A Phantom Debate

From Illahun to Djeme Papers Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft Edited by Eszter Bechtold András Gulyás Andrea Hasznos BAR International Series 2311 2011 Published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England bar@archaeopress.com www.archaeopress.com BAR S2311 From Illahun to Djeme. Papers Presented in Honour of Ulrich Luft © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011 ISBN 978 1 4073 0894 4 Printed in England by Infomation Press, Oxford All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England www.hadrianbooks.co.uk The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com A Phantom Debate ? Edward Brovarski years 2 and 20 of Djehutynakht IV were not consecutive, but clearly show a change of rulers. I first met Ulrich Luft in 1974 in the course of a visit (in the company of David Silverman) to the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection in East Berlin. Ulrich kindly invited us home for dinner. The dinner with Ulrich and his room mates was so animated that it was 1:00 AM in the morning before any of us realized that David’s and my visas had expired two hours before. What ensued was a frenetic automobile race through the curfew darkened streets of East Berlin. We dreaded what might occur when we were dropped off at Checkpoint Charlie. In fact, we were passed right through. Nevertheless, it was a memorable evening. Gestermann assigns the 13th and 20th years of Ahanakht I and the 30th year of Ahanakht I or of his son Ahanakht II to the reign of Mentuhotep II. She believes Ahanakht II survived into the later years of Mentuhotep II, to be succeeded by his brother Djehutynakht IV in the reign of Mentuhotep III. She evidently does not think that Djehutynakht IV lived into the reign of Mentuhotep IV at the end of the Eleventh Dynasty and assigns no nomarch to his 8 year reign (Gestermann 2008, 9, Table 1). She then attributes the 4th-8th years of Nehri I and the 20th year of Djehutynakht V, son of Nehri I, to the reign of Amenemhat I (without deciding whether that king was coregent for 10 years with his son Amenemhat I) She assigns the 2nd year of Djehutynakht V to the reign of Senusert I (Gestermann 2008, 8-9, Table 2). Ulrich Luft’s many contributions to the chronology of the Middle Kingdom are well known. Of course, his interests are too wide-ranging to be restricted to that subject alone. Still, I am pleased to be able to offer the following study to a respected scholar and friend. In the 44 year reign of Senusert I, she places three nomarchs in addition to Djehutynakht V. These are Nehri II, nephew (?) of Djehutynakht V, around year 10 of Senusert I; Djehutynakht VI, son (?) of Nehri II,1 around that king’s year 18; and Amenemhat, son of Nehri II, around Senusert I’s year 38 (Gestermann 2008, Table 2). When I recently wrote an article entitled “The Hare and Oryx Nomes in the First Intermediate Period and Early Middle Kingdom” (Brovarski 2008, 31-85), I was unaware of an important study by Louise Gestermann, “Die Datierung der Nomarchen von Hermopolis aus dem frühen Mittleren Reich – eine Phantomdebatte?” (Gestermann 2008, 1-15). Gestermann questions the view customary since the publication of the Hatnub graffiti by Rudolf Anthes (1928) that the year dates given at the head of certain graffiti from Hatnub which belong to the nomarchs Ahanakt I, Nehri I, and Djehutynakht V actually appertain to the tenure in office of the nomarchs in question. She argues instead that the year dates refer to the reign of a king, even though this king is not mentioned by name. According to Gestermann, this new interpretation allows the nomarchs in question to be dated within the reigns from Mentuhotep II to Senusert I. In support of her thesis, Gestermann (2008, 7) argues that Nehri I in particular expresses his loyalty to the royal house in the graffiti ascribed to him and that this acceptance of kingly authority renders his dating to his own years in office rather than than those of the king he served unacceptable. I cannot agree with Gestermann’s point of view and think there is clear evidence from Beni Hasan in the neighboring Oryx nome that nomarchs indeed dated by their own years. The evidence consists of the heading of a biographical inscription on the southern jamb of the entrance to the tomb of the nomarch Amenemhat at that site and reads as follows: “Year 43 under the majesty of the Horus Ankh-mesut, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Kheperkare, living forever, the Two Ladies Ankhmesut, the Horus of Gold Ankh-mesut, the Son of Re Senusert (I) living forever and ever corresponding to (xft) Year 25 in the Oryx nome as (m) the Hereditary Prince and Count, imA-a, Amen[emhat], justified” (Newberry 1893, pl. 8). The inscription provides clear testimony Gestermann observes that altogether 10 regnal years are preserved in the Hatnub graffiti, which according to her are to be spread over the reigns of three rulers (Gestermann 2008, 8-9). Those years are as follows: the 13th (Gr. 12) and 20th year (Gr. 10) of a pharaoh under whom Ahanakht I served, the 30th year (Gr. 11) of the same king, either from the period of Ahanakht I or one of his sons, the 4th (Gr. 14/15), 5th (Gr. 16-19), 6th (Gr. 20-21), 7th (Gr. 22-25) and the 8th year (Gr. 26-28) of a ruler, under whom Nehri I was active, and finally a 20th (Gr. 32) and a 2nd year (Gr. 31) of Djehutynakht IV, son of Nehri I. Gesterman believes that 1 I am not clear why Gestermann questions that Djehutynakht VI was a son of Nehri II, since he names his father Nehri and his mother Sat[hedjet]-hetep in Tomb 1 (Griffith and Newberry, 1894, pls. 7, 8). The nomarch Amenemhat has the same parents in Hatnub Gr. 49. 25 From Illahun to Djeme. PaPers PresenteD In honour oF ulrIch luFt that the procedure of dating by nomarchs’ years was still in practice as late as Year 43 of Senusert I. Following Gestermann’s reconstruction of events, Djehutynakht V is the last nomarch to exclude mention of a king in the 20th year of Amenemhat I (Gr. 32). In contrast the nomarch Amenemhat definitely dates a graffiti to the 31st year of Senusert I (Gr. 49). is the occurrence of the epithet aA n niwt.f in Ahanakht’s tomb (Griffith and Newberry 1895, pl. 17 [top]) and in the stele of Rudj-ahau, which dates to the middle reign of Mentuhotep II, when he still bore the Horus name NTryHDt (Faulkner 1951, 47-52, pl. 7; Brovarski 1981, 28, n. 124; Brovarski 1989, 1041 [u]). Willems (1983-1984, 90) argues that the phrase is too rare to allow any chronological conclusions. Nevertheless, until, and if, later examples of the epithet are found, it points to a date prior to the unification for Ahanakht I. The other phrases cited by me point in the same direction (Brovarski 2008, 40-41). In my recent article and an earlier article entitled “Ahanakht of Bersheh and the Hare Nome in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom,” I endeavored to show that in terms of the palaeography, phraseology, and iconography of their tombs and inscriptions the associations of Ahanakht I and Nehri I are with the Heracleopolitan Period and the Eleventh Dynasty and not with Dynasty 12 (Brovarski 1981, 14-30). Particularly important in this regard is the spelling of the toponymn +dw as Archaeological evidence also argues for a pre-Dynasty 12 date for Ahanakht I and Nehri I. For example, the coffin of Ahanakht I (or II) (Philadelphia E. 16217a, b-E.16218a, b) and that of Djehutynakht IV (or V) (MFA 20.1822-27) belong to the earlier tradition of coffin making at Bersheh, in which each exterior side of the coffin bears a wide horizontal band of inscription and on the east side a pair of wedjat-eyes. The earliest of the Dynasty 12 coffins from Bersheh, those of Djehutynakht VI (CG 28123/28125), son of Nehri II, and his brother Amenemhat (CG 28091/28092) are different in appearance. Both bear a horizontal band of text on each side with three vertical lines of columns on the long sides, while the ends have a single vertical column in addition to the horizontal band. The wedjat-eyes also appear opposite the face of the deceased on the front of the coffin (Brovarski 1981, Fig. 13). and the arrangement of prt-xrw nt as in the tombs of Ahanakht I and Nehri I (Griffith and Newberry 1895, pls. 11, 15, 17). Both features are typical of Bersheh in the Heracleopolitan Period and Dynasty 11. Subsequently, Harco Willems (1983-1984, 88) found the criteria “inadequate.” He pointed out that Bennett (1941, 78 [4]) established long ago that the spelling of Djedu was usual until the time of Senusert III. Be that as it may, at Bersheh is typical of the Twelfth itself the writing Dynasty until the reign of Senusert III, occurring as it does in the coffins of Djehutynakht VI, of his brother Amenemhat, and of Djehutyhotep II, a contemporary of that king (Brovarski 1981, 38, n. 48). Willems also stated that it is uncertain that the formula prt-xrw nt can only point to a date prior to the Twelfth Dynasty and stated that it still occurs in the the tombs of Baqet III and Khety I at Beni Hasan (which he considers to belong to the Twelfth Dynasty) and on two others monuments from the same dynasty both in Cairo, a stele, CG 20480, and a coffin, CG 28097. It fact, it was never my intent to say that the formula prt-xrw can only point to a date prior to the Twelfth Dynasty. The observation I was making concerned the specific writing under discussion here, not the wider use of the formula prt xrw nt. In my recent article, I At Hatnub, both Ahanakht I and Nehri I assume royal epithets, like anx wDA snb, sA (anx) HA.f, and anx Dt (r nHH) (Anthes 1928, 85-86; Blumenthal 1976, 37ff.). It is unlikely that the practice would have survived the establishment of Dynasty 12 (Anthes 1928, 85-86; Blumenthal 1976, 37ff.). Certainly, none of the known Bersheh nomarchs of Dynasty 12 did so. If Ahanakht I and Nehri I both antedate the Twelfth Dynasty, it is necessary to be more precise about chronological positions. In my recent article (Brovarski 2008, 67-68) I made Ahanakht I a contemporary of Wahankh II or of Nakhtnebtepnefer Intef III, at a point in time when the Thebans had not yet expanded beyond the Head of the South, and Nehri I a contemporary of the later reign of Mentuhotep II and the final Theban initiative to conquer the north. Gestermann (2008, 10), on the other hand, assigned Ahanakht I (and his son Ahanakht II) to the long reign of Mentuhotep II. showed that no instances of the arrangement appear on monuments that clearly date to Dynasty 12 (Brovarski 2008, 39). It may also be noted that the arrangement of is common at Heracleopolis in Dynasty 10 or in late Dynasty 11 and is met with at Thebes in the reign of Nebhepetre Mentuhotep (Brovarski 1981, 25, nn. 76-78; Brovarski 2009, 394). Her sources for the dating are two. The first is Willems (1983-1984, 102, n. 153) who proposed a date for Ahanakht I in the last three decades of the Eleventh Dynasty. I believe I have countered Willem’s arguments to this end in my recent article (Brovarski 2008). Gestermann’s other source was Rita Freed (1992, 53-59) who argued on stylistic grounds that Ahanakht’s tomb is a product of the period immediately following the reunification, that is, late in the reign of Mentuhotep II. Freed’s argumentation is as follows. In the inner chamber of Ahanakht’s tomb, elongated figures with high, narrow waists, short upper It seems to me that these observations are important. There are, however, other indications that Ahanakht I and Nehri I antedate the Twelfth Dynasty, even if they are not so decisive as these. The phraseology of Ahanakht’s tomb inscriptions also associate the nomarch with the First Intermediate Period and pre-reunification Dynasty 11. Important in this regard 26 eDwarD BrovarskI : a Phantom DeBate ? FIg. 1 FIg. 2 27 From Illahun to Djeme. PaPers PresenteD In honour oF ulrIch luFt bodies and small heads resemble what appears particularly in Upper Egypt prior to the reunification (Griffith and Newberry 1895, pls. 14, 17; Brovarski 1981, fig. 6). In contrast, the minor figures in the outer chamber are consistent with the Old Kingdom canon (Griffith and Newberry 1895, pls. 15, 16). As with the minor figures, proportionally the large figures too are correct according to the Old Kingdom canon. Freed concluded from this that at least two artisans or groups of artisans worked on the tomb of Ahanakht. A “master” influenced by the North executed the scenes in the outer chamber and the large scale figures in both. A second artisan, who worked exclusively in the inner chamber was trained in the Theban school before the reunification. as the minor figures in the outer chamber) would thus be a member of this Heracleopolitan school. In actual fact, the so-called pre-unification style which features elongated figures with high, narrow waists, short upper bodies, and small heads is not confined to the Theban area. It occurs, for example, in a tomb at Sheikh Farag in the Thinite nome in the late Heracleopolitan Period. The tomb belongs to an overseer of the black cattle and scribe of divine offerings named Heni. Like the inner chamber of Ahanakht’s tomb, the tall, slim figures in SF 5015 (Figs. 1, 2) have rather small heads and bodies too long from the feet to the waist.2 At the time Heni’s paintings were executed, the Thinite nome formed part of the Heracleopolitan realm.3 For that matter, such figures also appear in tombs at Beni Hasan, including tombs which I have dated to Dynasty 10 and late Dynasty 11 in my recent article. At Beni Hasan, as at Bersheh, they occur on the same wall as figures in the Old Kingdom canon (Newberry 1894, pls. 4, 5, 6 [Baqet III], 13, 15, 17 [Khety], 25 [Baqet II]).4 Another example of an Upper Egyptian vignette associated with pre-unification times is the image of jousting bulls which occurs three times in the inner chamber of Ahanakht’s tomb (Freed 1992, 53; Brovarski 1981, Fig. 8). This motif is found from late Dynasty 6 on from Deshasha to Aswan, but it never appears in the Old Kingdom cemeteries at Giza and Saqqara (Freed 1992, 53, n. 113). Freed also argued that a number of the vignettes chosen and the manner in which they are rendered likewise reflect contact with or knowledge of Upper Egyptian prereunification style and iconography. For example, on the eastern half of the south wall of the inner room are two milking scenes where one man holds the rear legs of a cow, as another man with one knee up and balancing a narrow-necked jar on the upraised knee milks the cow (Freed 1992, Fig. 42). According to her, this is the same manner in which the scene is rendered in the tombs and on the sarcophagi of Mentuhotep II’s minor queens. The milking scene on on the south wall of Ahanakht’s tomb is not rendered in quite the same manner in the tombs and sarcophagi of Mentuhotep’s minor queens. For example, the man holding the rear legs of the cow does not appear in the sarcophagi of Kawit and Kemzit, while a calf is tied to the front leg of its mother in both scenes (Naville 1907, pls. 20, 22). In the tomb of Kemzit the calf tied to its mother’s leg is absent but so too is the man holding the cow’s rear legs (Naville 1913, pl. 2). The differences between the scenes at Bersheh and Thebes render the influence of the latter on the former less compelling. As Freed has observed, the large scale figures of Ahanakht in both chambers are correct according to the Old Kingdom canon (Fig. 3). Freed thinks these figures were executed by a “master” influenced by the North in the period immediately following the reunification. But a large figure of Khety II in his tomb at Asyut is also proportionally correct according to the Old Kingdom canon (Fig. 4).5 Khety served the Heracleopolitan sovereign Merikare (Brunner 1937, 52, 55). This suggests that the Old Kingdom canon had been kept alive or revived by artists of the late Heracleopolitan Period (Dynasty 10). The “master” who executed the large scale figures (as well The milking scene has a long history and has yet to be studied in detail. Occasionally in the Old Kingdom a standing man holds a rope attached to the cow’s rear legs (Wild 1953, pl. 112; Hartwig Altenmüller 1998, pl. 17b; Munro, pl. 21; Kanawati and Abder-Raziq 2008, pl. 56); once, however, a kneeling man holds the rear legs of the cow (Lepsius 1904, pl. 96 [middle left]). On at least one occasion too, the calf is tied to its mother’s legs (Altenmüller 1998, pl. 17b). The difference between the Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate and early middle Kingdom scenes is that, in the former, a basin or other large vessel resting on the ground is the recipient of the milk, while at Thebes and Bersheh the man doing the milking holds a small jar up to the cows udder. Interestingly, in a damaged scene in the Ninth Dynasty tomb6 of Ankhtify at Moalla, the kneeling man who milks the cow evidently held up a small jar (now destroyed) for no vessel rests on the groud (Vabier 1950, pl. 27). The later version of the milking scene may then have had a longer history than is readily apparent at present. 2 I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Rita E. Freed, John F. Cogan, Jr. and Mary L. Cornille Chair of Art of the Ancient World, for permission to reproduce the photograph and drawing of the wall painting in SF 5015 in the present article. 3 See Brovarski 1989, 944-964.In addition to palaeographic and epigraphic criteria indicative of Dynasty 10 date, Heni was sHD Hm-nTr #a-nfr-[Mrnra]. (Brovarski 1989, fig. 93). Royal funerary cults are not attested earlier at Naga-ed-Dêr, and it may be that the late Heracleopolitan sovereigns bestowed endowed offices like this to encourage local adherents in the on-going conflict with Thebes; see Brovarski 1989, 982. 4 The same combination of elongated figures and proportionately correct figures are apparent in Twelfth Dynasty tombs at the site: Newberry, 1893, pls. 11, 12, 13 and passim (Amenemhat), 22A (Nakht), 19, 22, 24 (Khnumhotep II). 5 Prof. David P. Silverman had graciously permitted the reproduction of the photograph of the west wall of Asyut Tomb 4 herein. As far as the jousting bulls are concerned, Freed has herself observed that the motif is found from late Dynasty 6 28 For the date of Ankhtify’s tomb, see Brovarki 1989, Appendix B. eDwarD BrovarskI : a Phantom DeBate ? FIg. 3 FIg. 4 6 on from Deshasha to Aswan. Deshasha itself is located at no great distance from Bersheh and could readily have inspired the jousting bulls in Ahanakht’s tomb, if the theme did not derive from an artist’s sketch book. and a Mayor of Menat-Khufu (Khnumhotep II) ruled the Oryx Nome. Subtracting 5 years for the tenure of Khety II, this represents an average of 27 years for the tenures of the four governors of the Oryx Nome. Even if Netjernakht ruled for 18 years, the average of tenure for the governors of the Oryx nome would be 22.6 years (Brovarski 2008, 50). From the point of view of chronology, the evidence for the Twelfth Dynasty nomarchs at Bersheh is not as clear as at Behi Hasan, but there is every reason to think that the nomarchs of the Hare nome in Dynasties 10-12 had similar life spans. The fact that Ahanakht I ruled for a probable 30 years and Djehutynakht V for at least 20 years supports this view. In my opinion, the art historical evidence from Bersheh thus does not support the dating of Ahanakht I to the reign of Mentuhotep II. This is the linch pin of Gestermann’s chronological scheme which no longer holds together because of it. In my recent article I emphasized the importance of “generation counting” in determining the chronology of the nomarchs of the Hare and Oryx nomes at the end of the First Intermediate Period and the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. It is clear from inscriptional and archaeological evidence at Beni Hasan and Bersheh that the nomarchs of the Twelfth Dynasty lived normal life spans (Brovarski 2008, 51). The situation is especially clear at Beni Hasan, where we are surprisingly fortunate in possessing a fairly detailed chronological outline for the rulers of the Oryx Nome (Brovarski 2008, 50). According to the standard chronology, the sole reigns of the first four sovereigns of the Twelfth Dynasty– Amenemhat I, Senusert I, Amenemhat II, and Senusert II – totalled 113 years. During that time three nomarchs (Khnumhotep I, Nakhti I, Amenemhat) Gestermann does not adequately take generations into account. Consequently, she assigns 4 nomarchs to the reign of Senusert I: Djehutynakht V, Nehri II, Djehutynakht VI, and Amenemhat (Gestermann 2008, Table 2). She believes Djehutynakht V, son of Nehri I, began his term of office in Year 20 of Amenemhat I and remained in office till Year 10 of Senusert I. Nehri II, who succeeded, she only allows 8 years of rule (Years 10-18 of Senusert I) and thinks the term in office of Djehutynakht VI, son of Nehri II, began about Year 18. She thinks Amenemhat succeeded his brother Djehutynakht VI about Year 38 of Senusert I. There is no reason to think that Nehri II was in office for 29 From Illahun to Djeme. PaPers PresenteD In honour oF ulrIch luFt so short a term. Nehri’s tomb (No. 7) was completed and there is every reason to believe he had a normal period of reign (Brovarski 2008, 34, 47). Two generations of 40-50 years would make Nehri I a contemporary of Mentuhotep II and the final Theban drive to conquer the North. This is the viewpoint I have defended in my recent article. Lepsius, K. R. 1904. Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Vol. 2. Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs. Munro, P. 1993. Der Unas-Friedhof Nord-West 1. Mainz am Rhein, Philipp von Zabern. Naville, E. 1907. The XIth Dynasty Temple of Deir elBahari 1. EEF 28. London, Egypt Exploration Fund. Naville, E. 1913. The XIth Dynasty Temple of Deir elBahari 3. EEF 32. London, Egypt Exploration Fund. Newberry, P. E. 1893. Beni Hasan 1. ASE 1. London, Egypt Exploration Fund. Newberry, P. E. 1894. Beni Hasan 2. ASE 2. London, Egypt Exporation Fund. Vandier, J. Moaalla. BdÉ 18. Cairo, 1950. Wild, H. 1953. Le tombeau de Ti 2. MIFAO 65. Cairo, Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Willems, H. 1983-1984. “The Nomarchs of the Hare Nome and Early Middle Kingdom History.” JEOL 28. Bibliography Altenmüller, H. 1998. Die Wanddarstellungen im Grab des Mehu in Saqqara. AV 42. Mainz, Anthes, R. 1928. Die Felseninschriften von Hatnub nach den Aufnahmen Georg Möllers. UGAÄ IX. Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs. Bennett, C. J. C. 1941. “Growth of the ДTP-DΜI-NSW Formula in the Middle Kingdom.” JEA 27, 77-82. Blumenthal, E. 1976. “Die Datierung der NHri-Graffiti von Hatnub.” AOF 4, 35-62. Berlin. Brovarski, E. 1981. “Ahanakht of Bersheh and the Hare Nome in the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom.” In Simpson, W. K. and Whitney, M. D. (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in honor of Dows Dunham on the occasion of his 90th birthday, June 1, 1980, 14-30. Brovarski, E. 1989. “The Inscribed Material of the First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dêr.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Brovarski, E. 2008. The Hare and Oryx Nomes in the First Intermediate Period and Early Middle Kingdom. In Alexandra Woods, Ann McFarlane, and Susanne Binder, (eds.), Egyptian Culture and Society: Studies in Honor of Naguib Kanawati, vol. 1, 31-85. CASAE 38. Cairo, Conseil Suprême des Antiquités de l’Égypte. Brovarski, E. 2009. “False Doors and History: The First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom.” In: David P. Silverman, William Kelly Simpson, and Josef Wegner, (eds.), Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt. New Haven and Philadelphia, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Yale University, and University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Brunner, Hellmut. 1937. Die Texte aus den Gräbern der Herakleopolitanzeit von Siut. ÄF 5. Glückstadt, Hamburg, New York, J. J. Augustin. Faulkner, R. O. 1951. “The Stela of RudjaaHau.” JEA 37, 47-52. Freed, R. E. 1992. “Art Historical Overview.” In Silverman, D. P. (ed.), Bersheh Reports 1, 53-63. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts. Gestermann, L. “Die Datierung der Nomarchen von Hermopolis aus dem frühen Mittleren Reich – eine Phantomdebatte?” ZÄS 135 (2008), 1-15. Griffith, F. L. and Newberry, P. E. 1895. El Bersheh 2. ASE 4. London, Egypt Exploration Fund. Kanawati, N. and Abder-Raziq, M. 2008. Mereruka and His Family 2. ACER 26. Oxford, Aris and Phillips. 30