusions The reused blocks from the tomb of Woseribre Senebkay hold important information on post-Twelfth Dynasty Abydene history. They shed new light on a large family of high officials who lived during the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty, instructing us that the Overseer of Fields, Dedtu, gained higher ranking titles late in life, and remarried a woman named Abet, presumably after the death of his first wife Hatshepsut. His son Ibiau was connected to the Sole Royal Ornament Nekheteni, herself the daughter of the Priest of Amun, Senebef. Furthermore, Nekheteni’s sister Khonsu was buried in a sarcophagus inscribed with a rare group of texts (CT Spells 777–785), examples of which have been discovered only at Abydos and Thebes. While the governmental roles of these officials kept them at Thebes, a number of them opted for burial at Abydos. The existence of the spolia at South Abydos intimates the possibility that a mid-Thirteenth Dynasty cemetery for high governmental officials once existed at North Abydos. This area, delimited to the south by the boundary stela of Neferhotep I, sat upon a rise in the landscape which afforded the tombs a view of the yearly Osiris procession as it made its way out to Umm el-Gaab. It may be that the North Cemetery of Abydos replaced the traditional court-cemeteries near the tombs of monarchs. Within the Thirteenth Dynasty, composed of numerous short-reigning kings, the ancient cult of the archetypal god-pharaoh Osiris would have seemed eternally stable. Ongoing Thirteenth Dynasty activity at the site—from Khendjer’s installation of a basalt statue into the mahat of Osiris at Umm el-Gaab, to the two

122

JARCE 51 (2015)

royal tombs S9 and S10 at South Abydos, to Neferhotep I’s restoration of the boundaries of the North Cemetery, to Sobekhotep IV’s work on the Osiris temple—demonstrates that in terms of burial, kings and officials alike may have preferred Abydos to Thebes or even the Memphite area during this period. In accordance with this preference, Dedtu, his family, and other high-ranking officials, chose to be buried in the shadow of the Osiris cult at North Abydos. A handful of years after Dedtu’s death, the Abydene Pharaoh Senebkay and his contemporaries seem to have sourced their funerary goods and architecture from the tombs of the families of these high-ranking, mid-Thirteenth Dynasty officials.143 The Superintendent of the Ruler’s Crew, Sobekhotep, usurped a mid-Thirteenth Dynasty sarcophagus which had once belonged to the Royal Ornament (?), Nefretnetresi. Senebkay himself seems to have dismantled portions of three mid-Thirteenth Dynasty tombs, belonging to Dedtu, his son Ibiau, and another man named Senebef who may have been the Priest of Amun at Thebes. Senebkay’s builders also removed an earlier Eleventh Dynasty stela from its original location somewhere at North Abydos. Finally, Senebkay ransacked tomb S10, belonging to a king named Sobekhotep (N). Among other things, he recycled his cedar sarcophagus to build his own canopic box.144 The Second Intermediate period pattern of usurpation and reuse at Abydos, seemingly common to both royal and non-royal levels of society, may reflect the dire economic situation in which the Abydos Dynasty found itself after the fall of centralized, Thirteenth Dynasty authority. Competing against the Theban rump state to the south, and the fledgling Hyksos Dynasty in the north, Abydos was isolated from many natural resources, such as good quality limestone and cedar. Plundering the recently created tombs of the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty may have solved a number of economic problems for kings like Senebkay. The tomb structures themselves could be repurposed as raw materials for new buildings. Luxury items and gold buried in the tombs of high officials and kings, may have filled the royal coffers of the Abydos Dynasty, albeit temporarily. Finally, other funerary items with less intrinsic value could be simply recycled by new owners at a lower cost than having to obtain new materials and objects. Given the political situation of the Second Intermediate period, tombs of Thirteenth Dynasty high officials would have been the most attractive source of these goods. Not only did they doubtless retain a fair amount of their wealth, but the families of these individuals were almost certainly not local to Abydos. Though it is still not entirely clear when, or even if the royal residence moved south to Thebes, Abydos’ importance was in the funerary, rather than political realm. Individuals like Senebef, Montu, Dedtu, Ibiau, and Neferhotep must all have resided in or near Thebes, since their titles were tied up with the central government and the Amun temple. In effect, without family to maintain the cults of Dedtu and his relations, these tombs would have been a highly attractive source of wealth for an impoverished population. Excavations at South Abydos are still ongoing. We are optimistic that future work will uncover more evidence, not only of these and other Thirteenth Dynasty officials, but also the identities of the two kings buried in S9 and S10. For now, these scraps of evidence have opened a new chapter in the history of the site of Abydos, and have offered a glimpse at the ways in which high officials of the Thirteenth Dynasty dealt with funerary commemoration and burial. Egyptian Section, University of Pennsylvania Museum

143   Reused block R4 displays the possibility that the memories of certain tomb owners were purposely attacked. Senebef’s image was almost totally chiseled out of the stone, while the images of his son, and the small child at his feet were not. This would seem to indicate that Senebef was the target of attack in the form of a damnatio memoriae, perhaps leading to the ultimate destruction of his entire tomb. See also the concluding remarks in Wegner and Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment,” 162–63. 144   See Wegner and Cahail, “Royal Funerary Equipment,” 149–54.