118

V THE KING AND HIS PALACE

(a) KINGSHIP

Kingship in ancient Egypt was divine inasmuch as the king was a biological son of god (P. Harris I,

22, 4-5) and an embodiment of the country, its people and its wealth. In many instances he was

referred to in various texts as “Horus” or as “god” This is also expressed in an address by officials

to Ramesses II.601 The king however was also human and as such he did not possess what Baines

describes as602 the attributes of “life” and “power” for which he depended on the gods. He could

neither control nor vivify the cosmos without divine favour, which, if I understand correctly, meant

that he could not perform such acts, as a god should be able to perform. In the Pyramid Texts603 the

king says of himself: “I give judgment as a god having tried cases as a magistrate (sr)”. Clearly

himself distinguishing his status prior to and following death. The acceptance by the people of this

apparent defect in the king’s “divinity”, was ascribed by Posener and Goedicke to an alleged

separation of the human individual king from the divine office of kingship, which he held. Baines

elsewhere points out604, “...Egyptian ... lacks a word for THE STATE. This absence points to

kingship as the nexus of society; there is no separate state”. Eva Martin -Pardey605 on the other

hand, with considerable justification regards pr-nswt to have described the equivalent of “the State”

although this term in no way detracts from the fact that the Egyptian absolute monarch was the

nexus of Egyptian society and that Pr-nswt had a more circumscribed meaning than the modern

word “state”. Baines seems to maintain that the function of the King was largely ceremonial and

ritual while the executive power was delegated.606 Here I disagree. How kings saw themselves is

perceived from a text of Sesostris I607: “He (the god Horakhty) created me as one who should do

that which he had done, and to carry out that which he commanded should be done. He appointed

me herdsman of this land, for he knew who would keep it in order for him”. The king was the gods’

deputy on earth intended to do their will and in this respect he was one with the gods although in

this passage, no claim of divine status is being made. As will be seen later, Egyptian Kings were

fully, personally involved in government and administration, sometimes, it seems, down to the

smallest details. Royal divinity, such as it was, reflected upon his authority to govern but not on his

nature in life and that is the express view of certain other scholars.608, while strongly denied by

601 KRI., II, 197, 9 - 10 602 Kingship Before Literature: The World of the King in the Old Kingdom, 131 = Selbstverstaendnis und Realitaet (1995) 603 Pyr. 347b (264) 604 “Ancient Egyptian Kingship.” Edited by D. O’Connor & D. Silverman, (1995) p. 105. 605 Das ‘Haus des Königs’ pr—nswt” = Münchner Ägyptologische Untersuchungen 4, Gedenkschrift Barta. D. Kessler/R. Schulz (eds.) (1995), 269-285 606 Op. cit., p. 133, para. 3. 607 P. Berlin, 3029 = Goedicke, Festschrift zum 150 jaehrigen Bestehen des Berliner Aegyptischen Museums (1974), 87 – 104; Kemp, AESH., 74n. 2; Lichtcheim, (1975), 115 - 18 608 R.J. Leprohon, Royal Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt = Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Vol. I. Leprohon says: “…the evidence shows that the living Pharaoh was not as was once thought, divine in nature or a god incarnate on earth. Rather, we should think of him as a human recipient of a divine office. Any individual king was a transitory figure while the kingship was eternal”.(p.275) Leprohon accepts the king’s divinity after death (p. 275). This argument is believable, but it does not affect the fact that the king reigned in virtue of his being the son of god.

119

others609. As we already said before, in line with Frankfort, the Egyptians perceived the world as a

static order established at the moment of creation and valid to eternity: “In this frame, the

succession of events was not ignored, but remitted to a previous conception”…”For in a static

world, a change, an innovation is viewed as the making explicit of what was intended (and

therefore potentially present) from the very beginning”. Frankfort affirms that if this is so, and he

accepts it as such, then the divinity of kings is self-evident because the original kings were the

creator gods themselves. Frankfort, followed by Helck610 evolved an almost supernatural and

detached status for the prehistoric chieftains. Goedicke611 rightly and on good grounds rejects this

extreme theory of the origin of Egyptian kingship but, goes on to say apparently in agreement with

Frankfort and Helck that “in the historical situation it is not the office which gives power, but only

the king is, without doubt, a precise formulation of the principle on which the Egyptian

administration, especially in the Old Kingdom was based”. This is in direct opposition to the

beliefs of Leprohon. Goedicke further612 argues against automatic succession justified by blood and

this is in line with the arguments put forward in this work.

Lastly, Barta in his study of kingship613 maintains that Egyptian king’s divinity should not be

understood as Göttlichkeit but rather as Gottächnlichkeit grounded in his office. Lorton who

savagely criticised Barta’s work in his review614 nevertheless agrees with Barta in rejecting that the

king was divine by his nature. Here I am out of sympathy both with Lorton and with Barta as will

be seen later in this chapter. Lorton dismisses a divine parentage of kings on the grounds that “the

term nTr ‘god’ can refer to a deceased person, including a king”, an opinion which he presumably

derives from the Coffin Texts where the deceased persons not of royal lineage, not only claim

identity with various gods but threaten them with dire consequences unless they are given what

they want. His argument regarding the “extended meanings” of the word “son” in Egyptian usage

must have some merit in view of the quite frequent title The King’s Son, awarded to persons not of

royal lineage. However, this does not apply to the frequent claims of individual kings to have been

“sons of Re’ of His body”, which Lorton conveniently overlooks. As to the view expressed by

Lorton (p.462), in agreement with others, that the office of kingship itself was divine because the

first kings of Egypt were gods, as listed in the Turin king list615, I accept this as a reasonable

hypothesis although I personally know of no direct evidence to support this view.

It is the king who inherits the “Logos” of the creator gods and this he passes to his jmjw-r who act

as intermediaries between him and the execution of government. At the same time, the Instructions

609 H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religionas the Integration of Society and Nature (1948); cf. M. Campagno, God-Kings and King-Gods in Ancient Egypt = Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Egyptologists, 237 - 243 610 Beamtentitel, 10 ff. 611 Origin of the Royal Administration = L’Egyptologie en 1979, 124 ff. 612 op. cit., 126 613 Untersuchungen zur Göttlichkeit des regierenden Königs (1975) 614 D. Lorton, Towards a Constitutional Approach to Ancient Egyptian Kingship = JAOS 99 (1979), 460-465. Lorton follows this article with another: “The King and the Law” = VA 2 (1986), 53 ff. The two complement each other. 615 Gardiner, The Royal Canon of Turin (1959), Pl. 1

120

of Merikare’ place before us the humanity, the ethics and the responsibilities of kingship as seen by

the king himself and presumably his people, which by modern standards are more than

remarkable.616 The Egyptian ruler was therefore both human and divine and as such was best suited

to intervene between the human and divine worlds. He was high priest of every god, making

offerings directly to every deity. Throughout the Old Kingdom, the king embodied the powers of

Hu, Sia and Heka being divine utterance, knowledge energy and knowledge of magic

respectively.617 Because the king’s role was a part of the divine order of the universe, his existence

was therefore an integral part of mAat. When he ruled, universal balance or mAat was maintained.

The king was an absolute ruler in every respect. There was no constitution, which defined or

circumscribed his powers. How much any individual king wished to be involved in the business of

government and how much he wished to delegate depended on his personality. Withdrawal from

active duties did not therefore create a precedent and weaken the power of “kingship” which would

imply the existence of some kind of constitution subject to reform. Each new king set his own

parameters. I do not accept Goedicke’s theory618 that this “absolute” power was not innate in the

king himself, but was bestowed on him at the coronation, thus implying that the “divine right” was

inherent in the “office” and not the “person”. Apart from denying any meaning to the kings’ claim

to have been sons of Re’ “of his body”, it must also be remembered that coronation took place at

the commencement of the new-year following accession. Thus a new monarch could have

theoretically reigned up to a year in time without authority. This is scarcely believable. To what

degree the coronation actually endowed the king with specific powers or divinity as opposed

merely to confirm the already existing ones is hard to say. As just stated, I personally believe in the

latter option. In the Coffin Texts we find two spells619 which Faulkner associates directly with the

coronation ceremony. The steps are stated to be as follows: -

1. (b) N (the king) is stated to be the eldest son of Geb.

2. (c) The Ennead (see below) places his enemies under his control.

3. (e) The king assumes the identity (rn) of Great of Magic (wr-HkAw).

4. (m-p) The white and red crowns are placed, in that order, on the king’s head and he

appears as King of Upper and Lower Egypt. All with the help of the eye of Horus.

The dead king (being a funerary text it clearly refers to the dead individual) is now identified with

Osiris as Lord of Abydos sitting on the throne of Geb (his father), Horus being his successor (jrj-

pat). He (the King) is Foremost of the Great Ennead. The pat and the rxyt prostrate themselves

before him.

Several points arise from this text, which must be mentioned. In the first place, the assumption is

made here that it reflects earthly coronation. If the assumption is correct, as seems likely, then one

must assume that in real life the god Geb was replaced by Re’ or Amon-Re’. Of great interest and

significance is the function of the Ennead, which in earthly terms was equivalent to the DADAt/qnbt

616 Kemp, AESH. 74 ff; Lichtheim, (1973), 135 – 9; Prichard, (1969), 418 – 9; Simpson (1973), 180 – 92. 617 D.P. Silverman, Religion in Ancient Egypt, 64 & 76. 618 H. Goedicke, The Origin of the Royal Administration = L’egyptologie en 1979 (1982), 127 619 CT I 178-180 (Sp. 42-43)

121

discussed later in this work and the implication that the heir to the throne (if available) was named

at the time. Finally, the acclamation bythe two sections or classes of the population suggests that

the newly crowned monarch was presented to his people and accepted by them. This acclamation is

referred to in connection with Ramesses III: J#̀ U!!t1$$1 1<5 “One who accepts the throne

through (jn) acclamation”. (Medinet Habu, Epigraphic Survey II, Pl 80, 2).

On the basis of all available evidence I see no reason to doubt that within Ancient Egyptian

Ideology, the king was god from the point of conception. His apparent lack of supernatural powers

and inability to perform miracles stems from the fact that he was restricted by the preordained and

unchangeable world order established at creation. What we describe as miracles would conflict with

mAat and would therefore be inconceivable. To understand this point of view one can perhaps

compare the King of Egypt with the Japanese Emperor up to the end of the Second World and/or

Jesus Christ himself, who in the eyes of the Catholic dogma is entirely god and entirely man. Thus I

reject the various compromise solutions by modern Egyptologists where the Pharaoh in respect of

his divinity is like the good girl, who was just a little bit pregnant. Whether the king’s overt

humanity including bodily disfigurements, illnesses etc. such as Scoliosis or Marfan Syndrome both

producing visible bodily distortion and both well attested in the XVIIIth dynasty, was seen as being

derived from his human mother, finds no confirmation in our sources but must be regarded as a

possibility.

The non-divine nature of the individual king is expressed by the title by which he was addressed by

others and referred to by himself. This title is j 4J - Hm. The translation universally put forward by

modern scholars is “Majesty”, lately, however, James P. Allen620 suggested the translation of

“Incarnation”, without, however referring to any tangible evidence substantiating this view, which

I succeeded to come across. Already in this work, the word j! and its feminine counterpart j!4 p

were discussed in depth and the conclusion, which was reached and put forward, was that these

words, far from representing “slaves” as most frequently encountered in modern literature621,

actually described “wards” of individuals or institutions or more accurately, those people who were

dependant on others. The description of the king as Hm=f or the king’s referring to himself as Hm=j,

emphasized that the Egyptian monarch was not dependant on anybody, as all other Egyptians were

on Him, but was only dependant on himself. I do not propose, however, to impose my view on

others and translate Hm=f as “His Self-dependence”, but will continue to translate it as His Majesty,

which seems to be the nearest approximation. The true interpretation of this title is however of great

importance in the understanding of Egyptian kingship and should be kept in mind.

Accepting the king’s divinity, albeit qualified as described above, the one question, which must be

answered, is whether this divine status existed in kings ascending the throne from birth or was

acquired at accession or at coronation.622 Apart from what has been said already, evidence points to

620 Middle Egyptian, p. 31 621 e.g. F. Poole, “Slave or Double” (1998) 622 D.P. Silverman, Op. cit., pp. 71 - 2.

122

the first option and can be traced as far back as the Pyramid Texts623 where the King is described as

“the semen of the god.” Frequently, during the Second Intermediate Period, kings of doubtful

parentage refer to themselves as “Son of Rea of his body, who engendered him with his precious

semen.”624 This claim, which may have justified usurpations, was, however, also made by well-

established monarchs, who sat on the throne in the XIIth dynasty625 and could be expected to accept

their crown as of right, although here some care must be exercised for as suggested elsewhere, the

kings of this particular dynasty appear to have displayed considerable nervousness about their

origins and rights to the throne and probably not without cause. The fact that this was so, tends to

support the theory put forward that succession to the throne was not governed by blood alone, but

needed some specific additional element. Also the founder of the XVIIIth dynasty, Ahmosis, calls

himself “Son of Amon-Rea of his body his beloved and his heir, who gave to him his throne (being)

in truth a Good God.”626 This passage in some way summarises the relationship of the King and the

God(s). The King is a biological son of the god and thus his heir to whom the throne is given of

right. He is therefore in truth the “Good God (nTr - nfr)” In another part of this passage, Ahmosis

states627: “He took the inheritance of him who engendered him...His illustrious father gave it to

him.” The relationship between the divine and the earthly parentage of an Egyptian King is not

entirely clear and may well have been somewhat hazy to the Egyptians themselves. The

relationship of the King to the God is however clear as seen from a hymn to Ramesses VII628: “To

thee belongs a unique place among thine family as (one) chosen from among them to act as the

Great Deputy for Egypt.” These words spoken by Amun to the Pharaoh who was the chosen vicar

of the God on earth, as already seen from the statement of Sesostris I (above). What seems also to

transpire from this text is that primogeniture was not essential in securing succession although it

was convenient to follow, but rather the “discovery” that the candidate was engendered by Re’ or in

the New Kingdom by Amon-Rea or even Ptah. From one passage in the Tale of the Two Brothers629

we gather that the King appointed his successor, which could have given rise to the well attested

co-regencies. In this particular instance, a younger brother is appointed (dhn) to be Crown Prince

(jrj-pat) and only he in turn appoints his elder brother who, in the event outlives him. In the struggle

of Horus and Seth for the crown of Osiris it is a straight fight between the son and the uncle, who, it

is claimed should inherit, mostly because Horus is represented as a stripling without experience

which is possessed by Seth; in this instance divine parentage was not a problem. What is evident

here however are the tribal obligations of the chieftain which a minor could not discharge. In the

end, it is actually Horus, the son, who inherits but clearly not directly of right as such. A reference

623 P.T., 532 b. 624 Helck, Hist- Biogr. Texte, no. 98, p. 65 (3) = Lacau, SASAE XIII (Stele juridique.); Cairo Stela Jd’E., 52453 625 Griffith, Assyut, Pl., XVII, 58. 626 Cairo Stela 34001 = URK. IV, 14.9. 627 Op. cit., 17, 4 - 6. 628 V. Condon, Seven Royal Hymns of the Ramesside Period, M.Ae.S., Heft XXXVII, Pl., LXXXVII, 1 - 2. 629 Tale of the Two Brothers, 18, 9 - 19, 6.

123

to such appointment of royal successor is also found in the Papyrus Turin 1882 (recto)630: “The first

occasion of speech by this God (King) to appoint his beloved son, and to cause him to be ruler...”.

Similar in implication is a record of an address made by officials to Ramesses II631: “...The good

Ruler, beloved son of Amun who came forth from his loins. You went forth on to the earth being like

Rea above...You were provided to give stability to Egypt. You are a body with power within it.”

When the King died, he “went to heaven and he united with the (other) gods,”632

In her study of the Second Intermediate Period633, Ryholt, in my opinion, convincingly shows that

during this time a predominant proportion of the kings were “commoners” with no evident royal

parentage. As example, one can quote the case of three XIIIth dynasty kings, namely Neferhotpe I,

Sihathor and Sebekhotpe IV who were all sons of a man called Haankhef whose titles are not

attested. His father in turn, however, was a man called Nehy referred to simply as anx-n-nwt.634.

How these people came to the throne is not disclosed; whether they were adopted or usurpers is

uncertain although in a country without a standing army, court intrigue is the most likely answer.635

Highly notable is that these kings rather than hide their low origins, actually proclaimed it.636 A

number of Egyptologists such as Kemp and Helck637 expressed the view that during this period in

the XIIIth dynasty, the country was actually ruled by hereditary families of viziers who appointed

and sacked the ephemeral kings. Ryholt, again in my opinion successfully disposes of this view.

Another possibility which could explain this succession of apparent usurpers is the equally difficult

to substantiate suggestion by Janet Buttles638 to the effect that succession in Egypt run in the female

line. This idea is now generally abandoned639 and while it is tempting to accept the statement of

Théodorides640 that from the beginning of the New Kingdom when the god Amun of Karnak

became the god of the (reigning) dynasty, the wife of the king became also the wife of the god, on

face value, which might support this theory. This, however, does not survive inspection. While the

title “God’s Wife” was certainly held by some senior wives of kings, notably Nefertari-Ahmose, it

was also held by ladies who were not so distinguished, while at the same time it was not claimed by

some ladies who actually were kings’ wives.

One of the most explicit pointers to the principle on which the validity of succession to the throne

was based is curiously, a literary text written according to general belief in the Second Intermediate

Period. This is the so called Westcar Papyrus, which contains the record of an alleged prophesy

630 Gardiner, Pharaonic Encomium = JEA XLII (1956), 9, n.3.That like officials, so also kings wished to continue their dynasty is clear from sources like Pyr. 223 and Sethe, Les. 84, 12-18. 631 KRI II, 197, 9 - 10. 632 URK IV, 59, 13 - 14. 633 K.S.B. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt During the Second Intermediate Period, c.1800 - 1550 B.C., Part III, pp. 207 ff. 634 Op. cit., p. 225. 635 cf. B. Kemp, Anatomy of a Civilization, 228 – 9. 636 Op. cit., 284 - 5. 637 A Social History, 154; Helck, Geschichte, 118 - 119. 638 The Queens of Egypt, 54 - 5; Appendix II 639 G. Robins, GM., 62 (1983). 640 Lexicon, II, 292

124

made to the IVth dynasty king, Cheops, foretelling the end of the rule by his family and the

accession of the first three kings of the Vth dynasty.641 These three kings were to be brothers, born

to a woman named Raddjedet, the wife of a priest and therefore a commoner, resulting from her

union with the god Re’. From this, it would seem, that whereas the king of Egypt was divine by

virtue of being a biological son of a god, his mother and his siblings were to all intents and

purposes commoners themselves, although the king’s mother enjoyed special consideration. This

must have meant that once a man’s divine parentage was “established”, he was ostensibly safe

from counterclaims by others based on descent from a previous king. This may also explain the fact

that Sekhemkare’, who was a son of King Khefren and a vizier, continued to serve in that capacity

into the reign of the Vth dynasty king Sahure’. Further, this may account for the relatively low

status of royal princes holding only middle ranking offices in bureaucracy and which was also

reflected in the quality of their tombs.642 This continued under the Middle Kingdom when, as Kemp

points out, their tombs were even more inconspicuous. How the Egyptians interpreted the system

under which a new king ascending the throne claimed the right to do so by way of direct parentage

of one of the Great Gods and thus rejection of the biological father, who in normal course of

succession was by then also a Great God, may be explained by a passage from the Coffin Texts643,

however obscure, where the father is actually and with his own cognisance demoted to human

status. The implication seems to be the son’s right to step into his father’s shoes and once the

rightful successor is established, the father can no longer be a source of claims from other siblings.

Whether this passage can be accepted, as evidence is of course highly debatable especially as it

actually refers to non-royal individuals.

Whatever the procedure was of discovering, who was the true “Son of Re’” and thus establish the

rightful and unassailable heir to the throne, we do not know, although some more will be said on

this subject later. Certainly, kings of the XIIth dynasty, whose founder may himself have been a

usurper, overcame this problem by a system of associating their chosen successors in co-regencies.

And even this might not have given a full guarantee, as the story of Sinuhe may or may not imply.

A further curiosity of this period is the transfer of the capital to Lower Egypt. In itself this offers no

surprise, as most kings of all periods preferred the gentler climate of the north to the dry heat of

Upper Egypt. What is strange and may relate to some uncertainty felt by these monarchs, is that the

capital did not return to Memphis, the obvious place, but a new capital was built-Jmn-m-Ht-jT-tAwy

“Ammenemes Seizes the Two Lands”, an ominous implication even more so in view of the fact that

this new capital is shown, unlike the others, surrounded by a fortified wall. Whatever the reason for

the apparent nervousness of the kings of the XIIth dynasty, it may have influenced the early

selection of successors, who became joint kings, but may not have reflected any vulnerability of the

reigning monarch. Certainly by the XIIIth dynasty when usurpations were more the rule than the

641 P. Westcar, 9, 1 – 15.Clayton, Die Pharaonen, 46, however maintains that Userkaf’s mother was Neferhetep, the daughter of Djedefre’. Whether truth or fiction however, this story nevertheless must be based on a legal possibility. 642 AESH., 78 643 CT. I, 172e-173g (Sp. 39-40)

125

exception, we find the principle implied by the Westcar Papyrus seemingly well established. In her

book644, Ryholt refers to Neferhotpe I, the direct successor of Sebekhotpe III as being presumably a

usurper, not only because he does not seem to be in any way related to his predecessor, but also

because he came from a family of humble origin. Sebekhotpe is not known to have had any sons,

but he did have two brothers and at least two nephews, all of whom, as one would expect would

have had a claim to the throne. There is, however no trace of any animosity towards Sebekhotpe III

after his death and members of his family continued to live into the reign of Sebekhotpe IV. It may

even be significant that the Papyrus Westcar was itself written during this very period. By the

principles of mAat, all was predestined since creation, it is significant therefore that we find in the

Second Intermediate Period the king Neferhotpe, who appears to search in a library - !5

b4 −+5

(var. !4+! 4 ) from documents of divine provenance the proof for his legitimacy645. What these

ancient documents, attributed to various gods may have been we, of course, do not know and one is

greatly tempted to speculate that some divine oracle was involved.

Inheritance in the womb, so to speak is also well documented. In a Wadi Halfa inscription from the

23rd year of Thutmosis III, we come across the passage646: “He (Horus Lord of Buhen) united with

his Ennead to fashion him (Thutmosis) in their image, (then) He has bequeathed his inheritance to

him in the womb, knowing that he would consult about it (?)”. This divine right of succession, most

probably went back to prehistoric tribal times. From a seal of the IInd dynasty king Peribsen647 we

learn “The golden (god), he has given the two lands to his son the nswt-bjty Peribsen”. As

Endesfelder points out, this declares Peribsen as the ruler appointed by the god and indirectly the

owner of the Two Lands in virtue of being his (the god’s) son.648

The King’s function as the giver of laws will be covered throughout this work; here it suffices to

bring some evidence to show that throughout the pharaonic period, the King not only acted as the

ultimate court of appeal, but as his tribal chieftain predecessor, actually sat in judgment surrounded

by his elders (DADAt / qnbt-see below). A very good example of this comes to us in the Papyrus

Geneva D.191649 where two men are judged before a qnbt and the presiding magistrate is the King

himself. Other cases, although apparently trivial and concerning unimportant people, were, in fact

dealt with by the King himself650, although most cases may have been assigned to designated

644 SIP., 298 645 Helck, HBT, 22, 6-8 646 URK., IV, 807, 2-3 647 E. Endesfelder, Koenigliches Boden-Eigentum in der Aegyptischen Fruechzeit = Grund und Boden, 261 ff; Kaplony, Die Inschriften der aegyptischen Fruehzeit, III [AA 8 (1963), Pl. 95, 368 = IAF I – III] 648 The title nswt-bjty is first attested for Den of the Ist dynasty (W. Schenkel, CM 94 (1986), 56 – 73). 649 LRL 59, 4 - 5. 650 O. Ash. Mus., 1945.33 & 1945.37; O. Mich., 90; P. Salt, 124 rt. II, 17 - 18; P. BM., 10383 / 3; McDowell, Jurisdiction, 237 - 238.

126

officials of the King’s entourage.651 In a number of cases we find workers at Deir el Medina

complaining about not receiving their rations and these complaints were submitted directly to

Pharaoh, on one occasion by the High Priest of Amun and in two cases by the Vizier.652 The action

of the former is of particularly great interest because it appears to negate the belief of some

Egyptologists that by this time in history the temples acquired all the wealth of the country leaving

the Pharaoh in virtual poverty unable to feed a few men building his tomb.653

In a late Middle Kingdom Papyrus654 we find two petitions both made directly to the King without

the apparent knowledge of the Vizier who was only subsequently informed. Hayes explains this by

assuming that the Vizier must have been away from the capital. This unsubstantiated hypothesis I

cannot accept as it would imply that the King acted, so to speak, as the Vizier’s deputy, which

seems to me inconceivable. Petitions directly addressed to the King are not uncommon in the New

Kingdom, even, on occasions containing complaints against the Vizier himself. It is a fact,

however, that the Vizier normally expected to be informed as we are expressly told in the

inscriptions of Rekhmirea655: “To him (the Vizier) is reported every petitioner to the Lord (King).”

Presumably most of them were referred to the Vizier for further attention, which is certainly what

happened in the cases covered by the above-mentioned papyrus.

Certainly capital punishment, which also included mutilation, seems to have been an exclusive

prerogative of the King.656 To this we have an unambiguous and clear testimony of the Tomb

Robbery Papyri such as the Amherst,657 where we are told that “the interrogation and the verdict

were put in writing and a report was made concerning it to the Pharaoh by the Vizier, the Inspector

(?), the Registrar and the Mayor of Thebes.” Presumably to confirm their fate which is referred to

in the second passage: “The robbers of this pyramid of this god who are missing are to be put in

charge of this High Priest of Amonrasonther in order to cause them to be brought and placed as

prisoners in this ...(?) ...of the temple of Amonrasonther together with their condemned colleagues

whose punishment, the Pharaoh, our Lord l.p.h. has communicated.”

The degree of contact between the subjects and the King comes through to us from several recorded

incidents. In one, a man sentenced to compulsory labour is said to have been released after his

father appeals to the King658. One of the necropolis workers who is said to have reported crimes

occurring in his place of work to the officials, makes sure of their action by threatening: “Let me

see what you will do to them (the criminals), or I will complain (about) them to Pharaoh, my Lord

651 O. BM., 5631, 13 - 14; O. DeM., 592; O. Cairo, 25237, 5; RAD., 57, 6 - 58, 6; McDowell, Op. cit. 652 P. DeM., XXVIII, 4 - 6; O. DeM., 1148 - 9; O. Cairo, 25310; McDowell, Op. cit., 236. 653 P. Wilbour, II, 204. 654 Hayes, P. Brooklyn, 78, Pls. V & VI, insertions “B” and “C” respectively. 655 URK IV, 1112, 3. 656 Pleyte & Rossi, P. Turin, Pls. LI - LX = T.E. Peet, JEA X (1924), 121, ro. p. 2,3. 657 Newberry, P. Amherst, Pl., VI, 9 & Pl., VII, 1 - 3.cf. P. Leopold, II, Pl., XVI, 4, 11. 658 Erman, ZAS XLII (1905), 105.

127

l.p.h. and likewise to the Vizier, my overseer”,659 and in one of the Tomb Robbery Papyri660 we read

of a robbery reported directly to Pharaoh by a Prophet of Amun.

The King appointed mayors of cities661 and they acted on his behalf. What is even more significant,

however, is a passage from one of the Tomb Robbery Papyri662 where we are told that it was

Pharaoh who, on his visit to Thebes, appointed a Sem Priest. And this in spite of the universal

belief that at this time the priesthood of Amun was in virtually total control.

In his capacity of tribal chieftain, the Egyptian King was expected to provide for his people in lean

times. During the First Intermediate Period this responsibility was largely taken over by the

nomarchs.663 The King was described as herdsman to his people664 and “one who feeds the common

people (rxt), there being none apart from him” and “who counts loaves for Upper and Lower

Egypt”.665 If this is to be taken at face value, and there is no apparent reason for not doing so, then

one must assume that all Egyptians were seen as being a part of the pr-nswt assured of work and

upkeep by the state whether in the bureaucracy (see below), on public works such as building or

irrigation, or on land as tenant farmers. Apart from the evidence of the Boulaq 18 Papyrus

describing food and other subsidies daily given to state functionaries, one can quote a passage from

the 9th year of Sethos I

,

666 where the King is described as “one who fills warehouses, extends

granaries and gives to those who do not have...He fills every stomach (and) there is none who

passes hunger in his (the King’s) time”. This truly represents, what I have already described as a

nanny state. In order to fulfil these and other obligations, the King had to be in a position which I

can only describe by quoting the words of Gardiner: “There is ample evidence that he (the King)

considered himself the owner of all Egyptian property whatsoever”.667 Although Gardiner proceeds

to list a great deal of evidence, which makes him hesitate in his conclusion, I have no trouble in

accepting the above statement as an undisputable fact.

(b) THE PALACE AND CENTRE OF GOVERNMENT

One of the most confusing and difficult to unscramble subjects in the study of administration of

Ancient Egypt is undoubtedly the “Palace” of the king and its position within the process of

government. The reason for this primarily is that to this date we still do not know the correct term

for the king’s domicile itself and the ancillary buildings constituting different aspects of his

activities. In 1982, Ogden Goelet Jr. submitted a doctoral thesis to Columbia University comprising

659 Gardiner, RAD., 58, ro., 4, 14 - 4, 16a. 660 P. BM., 10383 = Peet, TR., 1 (Pl., XXII), 1 - 3. 661 Cairo 20025 (Abydos); Dryoff-Poertner, Muenchen, Pl., III. Both instances dated to the XIIth dynasty. 662 P. BM., 10383, 1, 10 = Peet, TR., Pl., XXII 663 Moreno Garcia, Etudes..., 84 - 5. 664 Coronation Stela from Gebel Barkal = URK III, 87; cf. Adm., 9, 2; ibid., 11, 11 ff; P. Kah., III, 14 (hymn to Sesostris III). 665 URK IV, 1026. 666 KRI I, 74, 10 - 11. 667 P. Wilbour, II, 203 - 4.

128

721 pages, entitled “Two Aspects of the Royal Palace in the Egyptian Old Kingdom” in which he

examines in minute detail all the existing evidence for that period covering the five terms all of

which with one exception, with some occasional deviations, are translated “palace”. These terms

are: \b! - Xnw; +

\! - aH;

[0 - stp-sA; 7

!! - pr-nswt and

!= pr-aA. At the end of his

examination of “virtually every example” of each of these terms, Goelet still does not appear to

come to any definite conclusion concerning any one of them. Indeed, at the end of his exhaustive

analysis, one could come to the conclusion that the king of Egypt in the Old Kingdom had nowhere

to live. In this, Goelet must be forgiven. Ancient Egyptians were not very precise in their

terminology and many procedures, which would throw light on this subject, are simply unknown to

us. Furthermore, Goelet is very careful not to draw on later evidence, presumably on the, not

unreasonable, grounds, that changes in meaning could have occurred. I shall not be so reticent and

in the interest of establishing the meanings as far as our sources covering the entire period, permit I

shall draw evidence from the entire period studied.

1. \<+! - aH The aH is the one term studied in respect of which I find myself mostly at odds with Goelet. In his

final conclusion, he says (p. 404): “The relationship between the aH and the king is not clear, but it

certainly does not seem (primarily) to be the king’s residence”. Let us examine some of Goelet’s

evidence and extend the period of investigation through to Ramesside times at the end of which,

hopefully, it will be shown that aH was in fact the king’s residence, or perhaps more precisely, his

official residence as divine ruler or shrine, from which he conducted business. Whether he also

slept there, of course, we have no means of knowing, although this must be regarded as being

likely. We find many instances in the Old Kingdom of aH being included within the wsxt (- )

sometime including the phonetic complement, thus making the reading of the word all but certain.

It must be pointed out, however, that possibly in the majority of cases listed by Goelet (p. 219,

Table 1), the aH is completely encircled by a buttressed rectangle such as we find surrounding the

name of the capital Itchitowe in the XIIth dynasty.668 It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that the

aH, certainly in the Old Kingdom, stood within a courtyard surrounded by a fortified wall. In the

Pyramid Texts, the aH is represented as the dwelling of the gods669: “May you go forth and may you

reach the aH of Atum” In this case the aH is positioned in the bottom left hand corner of the fortified

enclosure.670 One more point must be mentioned here; the aH has the hieroglyphic sign for god – nTr

inside it, which considering who the incumbent was, is not surprising. What is important to

remember, however, is that this may separate the aH of a god from the aH of a king although the

examples in the Pyramid Texts, housing gods and “deified beings(?)” (wrw) are plain such as for

example Pyr. 141d where Horus and Seth are apparently together in an aH and the association of

668 BM., 255 (830); cf. ibid. 193 (566); C.M. Firth & B. Gunn, “Excavations at Saqqara”. Teti Pyramid Cemeteries (1926), 280; Ward, Index of MK., Titles, 11 nr. 38 669 Pyr. paragr. 1984a (Spell 670) 670 Goelet argues that this representation should be read wsxt rather than aH. I prefer, if only for the sake of clarity to remain with aH.

129

these two gods with the aH is further supported by the priestly titles such as Hm-nTr St-aH671

“Prophet of Seth of the aH” and Hm-nTr-Hr Hr-jb-aH “Prophet of Horus dwelling in the aH”. An

obscure and badly damaged passage in an Abusir Papyrus associates both Horus and Seth with the

aH of the Heb-Sed. An added problem for the Old Kingdom is the virtually identical representation

of the swnw-tower and the aH.672 As an example, one can take Pyr. 719 where the relevant sign as

reproduced by Sethe is most certainly swnw as opposed to aH, yet the fact that the text refers to

gods’ dwelling there must make one suspicious that aH was meant and either at that time the two

signs were interchangeable, or Sethe made a mistake in copying.

Again, Goelet must be fully exonerated for being vague about the meaning of aH in the Old

Kingdom as even the Abusir Papyrus which runst!KMc

t! 3/! "

`c1V!

!d91\

b!+! is

ambiguous as it may mean: “those who shall bring divine offerings from Setibre’, from the

residence (capital city) and from the aH”, but with the absence of the preposition “m” between the

last two words may also indicate Xnw of the aH. While the spelling renders it purely hypothetical, I

would venture to suggest that what is intended here is Xnw-a (the Old Kingdom version of aXnwty)

of the aH, thus meaning the throne-room of the royal residence.673 A very obscure passage of the

Palermo Stone Annals dated to the reign of Snofru,674 may indeed refer to the palace, the line in

question is translated as “making doors of the king’s aH of cedar”. The context is such, however,

that the meaning could very well be “shrine”. A similar interpretation is likely for the entries for

Userkaf675 and Sahure’.676 Old Kingdom evidence is full of ambiguities, such as the passage from

Pyramid Texts, paragraph 848 a-c where reference is given to e1M#\

4D+!

4D<

bQ -“sm-priest,

hereditary nobleman, Great one(s) of the 10 of the aH (and) Great one of the 10 of Heliopolis”.

Great ones of the tens will be discussed in full later. Here, one may anticipate the conclusions by

affirming that these functionaries, in the majority of cases holding as the full title: :4D! , were

secular officials associated with advisory bodies (DADAt), on no occasion known to me as being

connected with temple administration. In other cases of aH quoted by Goelet from the Pyramid

Texts (pp. 275 – 282), it appears that in most cases the aH tower has the sign for HD–white or nTr–

god/divine inside it or by its side.

From the above quoted evidence, it appears that at best it is confusing although most points to the

aH being something in the nature of a shrine, as is most probably represented by the title

1M+ Vmh D8 “Overseer of the aH (of) Great-is-Khefren”, the title of Nswt-nfr at Giza677

671 Cairo, 1715/16 from Saqqara = Borchardt, Denkmaeler II, 152 f, Pl., 92; Posener-Kieger, Archives, 119-20, 4. 672 Moreno Garcia, Administration territoriale (II): swnw = ZAS., 124 (1997), 119 673 P. Abusir, Louvre E.25279 = Posener-Krieger, Archives, 14 – 16; 29 – 42; 47 – 56; 536, Tabl. I; Goelet, Royal Palace, 46 & 263. 674 URK., I, 237, 1 – 4 675 URK., I, 242, 1 - 5 676 URK. I, 243, 14 – 244, 3. 677 Junker, Giza III, Pl., 28

130

where the attachment to the king’s pyramid town makes it likely that it referred to some shrine or

chapel containing the king’s statue, or a god’s domicile. Let it be emphasized, however, that

although direct evidence of aH being the domicile or at least work-place of the king is thin on the

ground during the Old Kingdom, the extension of domicile of a god to domicile of the God-King is

not only logical especially as in the early part of the Old Kingdom the king was referred to as the

Great God (nTr aA), but in view of very strong support for this view in the subsequent periods, more

than likely. Goelet himself admits that the very well attested Old Kingdom title xrp-aH is almost

always accompanied by the courtesy title implying close association with the King: smr-waty

“Unique companion” (p. 351) and although not a proof in itself, it is an indication.

When we come to the Middle Kingdom, the sources are far kinder and give us sufficient evidence

to allow us to be much more positive. One can scarcely wish for a clearer demonstration of the

meaning of aH than the description by Sinuhe of his arrival at Itchitowe and the audience with

Sesostris I.678 Here he was collected by 10 men (DADAt of the aH/king) in order to be introduced into

the “palace” (aH), At the gate (wmt) he was met by the royal children and “the companions (smrw)

who conduct (visitors) to the columned forecourt (wAxy)” put Sinuhe on his way to the throne room

(aXnwty). and there he found the king on his throne in a kiosk (wmt, same word as translated

“gateway” above) of electrum. From this passage, we get the picture of the aH as being surrounded

by a walled and gated courtyard (wsxt: see above) and the aH itself containing the aXnwty or throne

room where the king received petitioners, approached through a lobby or hall with columns. This

view of aH is further enhanced by the First Intermediate Period inscription of Thethi679 where the

relevant passage is translated by Blackman: “He (the king) took me into his confidence (xrt-jb) in

the Palace of Privacy (aH n waaw)”. An interesting description suggesting that this was a private

place of the king where he received individuals alone as opposed perhaps to the DAdw where

petitioners were received in the presence of the assembled court and the queen - the throne-room

par excellence. This passage fully agrees with and supports the narrative of Sinuhe. By the end of

the Second Intermediate Period, however, we read in the stela of Kamose that an attack against the

Hyksos was discussed by the king “in his aH with his committee of officials ( DADAt srw)”.680 It

seems therefore that, if not at all times, at least by then, the aH was not just a shrine for the god-king

to sit in splendour and receive individuals, but the place where he conducted the business of

governing.

This meaning and significance of aH continues to be supported throughout the Middle Kingdom.

Hepdjefai, the nomarch of the Lycopolite Nome under Sesostris I681 and therefore contemporary of

Sinuhe, writes in his autobiography: - “Horus (the king) praises me inside the aH (as one) who

knows his duty (lit. place) in this government (pr-nswt)”. While Sarenput, another nomarch under

678 Les.14, 5 ff. cf. Inscr. of king Neferhotpe from Abydos = Helck, HBT. 21 (32), 3 679 Brit. Mus. Stela 614, 5 = Blackman, JEA., 17 (1931), 55 - 61 680 Carnarvon Tablet, I, 2; JEA., 3, 95 ff; ASAE., 39, 245 ff; Helck, Hist. – Biogr. Texte, 83, nr. 119 681 UMR., VII, 61, 18 – 19;

131

the same king682 claims to have been “one who receives sumptuous presents which the king gives in

the aH”. And Sesostris I himself, addressing Ikhernofret683 assures him with the words “you have

indeed grown up as a foster-child of My Majesty (and as) a unique pupil of my aH”. This does

appear to indicate that the aH was more than just a reception area for the king and that it involved

some family activities. But this text tells us much more and substantiates what was already

suggested above in connection with the Old Kingdom. Later in this text, referring to rituals at

Abydos (ll. 23 – 24) Ikhernofret says: “… they brought [Osiris Foremost of the Westerners, Lord of

Abydos] to his aH, I followed the god to his house” The parallel usage of this term for the god and

the god-king is clear.

However, having said all that, one document remains to be mentioned and that although relating

alleged occurrences which took place under king Cheops of the IVth dynasty, nevertheless was

written most probably during the Second Intermediate Period and therefore most probably reflected

the reality of those times. The document is the already mentioned above, Westcar Papyrus. Here we

find684 the king looking for relief from boredom, saying: “I have circulated all the departments of

the pr-nswt l.p.h.in search of a cool place. I did not find it”. Whereupon, the king was advised:

“May your Majesty proceed to the lake of the pr-aA l.p.h.and prepare for yourself a boat with all the

beautiful girls of the interior of your aH”. Here we find reference to three of the “palaces”, two of

which will be discussed later. What is, however, significant is that the aH is said to include the

king’s harem and must therefore have been his private domicile.

Under the New Kingdom the significance of the aH was clearly defined in the socalled First Hittite

Marriage of Ramesses II and further and quite unequivocally emphasized in the, Pharaonic

Encomium,685 probably dated to Ramesses IV, here, we are told that “He (the God) had caused him

(the King) to seat himself upon the throne, reposing in the aH of the Lord of the Universe”. No

doubt here that the aH was seen as the king’s residence in virtue of his divinity. In the same text,686

we read: “It was Amun who placed me; it was the Lord of the Gods who brought me in his hand to

induct me into the aH”. There is good reason to believe that the aH had some religious connotation

as the place where the divine monarch resided and functioned and may even have been worshipped

in some measure.687, although this must be open to doubt This also seems to come through from the

text known as the “Coronation of Haremhab”688 where it is said that Amun placed the crown on the

head of the king in the pr-nswt (see below) although in the passage where this is narrated (l. 17) it is

stated to be the aH. Gardiner, in view of this duplication, comes to the conclusion that aH and pr-

nswt were synonymous and also equates the aH/pr-nswt with one of the great temples: Karnak or

682 UMR., VII, 2, 3 683 Berlin Stela 1204, 7; Les., 70 – 71; Anthes, Berlin Museum Festschrift, 16 – 49. 684 Sethe, Les., 26, 11 – 15. 685 KRI II, 255, 2; P. Turin 1882 ro. 1, 1 = Gardiner, JEA., 42 (1956). 686 ibid. 3 = Gardiner, JEA., 41, Pl III, 7; ibid., 42, 10, 37. 687 P. Turin, Playte-Rossi, Pls., 21, 5 = KRI., VI, 391, 16; V. Conden, Seven Royal Hymns, 10 – 11. 688 Gardiner, JEA., 39 (1963), 25, n.1

132

Luxor.689. His arguments on both counts seem unconvincing and the only other explanation, which

would associate the “coronation” with the temple is that, as we know, a royal palace existed within

the precinct of the temple of Karnak. This place was used as a temporary residence when the court

visited Thebes for the celebration of various festivals.690. This may well have been also the aH nw

jwnw-Sma–(aH) of the Southern Heliopolis [Thebes]), where Thutmosis III was said to shine upon

the throne,691 and for that period, the centre of government seems to have been Thebes itself.

That the aH was the place from which the king ruled the country appears to be incontestable and the

text recording the nomination of the child Hatshepsut as successor to the throne by her father is

quite explicit on this point.692 “See to your rules (being obeyed) from the aH”; “shine in glory in the

aH”; “…that which My Majesty instructed and gave to this daughter when she was in his arms in

his aH of the jzt” or “when she gives orders to the common people (rxyt) from any place of the aH”.

The king is even referred to as “One-who-is-in-the-aH.”693 At every step we find the king being in

or entering the aH, Such passages as “The country becomes refreshed when you enter the aH”;694 “I

enter the aH and behold the Good God (king)”;695 or “I ascended into the interior of the aH and was

placed standing in the presence of the Son of Amun”,696 abound throughout the texts at our disposal

and confirm what was said before, namely that the king lived and worked in the aH. It is also likely

that wherever the king resided during the court’s progress or on military campaigns was likewise

termed aH697. In this residence of his, the king was surrounded by a group of privileged officials

described as his “companions” (smrw) who seem to have been graded according to seniority, and

thus we find an XVIIIth dynasty official Sennefer who calls himself Hry-tp smrw aH “Chief of the

companions of the aH”698 or the “Great companion of the king in his aH”.699 As already mentioned

above, however, aH was the place of work for the king, the place where he received privileged

visitors on special occasions which these visitors had every reason to perpetuate in their

autobiographies. For state occasions, such as the installation of a vizier, for example, the king sat

enthroned in the throne hall – the DAdw. Such occasion taking place in the “Western DAdw” is

described on the installation of the Vizier Wsr by Thutmosis III700 Here we find assembled

689 Wb. II, 214, 18, 19 knows of no instance of pr-nswt meaning temple. For aH however see Sethos I’s temple at Abydos (Mariette, Abydos I, Pl., 14, a, b) and references in the Nauri Decree, (JEA., 13, Pl. 40, 8); P. Harris, 4, 11. 690 B.J. Kemp, Anatomy, 204; M. Gitton, Le palais de Karnak = BIFAO., 74 (1974), 63 – 73; D.B. Redford, “Studies on Akhenaten at Thebes, I. A Report on the Work on the Akhenaten Temple Project of the University Museum, University of Pensylvania = JARCE., 10 (1973), 87 – 90; R.W. Smith and D.B. Redford, The Akhenaten Temple Project, I (1976), Chapter 9. 691 URK., IV, 951, 4. 692 URK., IV, 225, 10 & 13; 226, 3 & 16; 227, 10. 693 URK. IV, 968, 7; 969, 8; 1094, 16; Helck, URK 18 Dyn., 1449. 694 V. Condon, “Seven Royal Hymns of the Ramesside Period” , MAS., Heft 37, Pl., 87, 4: Amun speaking to Ramesses VII. 695 KRI. I, 307, 13. Sethos I 696 URK., IV, 897, 6 - 7 697 URK., IV, 975, 2. A somewhat obscure passage from the time of Thutmosis III. 698 Helck, URK., 18 Dyn., 1429, 6Q 699 KRI., VI, 540, 1 – Ramesses IXth 700 Helck, URK., 18 Dyn., 1380, 12 ff.

133

55 e]57!

tSe 6 ?5 DMK5b4[0! 't11!5 6%1,h - “Officials (of the Qnbt),

Distinguished Companions, Courtiers, Elders of the stp-sA, (and) the Advisory Panel of Horus (the

king) in his aH”701.

The evidence listed above and covering the period starting with the Old Kingdom and continuing to

the end of the XXth dynasty shows us the aH as the dwelling of gods, whether in the world beyond

or in the form of statues on earth; and this incorporated the person of the reigning king being god

himself. In his aH the king lived, worked, received privileged visitors and listened to the advice of

his elders, wherever he may have been at the time.

Just two points remain to be mentioned on this subject, even if neither may be fully resolved at this

stage. One is the architectural design of the aH, which on the face of it appears simple – a tower

with some kind of decorative frieze or battlements on the roof. This is the hieroglyphic sign

representing a building constructed for defence and at the same time providing a wide panorama for

observation. At the same time it was surrounded by a defensive wall as shown by representations of

the sign for aH inside the sign for wsxt. In short it shows a building eminently suitable for a period

when the tribal chief or the early king faced imminent danger from outside The question is: did the

king in historical times really live in a tower? Or did the design change at some point to

accommodate the additional requirements such as room for the harem, servants and offices (st) to

which the inscription of Hatshepsut refers (above)? This seems more than likely, in fact almost

certain but that only archaeology can answer. The second point, which to a large degree stems from

the first, is the question as to whether the ideogram + (\<+ ) did at some point in history change

into a phonogram and no longer represented what the object to which it referred actually looked

like. Here again, I am inclined to accept this latter option especially in view of the almost

universally standard spelling of the word as +\! whose determinative apart from its very

existence, show this expression to denote a household of some kind. Even more interesting here is

the inclusion of the aayjn (\ ) above the house determinative. It is highly unlikely that the

intention is simply to show the first letter of the word aH, as the inversion of place with the tower

sign and the absence of the letter < cannot be easily explained especially in hieratic documents.702 It

seems far more likely that this expression should, in fact, read aH-a similarly to Xnw-a and even

alongside the title zX-a-nswt both of which are discussed at length elsewhere. The well-attested

alternative writing , (GG. Sign-list O/.12) seems to support this view. The word \4 itself,

which also is fully discussed elsewhere, appears most usually to denote census records as also

701 All these groups of people surrounding the monarch are discussed in detail elsewhere. Here it suffices to draw attention to the last mentioned. It is argued that the Snyt were probably equivalent to the “30” as the traditional body of elders advising the chieftain in predynastic times and remaining in an advisory capacity throughout the Pharaonic Period.What is interesting, however that their services to the king were performed in the aH. 702 One could argue in monumental texts that this was done for visual reasons, but this I tend to reject.

134

property deeds and at times even warrants for the execution of some administrative action. The

connection of “a” with aH also appears from the fact that the king’s reception chamber, probably

containing a kiosk with the throne, was the aXnwty or, as seems likely, rendered in the Old

Kingdom by the expression: Xnw-a. What the (a) denoted in these cases, however, must, at this

stage, constitute a subject for pure speculation. A strong implication is, however that \4 - had an

overall meaning for which there is no parallel in modern European languages. What must further be

considered as probable is that +\! should be transliterated as aHa. To establish this, however, more

research is needed and therefore the shorter version aH will be used throughout this work.

2. [0! - stp-sA703

From all the evidence gathered covering the period under investigation it appears that the stp-sA was

a section of the royal residential enclosure housing the king’s entourage of officials and courtiers,

and therefore the centre of the royal administration itself. The fact that throughout the Old Kingdom

certainly, this expression was never to my knowledge determined with “ ! “ although if not in

itself a building, it contained buildings such as the DAdw-Audience Hall. It will be argued later that

the aH and the stp-sA were enclosed within the Area constituting royal residence par excellence, the

pr-aA.704 The pr-aA in turn appears to have been surrounded by various offices of central government

all walled within the Hwt-wrt-6. From one Old Kingdom passage it seems that at that period at least,

the vizier himself may have officiated in the stp-sA.705 As we shall see below, the term Hwt-wrt-6

was abandoned during the New Kingdom and came to be known simply as pr-nswt, which

throughout the whole pharaonic period stood for the king’s administration and domain as a whole

or perhaps in one word: “The State”. The capital itself with all its departments, officials and the

king was known as the Xnw, although this term became mainly identified with Memphis, just as

xnrt-wr during the Middle Kingdom was identified with the fortress of Itchitowe.

A somewhat obscure passage dated to the reign of Khefren possibly indicates that, at least at that

time, the king’s entourage was selected to serve on a daily basis although this may be reading too

much into a unique statement: e?7Kj :Mooh1e]54 ! 6q:9e[

!h0M7

!t

V> “When

he was alive (and) on his feet as First Confidential Companion of Nekheb whose job was to select

the daily staff of the king (?)”. If this translation is correct then we might view the origin of the stp-

703 A full treatment to this establishment was awarded by Ogden Goelet Jr., “The Term stp-sA in the Old Kingdom and its Later Development = JARCE. 23 (1986), 85 f. 704 Whether the jpt, usually translated, as harem is also to be included is uncertain in view of Ward’s belief that it was a counting house. 705 URK. I, 183, 12 – 13: ~~t1 e!:11O N 1

[0 -“Summoning the Vizier N from the

stp-sA”. indicating that at least at that period this official was located in the stp-s from where he was being summoned presumably to the aH.This is scarcely surprising as as in early dynastic time,viziers were royal prices directly assisting their royal fathers and from the Vth dynasty onwards they bore the title jmj r zX-a nswt which as will be seen was the head of the king’s secretariat and therefore direct continuity.

A

-

135

sA as the place where such selected staff was assembled and worked. A similarly obscure and

somewhat ambiguous passage, but one which cannot be ignored, is the letter of King Isesi of the

Vth dynasty to the vizier SnDm-jb-jntj706: -

“My Majesty inspected this plan for the …(?)…which you caused to be brought for my information

from the stp-sA , having confirmed to My Majesty that you have made it (the plan)…(?)…according

to that which was instructed to you in the stp-sA.”707. Clearly the king himself is not stated to be in

the stp-sA and was presumably in the aH, his private residence and place of work, where the “plan”

was submitted to his scrutiny. The Overseer of All the Works, who, as it happens, was also vizier,

seems to have received the original instructions in the stp-sA. One may validly speculate that they

were issued at a general audience in the DAdw (see below), which, as we shall see, formed a part of

the stp-sA. An almost identical passage pointing to the same conclusion comes to us from the reign

of Neuserre’708. In this case, the king’s communication (wD-nswt) is once again directed to a vizier

and overseer of the king’s secretariat, Rashepses in the words: “My Majesty has read (lit. seen) this

exceedingly agreeable letter which you caused to be brought from the stp-sA on this auspicious

day”. The king did make appearances in the stp-sA and both this place and those who were in it

were closely associated with his person. A VIth dynasty official tells us709: “This humble servant

was praised in the Majesty of the stp-sA when this humble servant…(?) … to the king”.

Unfortunately I am unable to suggest what it was that this man performed for the king, but the

sense is clear while the incongruous but not unique expression Hm n stp-sA, on the one side,

strengthens the royal association, but on the other throws doubts on the assumed meaning of the

word Hm.

The inscription of Sekhmetenankh, an official under Sahure’, a king of the Vth dynasty gives us

further insight into the meaning and function of stp-sA.710 We are told that the king presented this

official with two false doors for his tomb and as he says “work was being done on them in the

presence of the king himself, (while) the stone was being supplied on a daily basis(?) and (also)

daily what was done with them was assessed in the stp-sA”. In ll. 13-14 of this inscription we are

further told that the stone for the false doors was brought from the Tura quarry and “they (the stone

blocks) were deposited in the interior of the b!fK;tK VtK mDM

M!J! DAdw of the

Great-Crown-of-Sahure’ dawns”. To what this place name alludes is not absolutely sure, but it is

not unreasonable to assume that it was the funerary establishment where the king was seen to

officiate after death as he did in the equivalent DAdw of the living, during his life.

706 URK., I, 62, 16 – 63, 3 707 This passage refers to work, which this official was instructed to carry out in his capacity of Overseer of All the King’s Works. What this work comprised precisely is difficult to establish, but it may have been connected with the sed festival. 708 URK., I, 179, 13 709 URK. I, 139, 3 & 8 – 9; cf. Goedicke, Rechtsinschriften, Pl., X, pp. 94 & 97. 710 URK., I, 38, 16 – 39, 1

136

The word DAdw is translated by Faulkner711 as “Audience Hall” and he refers to XVIIIth dynasty

sources as follows: -

1. (URK., IV, 26, 12 – 15): “So it happened that His Majesty …Ahmose … sat in the DAdw

and … the Senior God’s Wife Ahmose-Nefertari was with His Majesty”.

2. (URK IV, 257, 1): The king Thutmosis I orders the courtiers to fulfil “That which My

Majesty instructed and gave to this my daughter (Hatshepsut) when she was in his

embrace in +\!htH!+ (His aH of the tomb) himself appearing (upon) the throne of the

King in the DAdw of the jmj-wrt-sA (b!fK;t>DM!0 ) while those people were on

their bellies in the stp-sA”. The expression >DM!0 which usually is known to refer to a

phyle of workers, meaningless in this context is otherwise unknown to me. Here, I assume

that this may have been a direct equivalent of the stp-sA but in the funerary establishment.

What this text therefore appears to tell us is that the appointment of Hatshepsut to succeed

was effected by the dead king in his capital in the West while the courtiers remained

prostrate in the exact equivalent, but that of the living (which we shall see to have been the

pr-aA) presumably awaiting the announcement. DAdw being part of the funerary

establishment was already mentioned above in connection with the Vth dynasty king

Sahure’.

3. (URK., IV, 349, 10 – 14) “Year 9 (of Hatshepsut), the occasion of the sitting in the DAdw,

the glorious appearance of the king (sic !) in the Atef-crown upon the throne of electrum in

the holy interior of His aH (while) the officials (srw) and the companions (smrw) of the stp-

sA were introduced to hear the details of the instruction(s)”. In this simple passage, the

meanings of the two words aH and stp-sA are perhaps the clearest which we find anywhere

in our sources. aH is the divine lodging of the king, whether it be a tent during a military

campaign, a shrine in which his statue is placed in his funerary establishment, his living

and working quarters within the government enclosure in the capital and even the kiosk in

which his throne stood in the audience hall. stp-sA, on the other hand, was the government

establishment itself whether in the city of the living or the city of the dead. Rekhmire’

boasts of his “coming in joy from the stp-sA, l.p.h. … after he had received praises (from)

the Lord of the aH”.712

The word DAdu with precisely the same meaning as exposed by the above XVIIIth dynasty

examples can be traced to the reign of Mykerinos of the IVth dynasty713: “…whenever there occurs

a session of the DAdw…”

What seems further noticeable is the possible isolation of the king in the aH to the exclusion even of

his children. So, in one Vth dynasty inscription we read “And then, the royal children and the

companions ( smrw ) who were in the stp-sA heard (it) and great fear was in their hearts”.714 This

text is, however, badly damaged and therefore unreliable and in any case we would more expect to

711 CDME., 319 712 URK., IV, 1095, 17 – 1096, 2. 713 URK I, 22, 14 714 URK., I, 41, 16 – 17.

137

find royal children associated with the jpt or harem, unless Ward’s “Counting House” is to be

accepted or even the aH itself.715.

What was said above finds further emphasis in the literary text of Sinuhe716 where his whole

odyssey begins with the statement: “The companions of the stp-sA sent them to the western side (of

the country) to notify the king’s son of the details of what had occurred in the aXnwty”. The aXnwty

was, as we shall see later, very much a part of the aH and the fact that according to the text of the

instructions of Ammenemes I to his son, the attack on him took place while he was asleep, it

therefore follows that the royal bedroom was in the aH. The XIIth dynasty vizier Antefoker is said

to have done “exceedingly well accordingly as he had been ordered in the Majesty of the stp-sA”.717

At this point having apparently set out seemingly clearly the immediate environment in which the

government of Ancient Egypt was conducted, we come up against a problem, which appears, once

again to throw this whole question into confusion and uncertainty. This is the problem of the

remaining five terms, each frequently translated as palace, residence, prison and even court of law.

These terms are respectively != - pr-aA; &DM

!!55 - Hwt-wrt-sw;

e! 4 DM - xnrt-wr; 7!

t!4 -

pr-nswt and lastly \b! - Xnw. Of these terms only pr-aA and pr-nswt are attested for the archaic

period directly718, although bearing in mind that aH frequently appears in the Pyramid Texts, I am of

the opinion that this term was likewise of great antiquity.

The term pr-aA is widely discussed by Ogden Goelet719. In company with him, I find no support for

Goedicke’s opinion that whereas pr-nswt referred to civil administration, pr-aA constituted the

king’s funerary complex720. Neither do I support the view that the two terms were synonymous

although I am inclined to consider the possibility of differences in dialect being the source of the

two terms: pr-aA being of Lower and pr-nswt of Upper Egyptian origin. This may partly be

supported by the fact that certainly in the early stages, the former seems only attested on any scale

in and around Memphis and only traces of it are found in titles in the provinces

I am of the opinion that pr-aA always throughout its historical existence represented the area within

which was the king’s divine residence, the aH, the seat of civil administration - the stp-sA and all

such institutions which constituted central government on earth. This term appears in the IVth

dynasty tomb of Jttj at Giza. This official boasts of having been smr pr-aA, which finds its

715 cf. above : P. Westcar 716 Les., 3, 12; Gardiner, Notes, pp. 108 ff. 717 Abdel Monem, A.H. Sayed, Rd’E., 29 (1977), 170, Pl. 16.For Majesty of the stp-sA where orders were issued and to which officials (srw) were attached. See also from the reign of Hatshepsut URK., IV, 354, ll. 13 & 15 – 17; ibid. 400, 13. 718 Goelet, The Royal Palace, 478 719 The Nature of the Term pr-aA During the Old Kingdom = BES., 10 (1989), 77 - 90 720 Die Stellung des Koenigs im Alten Reich = AeA., 2 (1960), 28 – 9; cf. ZAS., 115 (1988), 114, n.35.

138

equivalent in the XVIIIth dynasty reference to smrw pr-aA l.p.h.721, but more important stands

parallel to the smrw nw stp-sA already mentioned above. Thus pr-aA eventually became synonymous

with the living ruler himself as the Biblical Pharaoh. Goelet,722 however, quotes some examples

from which he argues that even in the Old Kingdom the term pr-aA could refer directly to the living

king as it did in the New Kingdom. It is not therefore surprising that in the Abusir Accounts Papyri,

pr-aA unlike Xnw, aH and pr-nswt never appears as a recognisable administrative unit, but only and

frequently in titles. These titles incorporating pr-aA are listed by Goelet723 and include overseers and

inspectors of the xntyw-S of the pr-aA; administrators and inspectors of the pr-aA; also beauticians,

hairdressers, jewellers, doctors, singers, etc. of the pr-aA. On the administrative side, we find a

scribe of the pr-aA and a seal bearer of the divine book of the pr-aA. All these titles confine the pr-aA

to the immediate surroundings of the king and services connected with the king’s person and

Goelet724 even goes so far as to suggest that it was the “word for the actual king’s residence”. The

pr-aA also possessed skilled and unskilled labourers, such as for instance the 1000 !=!!!

taking part in an VIIIth dynasty (?) expedition to Hammamat,725 and Goelet in his comprehensive

study refers to craftsmen of the pr-aA and also overseers of craftsmen of the pr-aA. As all skilled

labour, indeed, all labour belonged to the king directly or indirectly and therefore the pr-aA; stating it

in every case appears superfluous.

Unlike the pr-nswt, pr-aA never appears as the source of the king’s largesse and apart from a wide

use in titles it has neither economic nor legal functions, be it in the Abusir Papyri or other

documents of the Old Kingdom period. In narrative texts of the Old Kingdom, we come across pr-

aA, not being part of a title, in the tomb of the Memphite priest Ptahshepses at the end of the IVth

and the beginning of the Vth dynasties.726 He tells us that he was brought up with the royal children

in the pr-aA nj nswt, in the Xnw-a ( later aXnwty ) and the jpt-nswt. All these three terms clearly

referring to the palace enclave. Indeed, I would speculate that here again we have an apposition:

“pr-aA, namely the Xnw-a and the jpt-nswt”.

Before we go further, one important factor needs to be mentioned here, namely that it seems very

difficult if indeed possible with the information which we possess to distinguish clearly between the

two terms pr-aA and pr-nswt, although as pointed out, the second of these has a far wider application

than the former and as suggested, the two may even be derived from different dialects of Egyptian

and although their usage differs widely, it may be that they were seen as being synonymous from

the beginning. This finds strong support albeit so much later, in the New Kingdom, at which time

apart from standing for government or State, the expression pr-nswt was used to describe the

enclosure in the capital of the kingdom containing royal dwelling and administrative departments.

As we shall see, this walled enclosure had gates (arrwt) backed with courtyards (wsxwt) where the

721 URK., IV, 1095, 5 722 Op. cit., pp. 81 - 2 723 Op. cit. pp. 84 - 5 724 Palaces, 536 725 URK., I, 149, 5 - 8 726 URK., I, 51, Lorton, JARCE., 11 (1974), 100; cf. Goelet, Palace, 175 & 603f.

139

qnbt-sDmyw officiated dispensing justice to the common people outside. It is highly indicative

therefore that we encounter in the XVIIIth dynasty Papyrus Mook727 a high profile trial, which was

held (at the gate to) the courtyard (wsxt) of the Royal Enclosure l.p.h. (pr-aA). in Thebes. This is all

but duplicated in another document728 where again the qnbt is said to have met in Thebes at the

“Gate (arryt) of the Royal Enclosure (pr-aA) l.p.h.”. The significance of this evidence is the fact that

as we know from other documents of the period, such as the Inscriptions of Rekhmire’, the

government enclosure in Thebes which was walled and precluded entry by unauthorised persons

and at whose gates officiated the qnbt-sDmyw. was at that period generally referred to as pr-nswt.

The only conclusion is, that at that period pr-aA and pr-nswt was one and the same thing.

Having so far argued that the aH constituted the lodgings of the divine person of the king, the stp-sA,

the administrative and advisory establishment around the monarch in both cases either living or

dead, and lastly the pr-aA/pr-nswt as the area within which only the living king lived with his family

and retainers, and ruled surrounded by his officials, we now come to the puzzle of resolving, as far

as available evidence permits, the nature of Hwt-wrt-(6) and the xnrt-wr.

References to the Hwt-wrt, Hwt-aAt and Hwt-wrt-(6) are frequent already from the Early Dynastic

Period,729 as also are the references to xnrt and xnrt-wr during the Middle Kingdom. Not

unnaturally, however, the writers of the texts from which evidence is obtained assumed that the

readers would know exactly what these institutions were and did not consider it necessary to

provide us with clear details. Such details have to be conjectured and a picture of what these very

important institutions of the state was, constructed largely on the basis of probability.

Scholars are undecided as to the true meaning of these terms and assign to them various

interpretations, which stem from the somewhat ambivalent nature of the evidence at our disposal.730

Moreno Garcia disposes of the theory that the Hwt-wrt was some kind of law court: “L’hypothèse

relative a la nature judiciaire de la Hwt-wrt ne semble donc pas justifiée; il est préférable de

considerer cette institution comme le bureau du vizir, le bureau central du rayume.” Quirke

follows this line with the words “The Hwt-wrt-6 may denote the administrative aspect of the

Residence, cf. Strudwick, Administration, 188 - 198 (a literal interpretation as particular buildings)

and my speculation on the subject ...Note that even in the early Old Kingdom, Hwt need not be

confined to a single building or enclosure, but may embrace its estate or domain...” Inscription “A”

in the tomb of Nebkauhor, from the beginning of the VIth dynasty lists a number of officials

t.

727 Spiegelberg, ZAS. 63, 105 ff. 728 P. Berl. 3047 = JARCE 2 (1963), 72, 4-8 729 Lacau/Lauer, La pyramide a degres, V, 1 – 2 = Inscriptions a l’encre sur les vases. Here we find an otherwise unknown vizier Menka mentioned in association with Hwt-wrt and jnw pr-nswt Hwt-wrt “taxes of the Hwt-wrt of the pr-nsw The following points must be noted: the “6” is not mentioned in connection with Hwt-wrt also at this early period pr-nswt and Hwr-wrt are not regarded as being synonymous. My translation is based on the assumption of a honorific transposition. 730 Moreno Garcia, JEA LXXXIV (1998), 75; Etudes, 135; Quirke, R. d’E XXXVII (1986), 128 n. 60; Administration, 69, n. 24; Martin - Pardey, BiOr XLVI (1989), 540 - 544; Goedicke, Private Rechtsinschriften, 80- 103.

140

described as srw, saHw, jmjw-st-a but also government departments: Hwt-wrt, Snwt, pr-HD, pr- mDAt,

pr-Xrt-xtmt. In view of my own conclusion to be expressed that the Hwt-wrt-(6) was the enclosure

containing the centre of administration, otherwise referred to as pr-nswt, this list, apparently

showing the item which should incorporate all departments as merely one of them is disconcerting,

unless one takes it to be in apposition to the rest as “Hwt-wrt, namely the Granary, the Treasury,

the Archive, and the Secret Archive.” The Egyptians were fond of apposition and this form of

expression survived into Coptic. Similarly a passage, referring to those failing to observe the

requirements of the deceased, which is quoted by these modern scholars, might at first sight suggest

that the Hwt-wrt was some kind of prison, although we know that no such institution existed in

Ancient Egypt. The passage runs: “As for any man who comes to my knowledge as having been

retained (xnr) on account of it in the Hwt-wrt, who was flogged on account of it in the Hwt-wrt or

who was punished on account of it in the stp-s .” This clearly refers to central officials to be

punished within the area of their activities, but in particular the offices of the King himself, the stp-

sA. Similar allusion to judicial activities will later be mentioned in connection with the xnrt-wr.

A

As to the nature of the Hwt being an enclosure either defensive or restrictive in nature, little, if any

doubt remains in my mind. Also, so many parallels with the Middle Kingdom expression xnrt come

to us in the evidence available, that we can to some extent almost equate the two words but for

different periods. What they both signified was an enclosure such as housed the forcibly resettled

workers on newly reclaimed land also, most probably, criminals working on land. These

settlements were fully studied by Moreno Garcia731 in connection with the newly reclaimed lands in

open country: nwwt-mAwt and the restrictive settlements themselves, Hwwt. According to this

scholar732 the two terms are often associated and that the former were dependences of the latter. He

quotes one of the titles of Meten, which shows this association and dependence733:

n e6t! &QQQ!

iii <M!s - “Governor of the Hwt of Senet and the open settlements and

cultivated area which are within its domain.” Moreno Garcia further supports his view with a

passage from the biography of Ibi of Deir el Gebrawi

734 in which a H(w)t nt pr-Sna is shown to have

owned 203 arourae of land. To this can further be added a coffin text735 where a H(w)t incorporates

trees, land, houses etc. He suggests, by all accounts correctly, that during the Old Kingdom period

taxes were collected by the state through the officials in charge of the Hwt. To this an oblique

reference has already been made above in connection with the fact that at this period, Hwt were

generally associated with the prw-Sna, the conversion and distribution plants for taxes received.

These settlements were awarded for administration purposes to temples, pyramid towns and

731 ZAS CXXIII - CXXV. 732 ZAS CXXV (1998), 42. 733 URK I, 3, 11. 734 URK I, 145, 1. 735 CT., VI, 170 - 4 = Faulkner, CT., II, 172 - 3.

141

individuals such as Meten or as seen from a contemporary passage: “That which was brought to her

from her Hwt and her nwt.”736

From the word Hwt meaning a secure settlement, it is necessary clearly to distinguish the expression

Hwt-wrt which, as already stated, in my opinion, represented the walled enclosure of the centre of

administration which included the royal compound consisting of the aH or private residence, the jpt

or royal household and the stp-sA-the royal office and secretariat. Also included in the Hwt-wrt were

various offices and archives. It is highly unlikely that anyone not directly involved in central

administration or the royal household or specifically invited, had any right of entry into the area of

Hwt-wrt-(6). All the departments and personnel were together referred to as pr-nswt or pr-aA. A

similar organisation probably also existed in the case of the major temple complexes referred to as

Hwt-nTr. The direct connection of the Hwt-wrt and the pr-nswt emerges from an Old Kingdom

title

737 Hry- sStA n nswt m Hwt-wrt nt pr-nswt, which can probably be translated as “Confidential

Secretary of the King within the Enclosure of Central Government.”

Perhaps the most important reference to the establishment described above comes from the

biography of the VIth dynasty vizier Kagemni738. This official relates how he himself came to the

“capital city” (Xnw) in the reign of Unis (Col. 2) and in the very next column refers to the

accession of Teti as His (the King’s) arrival in the Xnw. This is followed by the information given

to us (Cols. 5 & 6) to the effect that all that His Majesty approved of was being done in the Hwt-

wrt-6. Following this, we are still further told by the vizier Kagemni, that “The Majesty of Teti,

Possessor-of-Eternal-Life, placed me in charge (as overseer) of all the offices of all the assigned

functions of the Capital (lit. ‘Interior’)”. The overall description of the central administrative

enclosure and the terminology employed are very clear. This interpretation is strengthened by a

document from the reign of Neferirkarea,739 which refers to eM5!!!tKM!!'D! -

“Officials at the Gate of the Hwt - wrt”, undoubtedly the DADAt of the sDmyw solving the problems of

and dispensing justice to petitioners at the gate to the administrative enclosure which those

petitioners were not allowed to enter.

One title must again be mentioned at this point, namely 1e#−t&D!!!>D!

t!\

b! 740 which

suggests on the face of it that the “Enclosure” was divided into at least two sections, the western

and one or more others. The other possibility is that the enclosure extended to both sides of the

Nile, the enclosure of the living and the enclosure of the dead. Perhaps, however, even more likely

736 R. Macramallah, Le Mastaba d’Idout = Service des Antiquites de l’Egypte (Cairo 1935), Pl., XX. 737 Mariette, Mastabas, 70; cf. Lacau, Lauer, Pyramide a Degres, V, 1 - 3 [1]. This is the earliest known occurrence of the expression Hwt - wrt. 738 URK I, 194 - 6 = Edel, MIO I (1953), Pl., II. 739 P. Berl., 11301, x + 3: Posener - Krieger, de Cenival, HPBM., V, Pl., LXXX (A); Posener - Krieger, Archives de Neferirkarea II, 451 - 465; Roccati, Litterature, 285 - 6; Wente, Letters, 55 - 6 [62]. 740 Helck, Beamtentitel, 73; LD., II, 43 [b]; Moreno Garcia, Etudes, 133.

142

explanation is that the twin house determinative is in line with Egyptian obsession with duality and

meant no more than “twin granary” or “twin treasury” and that there was only one Hwt-wrt of the

Residence and this title refers to the western part of it. This whole argument, of course, is based on

the assumption that the Hwt-jmj-wrt refers to the Hwt-wrt-(6) being discussed here and for this

assumption there seems to be no conclusive evidence.

As for the (!! - Hwt - aAt, Moreno Garcia finds a number of different meanings and functions for

this department. I am inclined myself to treat it, albeit with some reservations, in some cases at

least, as a synonym for Hwt - wrt. Such is possibly the meaning of the expression in the passage in

the biography of Uni741 who says that just before he was appointed by the VIth dynasty king

Merenrea to be Overseer of Upper Egypt: Bt1(

!!!-K!<M-q!ii! - “I was an

ATw bearing (the King’s) sandals in the Hwt-aAt.” Such is also the implication of an early XIIth

dynasty text of a man claiming742: MBK+5Bv!d+t\b!(~! - “Knowing the procedures/secrets of

the interior of the Hwt-aAt.” Mention of this institution is also found in religious texts, such as a

passage in the Pyramid Texts743 addressed to the god Khnum: “You are one of the two pillars of the

Hwt-a t”. At least telling us that this must have been an enclosure or a building of some architectural

distinction, perhaps a temple. This seems to be endorsed by a later passage from the Coffin

Texts

A

- At

744: “I have given you (the deceased)) these offerings which Hathor Lady of Punt has given

you. She gives you myrrh in the Hwt-aAt” and even more clearly from another passage745 “O Atum

who art in the Hwt a ”.

A number of texts dated to the Old Kingdom further present the expression Hwt-wrt in ways, which

assuming they are correctly interpreted, give us an insight into the meaning of this establishment.

As an example we can repeat an already quoted passage from a letter of King Neferirkarea

confirming exemptions for the priests of Abydos746. The passage runs as follows: -

“Any official, namely (any) person attached to royal property, (any) possessor of a crown income

(?), (or any other man) who should take out a requisition (for compulsory labour) after this my

order and forward it to the Hwt-wrt, the house, the fields, the people and all goods he possesses

there ...should be taken away (??)”.747 The meaning here seems to be the centre of administration.

Somewhat surprising is a short surviving passage from the text of the Vth dynasty prince

Kamtchennet748: ~~K:s,ev!d!1'D

!!!! . While mdw sStA - “confidential matters” are

frequently encountered in connection with the Hwt-wrt, what is strange here is the rendering of this

department in the plural. Whether this refers to the centres of administration throughout Egypt

741 URK I, 105, 11. 742 Griffith, Inscr. of Siut and Deir Rifeh, Pl., XVIII, 4. 743 Pyr. 524d (324) 744 CT I, 204 f (Sp. 47) 745 CT, IV, 327k (Sp. 336) 746 URK I, 172, 6 - 8. 747 This translation, I have to admit as being highly tenuous. 748 URK I, 183, 1

143

between which the court switched residence from time to time, or whether this was another way of

writing Hwt - wrt - 6 clearly cannot be established. However, many centuries later, in the Inscription

of Rekhmirea, as indeed in a number of other cases, we encounter the writing &!K!5DM1 1

!!5444444

showing that, assuming the term still had a real meaning, there were more than one of these

establishments depending on the number of the centres at which the court stopped during progress

or was from time to time established, such as Memphis, Ichitowe749, Piramessu or Thebes 750. The

plurality of the Hwt-wrt also comes to us from a reference dated to the reign of the XIIth dynasty

King Sesostris I751. Here, the Nomarch of Siut, Hepdjefai threatens the servants of the King of

Lower Egypt who are in the Hwt-wrt (plural) and who should fail in observing certain matters

important to Hepdjefai, that their gods should not accept their white bread offerings. Here,

reference is probably made to the northern capital where the king resided, but also to other centres

like Thebes to which the court moved from time to time, and hence again the plural.

In view of the apparent occasional plurality of the Hwt-wrt, one would imagine that the term Hwt-

wrt- 6 - “The Six Great Enclosures” or perhaps “The Great Enclosure of the Six” would be easily

identifiable. Such is not the case, however, for although the obvious interpretation is that this

institution was a walled enclosure containing six independent departments, jointly constituting the

government of the country, no such direct link exists between any group of offices and the Hwt-wrt.

Nowhere does the number six appear. Quirke suggests752 that “The number 6 is clearly symbolic’,

since we have no record of two, three, four, or five Hwt. I would suggest that this can be explained

if the Hwt -wrt is taken to represent the administrative aspect of the Residence; being both dual (for

the Two Lands, as a national institution, cf. the occasional writing prwy HD for the Treasury) and

plural, in Egyptian terms triple (as a complex of different elements), the Residence could quite

naturally be seen as twice triple, or graphically 444444 .” Unfortunately, I cannot accept this ingenious

interpretation. The incorporation of both duality and plurality into one sign, which happens to look

like the number 6, is quite unknown to me. As to the other part of his argument only one text needs

be quoted and that is the Lament of Ipuwer753 which Quirke actually offers in the very same

passage and translates: “Alas, the xnrt-wr is an open house, the rabble come and go in the Great

Domains (Hwwt-wryt)” He explains: “The Hwwt-wryt can probably be identified with the Hwwt-

wryt-6...and may represent a fossilised designation of the Residence area, with its plurality of

national offices.”

749 Stela BM., 830 = Quirke, R. d’E., XXXVII (1986), 128, n. 60; Strudwick, Adm., 188 - 98. 750 Gardiner, ZAS LX (1925), 63 (a), 1 - 3; cf. Helck, URK 18 Dyn, 1438, 17; ibid., 1439, 9; Weil, Veziere, p. 20, n. 26; ibid., 42, n. 7; ibid., 74, n. 4; ibid., 78, n. 6; ibid., 79, n. 7; ibid., 80, n. 9; ibid., 92, n. 18. 751 Griffith, Inscr. of Siut and Deir Rifeh, Pl., IV, 225. 752 R. d’E., XXXVII (1986), 128, n. 60 753 P. Leiden, 344, Col., VI, Quirke, op. cit., also 39, 97.

144

Such in fact appears to be the meaning of Hwt-wrt- 6 as represented in a number of claims made by

Old Kingdom officials. The often quoted VIth dynasty official Uni informs us754: “His Majesty

appointed me zAb-r-nxn (?) because He was pleased with me more than any other servant of His. I

was privy to (lit. listened) confidential matters (involving) the name of the King, the royal

household and the Hwt-wrt-6 alone with the Vizier for I pleased His Majesty more than any other

official (sr) of His...” This passage shows the three elements of the Residence Enclosure, namely

the King himself, the members of his household and finally the administrative establishment. In this

case, Hwt-wrt- 6 is used as a synonym for pr-nswt or the government in general. This usage also

appears in a number of instances where Old Kingdom officials claim to have eK V s,

t'!!D! 755

which, contrary to Fischer’s interpretation, I consider to have meant some form of audit of matters

dealt with in the administrative compound. This expression smAa wDa-mdw - “to put in order /

correct756 matters resolved.” also appears in the inscription of Nenki under Phiops II757 in the form

eKVs,:Mev!d!teX!

54 1'D!

444444 - “One who audits resolutions being over confidential

matters, those which one investigates (lit listens to) alone in the Hwt-wrt-6.” The fact that these

officials like Uni, discussed above, bore the title [1 ]MP - zAb r–nxn, which I maintain was a royal

investigator within the governing circle, is scarcely surprising as also the fact that Nenki bore the

title Priest of Maat, implying his connection with truth and justice. The expression sDmt wa m Hwt-

wrt-6 - “one who investigates alone in the Hwt-wrt-6” may perhaps have originated the much later

title found in connection with Rekhmirea758: X1 [& ]!K!5DM1 1

!!5444444 which we can now

perhaps tentatively translate as “Investigator of Government Departments”.

The connection of the Hwt-wrt-(6) with central administration is very strongly supported by the Old

Kingdom titles, many of which have already been quoted above: -

(a) 1M'!!D! 759

(b) 1M'!!D!

444444 760

(c) Vs|1'!!D!

444444 761

(d) '!!D! r- 762

(e) :Me

v!dtVs|

v!dt'

!!D! 763

(f) :Me

v!dtVs|

t>'!!D! 764

754 URK I, 99, 5 - 6. 755 Fischer, Old Kingdom Inscriptions in the Yale Gallery, MIO VII, 3, 303 (fig. 3, ex. f) 756 Faulkner, CDME 227. 757 URK I, 260, 9. 758 URK IV, 1071, 14. = ZAS LX, 63; cf. Zaba, Ptahhotep, 15, 3. 759 M. Murray; S.H. Giza, V, 61; Teti, Pyr. Cem. 93; ASAE XXXVIII, 106. etc. 760 M. Murray; Teti, Pyr. Cem., 105 ff; ibid., 131 ff; ibid., 151 ff; ASAE XL, 688; Mariette, Mast., E.8; S.H. Giza, V, 182; etc. 761 S.H. Giza, II, 155. 762 Mariette, Mast. E.8; S.H. Giza, V, 182. 763 Junker, Giza, III, 234; ibid. VII, 201.

145

(g) :Me

v!dtVs|'

!!D!

444444 765

(h) :Me

v!dts s s|

v!dt'

!!D! 766

(i) :Me

v!dts s s|

v!dt'

!!D!

444444 767

(j) :Me

v!dt'

!!D! 768

(k) :Me

v!dt'

!!D!

444444 769

(l) 11M-Vs,v!dt'

!!D! 770

(m) 14 $b!'D4D'D

4D 771

(n) 1e#-'D'D!! 772

(o) 1e#-t'D!!!>D!

t!\

b! 773

(p) eKVs|t'!!D! 774

(q) e#-t'!!D! 775

(r) e#-t'D'D!! 776

(s) :Me

v!d!

t! 71&DM!

t!!7 777

All the above titles refer to central administration. Adopting the translations of “one dealing with

administrative matters” or simply “Head of Administration” for Hry sStA 778; “resolving matters” or

simply “administering” for wDa-mdw779 and “confidential matters” for mdw - StA(w) one sees a

picture of Hwt-wrt-(6) as a centre of government. This picture is further strengthened by the set of

titles referring to official documents (l, n, o, q, r). The occasional duality of the Hwt-wrt-(6) (n, o &

r) can probably be explained by the general tendency of the Egyptians to express offices or state

764 Mariette, Mast., E. 17. 765 Teti Pyr. Ce., 131 ff; Dashur, fig., 27; ASAE XVI, 199 ff. 766 Saqqara Mast. I, Pl., XX. 767 LD., II, 64 b. 768 M. Murray; Junker, Giza, II, 201; S.H. Giza V, 261; Teti Pyr. Cem., 158; Cairo 1416. 769 Leps., Erg., XLI. 770 Junker Giza VII, 48. 771 S.H. Giza, V, 276. 772 LD., II, 43 b, c, d. 773 S.H. Giza, V, 237. 774 BM., 1272; Quibell, Exc. Saqq. III, XIII; Cairo, 133. 775 S.H. Giza, V, 237. 776 LD., II, 43 b. 777 Mariette, Mast. A1, p.70; cf. Junker, Giza, VII, 199; Helck, Beamtentitel, 44. 778 The true meaning of the title Hry-sStA is clearly shown in a passage in the Coffin Texts: CT I,

111c ((Sp. 33): 1"3331>K 6+4 61"[! I51>!

v!dK

+5 - “O you gods who are in chaos (HHw),

O you Ennead, who are in StAw” The meaning of this last word must therefore be something like “good organisation” or “efficiency”. The meaning of the title Hry-sStA must therefore reflect something like “Efficiency Expert” or to put it simply “Head of Administration” 779 This translation or better still understanding of the expression wDa-ndw is further supported by such passages as Pyr. 1934b-c (667): “Sit upon your iron throne and govern (wDa-mdw) with the double Ennead”. Pyr. 485c (307): “His affairs (mdw) shall not be dealt with (wDaa) in his (own) town”. However, we must not assume that this term was not used to define cases of arbitration or legal disputes: “…and I (the king) give judgment (wDa-mdw) in the heavens (?) between the two contestants”. Further examples are quoted throughout this work.

146

departments such as Treasury, Granary etc. in dual form which may possibly stem from the

recognition of the duality of the Kingdom itself and frequently the existence of two capitals,

northern and southern, although this was not much in evidence during the Old Kingdom. The most

significant perhaps is title (s): “One concerned with confidential matters of the King in the Hwt-wr

of the pr-nswt” placing the former squarely within the latter.

t

Virtually all references to Hwt-wrt-(6) and titles incorporating this expression disappear with the

end of the Old Kingdom; it survives only in the title held by Viziers down to the New Kingdom, as

indeed does the title WQ!4 There is, however, evidence that this expression was replaced by xnrt-wr

which may or may not have been of southern or Theban origin.

Like Hwt, so also xnrt was used for various establishments in the provinces, but the indication is

that rather than representing agricultural communities working on newly reclaimed lands, albeit

within an enclosure, possibly guarded; xnrt were decidedly walled and restrictive both inwards and

outwards. In his article seemingly quoting all the known examples of xnrt (wr)780 Quirke states that

xnrt first appears during the war between Thebes and Heracleopolis as a fortified camp. Already

under the XIth dynasty it is associated with women producing cloth, presumably as part of

compulsory labour. Finally, in the late Middle Kingdom, the military association disappears and it

is only shown as an enclosure to keep people in or even metaphorically as in the passage “his heart

had built a xnrt about him”781. The implication of a walled fortification continues well into the

XVIIIth dynasty and the reign of Thutmosis III when we find the passages stating that the enemy

“were positioned in the xnrt of their own construction”782 and “encircled in the xnrt of their own

construction”.783 Both cases clearly referring to a confined space from which exit is restricted.

However, it has to be admitted that throughout the period of its existence, the word xnrt retained a

strong association with some aspects of the administration of justice. In the Papyrus Westcar, which

relates a story allegedly having occurred in the time of Cheops of the IVth dynasty, but was in fact

almost certainly written at some time during the Second Intermediate Period, we find a reference to

the King saying: “bring to me a prisoner (xnrj) who is in the xnrt”.784 In the Papyrus Leyden785 we

have a passage: “if this book be read...he (the reader) hungers not and thirsts not, he does not enter

the xnrt and he does not come out of it convicted (wDaw). If, (however), he enters into the xnrt, he

comes forth acquitted (mAa-xrw)”.786

780 R. d’E XXXIX (1988), 83 - 106. 781 Barns, Five Ramasseum Papyri, Pl., VII, B, II, 13 (transcription) with p. 7. 782 URK IV, 184, 15. 783 Op. cit., 758, 16. 784 Les. 30, 24. cf. Rekhmirea, 2, 14; Petrie, Koptos, XX a, 8. 785 347, 12, 11. 786 We have no record of any trial taking place in a xnrt. This may refer to the outer perimiter of the capital city within which was the enclosure of pr-nswt at whose gate arryt law was dispensed. All this, however is speculation.

147

In his publication of the Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446787 Hayes discusses the expression xnrt at great

length and comes to the conclusion that it meant “prison” while xnrt-wr signified “the main

prison”. I find this modern interpretation oversimplified and unacceptable. It certainly does not

account for certain examples which we possess, such as the K!!+\! 788, which from the context

most certainly suggests a translation such as “the enclosure of the royal private residence”,

although some arguments exist to the effect that the word here is to be read as xnt and has no

relation to the xnrt being discussed. Indeed that is what xnrt appears to have been: a walled or

ramparted area. In this, it is almost certainly the successor of the Old Kingdom Hwt but acquiring a

new significance. Whereas the latter remained as encircled towns or villages originally representing

perhaps forced settlements on reclaimed land and continued down to the New Kingdom, the former

originating from First Intermediate Period military camps became during the Middle Kingdom

compulsory labour camps accommodating also criminals condemned to forced labour or awaiting

sentence. One other possibility can be added, one, which would actually explain all the apparent

inconsistencies in our available evidence. That these provincial xnr w)t apart from housing

conscript labourers and criminals, also incorporated provincial administrative offices. This would

explain the judicial association and the presence of laws such as we find in one of the passages of

the Lament of Ipuwer

(

789: “Alas, the laws of the xnrt are cast outside...” It would also, at least in

this respect, compare the xnr(w)t with the central xnrt - wr.

The connection of the Middle Kingdom xnrt - wr with the Old Kingdom Hwt - wrt - 6 is undeniable

and comes out clearly from yet another passage in the Lament of Ipuwer790: “Alas, the xnrt–wr is

an open house; the rabble come and go in the Hwt-wryt”. Here we have the new expression of xnrt

for the walled enclosure but the term Hwt-wrt used for the administrative establishment. Prior to

this, the latter expression covered both meanings

We have already earlier mentioned that the Hwt-wrt-(6), the central administrative enclosure,

referred to all centres of state administration or, as we would now call, capitals of the country, not

only Thebes, but likewise Memphis and Ichitowe. It may be added that the reason for xnrt-wr to

represent the country’s capital very probably stems from the fact that this city, namely Itchitowe,

which constituted the king’s residence and the seat of government throughout the XIIth dynasty and

almost certainly also the XIIIth., is quite unusually represented, not as other capitals such as

Memphis or Thebes simply determined with the nwt or city determinative, but is enclosed in a

buttressed fortification. For this we have the evidence of, admittedly unique titles found in the

Middle Kingdom. The first is jmj-r jpt-nswt sHtp-jb-Ra jT-tAwy – “Overseer of the Counting House

j rt t (

787 Pl., I; ibid. pp. 36 - 7. 788 URK IV, 897, 6.The reference in the Admonitions (VI, 5 - 6) wms xn - Dsr Sd w) zXw.f - “forsooth, the xnrt - Dsr, its papers have been removed” may refer to the King’s private residence, but may also refer to the temples although the former seems more likely. 789 P. Leyden, 344 Col., VI, 9 - 10; LA., I, 65 - 6; Quirke, R. d’E XXXIX (1988), 95.It has to be considered possible however that the word xnrt here, may well be an abbreviation for xnrt - wr. 790 P. Leyden, 344, Col., VI, 12; Quirke, R. d’E XXXVII, 128, n. 60; ibid. XXXIX, 97.

148

of Itchitowe”791 shows the city name surrounded by the fortification as stated above. The second

title is even more significant. The title is jmj-r Hwt (wrt)-6 m jT-TAwy – “Overseer of the Hwt wrt)-6 (

in Itchitowe”.792 It shows that the Hwt-wrt-6 still existed as an element of state administration in the

Middle Kingdom and not merely as an honorific title of the vizier; also that it existed in Itchitowe,

while the preposition “m” suggests that it must also have existed elsewhere, presumably Thebes.

The reason why this fortified residence or xnrt-wr was deemed advisable can only be conjectured.

Clearly the early monarchs of the XIIth dynasty feared unrest and usurpation. The assassination of

Ammenemes I emphasized the danger, and the adopted system of co-regencies as well as the new

fortress capital point in this direction. One more item of importance arises out of the last quoted

title. As Hwt-wrt-6 is expressly said to be “in Itchitowe”, it is clear that the two are not

synonymous. Such equation is more likely to exist between Itchitowe and Xnw.

Although we are still in the dark as to the meaning of the number “6” in the Hwt - wrt - 6, we can

say with considerable confidence that neither this Old Kingdom expression, nor its Middle

Kingdom parallel xnrt-wr, represented law courts as once believed. These expressions stood for

administrative centres of the Kingdom including royal residences and offices. Both these terms

gradually gave way to the remaining two, which, although used throughout the period, became

universally applied to this notion in the New Kingdom. The terms were pr-nswt and pr-aA.

Already in the Old Kingdom pr-nswt (var. pr-nj-nswt) was clearly the term covering all state

administration incorporating the Treasury, the Granary and was among others, the source of

payments towards endowments etc. These are very common and it would be superfluous to list

them here. As examples, however, can be cited a decree of Phiops II793: “A boon of the king which

is to be given to it (the statue) for its offerings and which is established in the pr nj nswt”. These

offerings were usually derived from the Treasury, the Granary or both. What is interesting,

however, is another inscription794 where the source of the “royal boon” comes from “all the

administrative establishments of the Xnw (!!>

t!\

b! )”. Here, the st nb clearly refer to the

above-mentioned Treasury, Granary etc., but most important, Xnw replaces and therefore equates

with the pr nj nswt. Another endowment of divine offerings ( Htpw-nTr ) by Phiops II is expressed

as follows: “The royal boon which is given to it (the cult), for the divine offerings is to be

established in the pr nj nswt”.795 Even private funerary endowments could be derived from the pr-

nswt and at the same time from the “private” estate - pr-Dt.

791 C.H. Firth & B. Gunn, Excavations at Saqqara. Teti Pyramid Cemeteries (1926), 280; Ward Index of MK. Titles, p. 11, nr. 38. It is to be noted that the translation of jpt-nswt as “Royal Counting House” is down to Ward. He also translates Itchitowe as Lisht. 792 BM., 255 (830); cf. ibid., 193 (566) 793 Goedicke, KD.,, 128 – 136 & Abb. 10 794 Hassan & Iskander, Mastabas of Princess Hemet-Re’ and others, fig. 33 ; cf. URK., I, 184, 3. 795 URK., I, 293, 17

149

An earlier reference to the royal generosity comes to us from the tomb of a IVth dynasty official,

Khafkhufu796 who is shown watching articles being brought by his servants and the caption being:

“Inspecting the Invocation offerings which are brought from the pr-nswt and from the villages of

his ‘private estate’ – pr-Dt”. Also “Inspecting items under seal ([! ) which are brought from the pr-

nswt”797.

A Middle Kingdom text of particular interest is the inscription of Upwataa, a nomarch of Abydos

under Sesostris I and Ammenemes II.798 He recounts how he sailed downstream “to that Great Xnw

of His Majesty” which was clearly Itchitowe, “The officials ( xtmyw, namely seal-bearers ) who

are in the pr-nswt and the general public ( anxw ) who are at the gate799 witnessed my introduction

into the pr-nswt”. Upwataa emphasizes his privilege of entry into the “enclosure” which he follows

by telling us that he then went up to the aH where he was praised (by the king) and promoted while

being admired (mr) in the sTp-sA. Apart from the fact that already at this time, early in the Middle

Kingdom what we would expect to be referred to as Hwt-wrt-6 was being referred to as pr-nswt, this

text adequately summarises all that has been said about the various terms frequently and

misleadingly translated as “palace”. This function of the pr-nswt for the New Kingdom is also

exposed in the inscription of Setau under Ramesses II.800 He describes the progress of his career

beginning with the position of junior scribe and ending with the offices of Governor of Kush

(King’s son of Kush) and Overseer of the Lands of Gold and claims that he was instructed by the

king himself when he came to the pr-nswt as a young man. This is further supported for the same

period by the text of Ramesses II’s first Hittite marriage (KRI II, 255,2) where the princess is

deposited in the aH of the Pr-Nswt. In the New Kingdom period, therefore, pr-nswt was the walled

and gated enclosure, closed to outsiders. As suggested elsewhere, it was otherwise, probably

deriving from the northern dialect, referred to as pr-aA, with the king’s residence, closest associates

and state offices and the whole surrounded by the wall in the New Kingdom also referred to as pr-

nswt. This, in turn formed the centre of the capital city or Xnw. This establishment could best be

represented by a set of concentric circles with the king’s aH at the centre.801 around which was the

stp-sA with the king’s secretariat and audience hall (DAdw), further out were offices and perhaps

even residences of high state officials, the whole surrounded by a wall and referred to as pr-nswt or

pr-aA.. This wall was penetrated by gates (arrwt) incorporating a barbican type of construction,

containing a courtyard (wsxt). At these gates officiated the Court of Hearers (qnbt-sDmyw). All

this, however will be discussed in detail in the chapter on the Courts of Law. At this stage it simply

796 Daressy, ASAE., 16 (1916), 260 – 1; Simpson,Khafkhufu, Pl., 29; Goelet, Palace, 487 – 8; cf., Junker, Giza, II, p. 128 - 129 (ABB. 11). cf. Inscription of Mery-jb (Junker, Giza, II, 128 – 9; cf. ibid., III, 180; ibid., IX, 189; ibid., XI, 87. 797 These items under seal ( xtmwt )like linen, eye paint etc. all treasury items. 798 Sethe, Les., 74, 12 ff. 799 Reference to the gate to the government enclosure into which the general public had no right of admission. Later we shall see how all contact with the general public was, in fact, at the gate (arryt) including the judging of legal disputes. 800 KRI., III, 92, 8 801 This layout, in a more elaborate form is described by van den Boorn, Duties, 310 – 311 & fig. 5, p. 67.

150

remains to bear in mind that this outside wall containing the pr-nswt/pr-aA in the Old Kingdom was

called Hwt-wrt-(6) and this is best underwritten by the Old Kingdom title802: :Me

v!dt7

!t1'

!!D!

t! 7!! - Head of Confidential Matters of the King in the Hwt-wrt of the

pr-nswt.

The Xnw, which is here translated as “Capital”, certainly in the Old Kingdom represented Memphis

where the government of the country was situated. As frequently in Egyptian documents, two

separate items are often found to be equated simply because one was within the other. A glaring

example comes from the exemption decree for the pyramids of Snofru issued by Phiops I.803 The

edict exempts those working for the endowment from “doing any work for the pr nj nswt” and

immediately in the very next sentence, from doing any corvée for any administrative department of

the Xnw”. As the meaning of the two sentences is virtually identical, one is bound to wander

whether here, all we have is emphasis for effect.

Thus in the inscription of Uni, official of the VIth dynasty, Xnw is referred to as the establishment

on whose behalf taxes were collected804 and official functions performed. Similarly Phiops I issuing

a decree in respect of his mother’s kA–chapel at Coptos805 declares that “My Majesty has

commanded the exemption of this kA–chapel: My Majesty does not allow in this kA–chapel any

corvée ( mDdw ) which is levied on behalf of the Xnw, to be made”. One expects either Hwt-wrt-6 or

at this period, late in the Old Kingdom pr-nswt. Indeed, in another similar text806 pr-nswt is used

and not Xnw.

802 Junker, Giza VII, 198-9 803 URK., I, 210, 2 - 4 804 URK., I, 106, 6 – 8. 805 URK., I, 214, 16 - 17 806 URK., I, 281, 2 - 4

151

VI GOVERNMENT BY COMMITTEE

(a) THE ORIGINS

It has already been mentioned earlier in this work that the basic ideology of government in Ancient

Egypt, which continued in principle throughout its history, was in essence a primitive system

centered round a tribal chieftain. In historical times, the king, was a direct successor of this tribal

chief and was thus responsible for the well being of the whole tribe/nation, ensuring that the people

were fed and protected. The chieftain and later the king were surrounded by Elders, who advised

them and possibly even elected them from among brothers in the same family or, if none were

available, from among themselves.807. In principle the chieftain took no decision of any kind

without the participation of the Elders although, as we shall see, there was no obligation on his part

to follow the advice received. The newly appointed chieftain derived his right to rule from the

claim that he was placed in his position by way of being the biological son of a god.

This basic ideology of government, instilled into the earliest period of the united kingdom of Egypt

was so strongly established that it was gradually extended to every department of administration

throughout the country, including the temples, so that no official could take decision or act, without

either being a member of, or chairman of an advisory panel. Curiously, it is the corpus of religious

texts from which a great deal of our information concerning this aspect of bureaucracy is derived

and therefore this will now be covered in considerable detail.

The Greek historian, Diodorus Siculus.808 recorded the traditional Council of Elders as the “30”.

Modern historians have tended to be of two minds on this matter and whereas Maspero rejects

Diodorus’ account as romance, Gardiner809 on the other hand, accepts the panel of the “Thirty” as

historical and in fact, as we shall see, there are frequent references to it in our sources. The nature

and composition of this panel, however is not as clearly defined in our various sources, as we

would wish. At first sight one is tempted to accept this group as the earthly equivalent of the three

Enneads or 27 gods on the face of it referred to in the Pyramid Texts810. This assumption was

however the result of a misreading of the texts and Faulkner is quite correct in interpreting these

instances simply as the writing of the plural of “Ennead”. What we do find relatively frequently is

the Double Ennead of 18 gods and this is particularly notable as no reflection of such duality seems

to be traceable in the earthly system although our evidence is of such a nature that any reference to

“Twin DADA(w)t” may simply be obscured although this, to be realistic, is unlikely. The Twin

Enneads are referred to as being DM!7=\!7 , which Faulkner translates as “great and mighty”. This

is of course possible, alternatively however the two words both meaning “great” may derive from

807 For a similar form of primitive government including divine origins of the chieftain within Germanic tribes of the early Middle Ages, See. N.F. Cantor, Civilization of the Middle Ages, p. 95. 808 Diodorus, I, 76; ibid., 48 809 Note to Admonitions, 6, 11. 810 Pyr. 278c (254); ibid. 511c (318

152

Upper and Lower Egyptian dialects especially as the two Enneads represented Upper and Lower

Egypt respectively811.

The earthly equivalent of the Ennead, namely the DADAt/qnbt usually served under a presiding

magistrate including at times the king himself, whom it advised. This is reflected in the Enneads as

described in religious texts. The presiding magistrate of the Twin Enneads was generally stated to

have been Re’ himself, not surprisingly as they were centered in Heliopolis812. In some passages of

the Pyramid Texts, the king is said to take part in the deliberations of the Two Enneads813 “that the

king may sit foremost (xnt) of the Two Enneads and adjudicate/resolve matters (wDa-mdw) among

the gods as a king, as a representative of Horus…”. It is by no means clear from this text whether

in this passage the king claims the right to act as presiding magistrate in place of Re’ or simply as a

most senior member of the panel. In another passage814, the king says”: they will find me amongst

the Two Enneads resolving matters (wDa-mdw); ‘He (the king) is the magistrate (sr) of all the

magistrates’ so they said to me and they installed me among the Two Enneads”. Taking also into

account the passage815: Find the Two Enneads sitting and you sit with them”, the decision must be

in favour of the king being a member and not the presiding magistrate. Indeed, in another passage

of the Pyramid Texts816 we are informed that, “the king washes himself when Re’ appears. The

Great Ennead shines forth…this king takes the White Crown from the hands of the Two Enneads”.

Could this be a reference to the “election” of a new king put forward as a hypothesis elsewhere. In

two passages taken from the Coffin Texts we find a reference to the Two Enneads acting as a panel

assisting the judge817, in short the equivalent of the earthly qnbt-sDmyw. This in itself of course is

neither exceptional nor surprising because that is exactly what they were; the text however leads us

further towards more interesting conclusions. A speech by Thoth addressed to the deceased: “I

have given you vindication (mAa-xrw) in the Two Booths (itrty) and (thus) joy to the Two Enneads”.

Here Thoth acts as presiding magistrate in place of Re’ and he, not the Enneads, pronounces the

verdict, which again corresponds to the earthly practice expounded below. The “Two Booths” in

which the process took place must correspond to the earthly zH, meaning booth or canopy under

which the correspondingly earthly qnbt-sDmyw met to deliberate, again as will be seen later in this

chapter. What is particularly important here is the fact that from references to these booths, we

ck,811 Pyr. 1689c (606); CT. I, 50 (Sp. 17). In a Htp-dj-nswt formula in the Second Intermediate Period (K.A. Kitchen, Orientalia 36 (1967), 52/3, Pl. 7; Hel HBT 20 (31)) we find a totally inexplicable reference to “Great and Small Enneads” ( [!6H

=!+[!H6E! ). The nature of the text makes it certain that both refer to gods in the Netherworld. 812 CT III, 188c (Sp. 215); Pyr. 483b (307) Here, we find a most interesting text: “When Re’ was at the head (Hry-tp) of the Twin Ennead and Nefertem was at the head of the Rxyt”. Nefertum was the Lotus god. and with the best will in the world I find no connection to be made here. The other god claiming connection with the Twin Ennead is Atum who simply lists some of his achievements and ends by saying: “and the Two Enneads are pleased at it”. cf. Pyr. 162b, 234 (217) Geb as presiding magistrate of the Ennead; CT. III, 149e (Sp. 205): “The DADAt of Rea”. Here as in other cases DADAt and Ennead are equated.cf. CT. I, 76h (Sp. 25) 813 Pyr 1405d-1406a (562) 814 Pyr. 1127a (509) 815 Pyr. 1933a-b (666) 816 Pyr. 370a (268 817 CT. IV, 90p (Sp. 313); cf. 97l (Sp. 315)

153

learn of the nature of the Two Enneads themselves. In the Pyramid Texts818, the booths are shown

as 1!M!3< meaning Booth of the South/Upper Egypt and 1

!M! 40 the booth of the North/Lower

Egypt indicating that the Two Enneads represented Upper and Lower Egypt respectively although

here, as already mentioned, I must admit ignorance of any comparative reference to an earthly

double DADAt or qnbt. As will be seen and as was already mentioned, the word zH was sometimes

used to represent the panel (DADAt/qnbt) itself. It is therefore interesting to see a similar metonymy in

the Pyramid Texts819 referring to the jtrt-Smat and jtrt-mHtt where those booths are said to come to

the king bowing., and also in the Coffin Texts820 where the vindication of Horus causes pleasure to

the Two Booths (jtrty).

Once again, having touched on the possible meaning of the mysterious mabAyt or “30” we are

presented by our various sources of information with a puzzle as to the numbers of members

constituting various panels. For the Ennead there is of course no doubt that it was 9 and this is

frequently spelled out both in the Pyramid and the Coffin Texts821. Indeed, the number originates

the name of Ennead used by modern scholars. On this matter Gardiner has this to say822: “The term

‘Ennead’ (from Greek Εννεαζ) is the accepted English equivalent of the Egyptian psDt a body of

nine (gods), properly the official designation of the company of the great deities descended,

according to Heliopolitan dogma from the sun-god Rea-Atum, originally comprising Atum himself,

and four pairs of deities, namely Shu and Tefenet, Geb and Nut, Osiris and Isis, Seth and Nephthys.

This group, which is described as “The Great Ennead” is in the Coffin Texts823 equated with the

DADAt a term used for the advisory committee in earthly administration especially in the Old

Kingdom. It is in fact for this reason that so much space is being devoted here to the divine

institution of the psDt, as a great deal of information can be gathered in this way for the study of

earthly administration. Looking at Gardiner’s statement, one has to presume that the Ennead

comprised nine members including the Presiding Magistrate who had to be Atum and that is what

the frequently found expression of being “foremost of the (Great) Ennead” in fact meant as a

number of examples both from the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts clearly demonstrate824. As

the earthly DADAt or qnbt so the Ennead was a unit and spoke with one voice: “The Great Ennead

):

818 Pyr. 1297e (536); cf. ibid. 1369b-c (553); cf. 2017b-c (676). It has to be noted that the two buildings represented are of different design. 819 Pyr2017b-c (676) 820 CT. IV 331i (Sp. 339) 821 Apart from the countless times when psDt is written with nine nTr signs, we also come across cases where psDt is followed by the numeral 9 (Pyr. 673; ibid. 794) 822 Gardiner, The Chester Beatty Papyri, p. 14. 823 CT. II, 52 (Sp. 86) 824 Pyr. 1868b (659): “Geb who presides over (xnt=tj) His Ennead”; Pyr. 2103c-d (690 The king has appeared ”as Horus foremost (xnt) of the living, as Geb foremost of the Ennead (and) as Osiris foremost of the Spirits…”; cf. CT. 156e-f (Sp. 556) “O, Osiris, Bull of the West, foremost (xnty) of the Great Ennead”. CT. IV, 380e (Sp. 347): “Great gods who are foremost of the Enneads”; cf. CT. IV, 111e (Sp. 317: “I sit as one foremost of the Two Enneads”; ibid. 120b (Sp. 317): ”He (Re’) placed me as foremost one of His Two Enneads my dignity/honour (sAH) being in the place of Re’” N.B. Just to complicate the issue a little more, we have reference to a deceased calling himself: “the eldest of the Eight Nile-Gods, the primeval ones…” (CT. IV, 133b [Sp. 317])

154

protects you”825. It would appear that the relationship between the “Presiding Magistrate” or Great

God and his Ennead/DADAt amounted virtually to inseparability and so Atum says826: “…when Õn

had not yet been founded that I might dwell in it, when my throne(?) had not yet been put together

that I might sit on it,…before the first generation had been born, before the Primeval Ennead had

come into being that they might dwell with me”. The advisory panel is always said to follow the

god, the king or any other presiding magistrate827. The parallel functions and therefore identity of

psDt (-aAt) in the Netherworld, on the one hand and DADAt/qnbt (-aAt) on earth, on the other, will be

more fully discussed; here one can refer to a passage in the Coffin Texts828 where the two

institutions are mentioned, so to speak in tandem performing the same duties and from the terms of

the context equate with each other.

The Divine Enneads of the gods such as the Heliopolitan one mainly referred to above, or the one

of Hieraconpolis, which incidentally is specifically stated to have included both gods and

goddesses829 behaved in every way as the earthly advisory panels (DADAt/qnbt) did. They assisted in

resolving legal disputes and pronounced their verdicts830, settled matters appertaining to inheritance

in these instances ones as important as kingship itself albeit in these cases advising no less

presiding magistrates than Atum and Geb831 when they acted as the earthly DADAt/qnbt-sDmyw but

also advised on matters excluding outsiders832

How early in historical times the term DADAt was introduced into Egyptian administration we do not

know, although, as mentioned elsewhere, we find first reference to it in a IVth dynasty pyramid

town. However, assuming that Pyramid Texts were in themselves of considerably greater antiquity

than their Vth dynasty written version, it can perhaps be accepted as a fact that the earthly advisory

panel mentioned there is likewise very ancient. At this point two related items have to be, if not

satisfactorily explained, at least accounted for. The first of these is the relation between the “30”

and the DADAt; the second is the apparent switch from 9 as the optimal and traditional number of

members of the Ennead to 10, which seems to have been the corresponding number of members of

the DADAt. Without much hope of providing tangible proof, the suggestion offered here is that the

“30” was the original body of elders surrounding the king, advising him and probably also

protecting him in the event of attack from any source in short, the tribal assembly of Elders. As we

shall see, the term used to describe those Elders who constituted this assembly of the 30 was most

probably Snyt. The DADAt, on the other hand was a manoeuvrable more compact panel based on the

divine Ennead and used in the same way to advise high officials in trials, legal problems etc. A

825 Pyr. 626c. 826 CT. II, 34e (Sp. 80); cf. Pyr. 895b-d (468); Pyr. 1660a (601); ibid. 1064a. 827 Helck, HBT 25 (32), 18. Here as in earthly examples quoted below, the god “The Majesty of this god arises, his Ennead united behind him”; cf. URK IV, 807,1; cf. CT. VI, 270e (Sp. 648) 828 CT. V, 209a ff (Sp. 405) 829 Helck, HBT, 49 (68), 1-2; W. Hayes. JEA 33 (1947), 3ff. 830 Pyr. 770d (424); CT I, 305f (73); CT IV, 146a (Sp. 321); Helck HBT, 5 (10), 10-12; Louvre C.10 831 Pyr. 3c; Pyr. 1617 (591; Pyr. 1813-1816; Pyr. 1689a (606); Helck, HBT. 23 (32), 9 832 Pyr 215c (223)

155

possible reference to this may perhaps be traced to a passage in the Coffin Texts833, where The Lord

of the Horizon (Re’) is surrounded by his Snyt/Thirty, while his Ennead is formed behind him. The

Snyt here are portrayed as serpents and one wonders whether this does not metaphorically refer to

their obligation to protect the chief from danger. The DADAt/qnbt panels themselves, probably

optimally comprised like the Enneads, 9 members, but unlike the Enneads they excluded their

respective presiding magistrates and hence including the magistrate the overall number was 10.

Members of the DADAt and afterwards qnbt were referred to as srw, usually translated officials. This

apparent split in the composition of advisory panels into the “30” and the DADAt, no doubt originating

from the increased sophistication caused by the expansion of the kingdom and the resulting need

for the creation of a professional or at least semi-professional bureaucracy which may well be

reflected in the title :4D! - “Great One of the Southern Ten” to be discussed in detail later. This

may possibly be supported by an inscription of a man who after describing himself “an accurate

plummet of the Thirty in administering the laws of the King” goes on to call himself “the only great

one in the place of Ten”834, an obscure reference, but indicative of the theory put forward in this

volume. A First Intermediate Period Papyrus835 further, tells us that after the ravages, which

occurred prior to that time, the government of all important cities (nomes) was placed in the hands

of ten men, which could only refer to DADAt/qnbts but certainly not to the time at which they were

first established. It seems much more likely that this system of local administration was re-

established after a period of anarchy rather than created for the first time in the Heracleopolitan

Period, namely that it existed throughout the Old Kingdom and possibly earlier. The existence of

committees of ten during the Old Kingdom in various departments, including most significantly the

Hwt-wrt is implied in the titulary of an Old Kingdom official who among other titles also calls

himself wr-10-Hwt-wrt and wr-10-Hwt-anx, titles related to the wr-10-Sma. In the Pyramid Texts,

we find reference to the “Great One of the 10 of the aH”referring to the “DADAt” of the incumbent,

who could have been a god or the king and in the same spell to the “Great One of the 10 of

Heliopolis”.836.Pirenne 837, refers to the Narmer palette where the king inspects ten beheaded

enemies. He sees them as urban magistrates from a rebellious district in the Delta. He does not go

so far as to describe them as a DADAt of one city or individual magistrates/chieftains of ten cities, but

the former is implied. Pirenne further regards them as having been elected by the people and

referring to the Maxims of Ptahhotpe, postulates that “the way to act in council” does not refer to

the king’s council, but to city councils, again implying therefore that at the time this document was

first compiled – local committees (DADAwt) were active in cities. On the basis of the passage in the

Instructions of Merykare’ (l. 100): “The region of Memphis totals 10 000 men, free citizens (nDs-

wab), who are not taxed; officials are in it since the time it was residence…”838 Pirenne further

833 CT. VI, 270e (Sp. 648); for mention of the Ennead united behing a god see Neferhotpe Stela = Helck, HBT. 25 834 Brugsch, Thes.vol 6, Suppl., 927 -9. 835 P. Petersburg, 1116A, ro., 85. 836 Pyr. 848, (455). 837 La population egyptienne, a-t-elle participe a l’administration locale? = R.d’E., 24 (1972), 137f. 838 M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, I, 104.

156

maintains that Memphis seems to have administered itself virtually like a city-state. While I think

that Pirenne draws strong conclusions from rather tenuous evidence, which cannot be accepted as

conclusive in any way, nevertheless, his view that provincial administration already in the Old

Kingdom was in the hands of committees assisting senior officials is fully in line with my own

view.

Gardiner’s view that the Ennead acted as the “Thirty” to Osiris839 is a truism, but for reasons

already explained above I take issue with his statements: “The Ennead subsequently extended its

membership so as to comprise (theoretically) eighteen or twenty-seven deities, but no list of them is

ever given.” and that already in the Pyramid Texts (1064a) we come across an address to “the

Great Ennead in Heliopolis, comprising (lit. possessing) twenty-seven gods” which, as seen above

is a mistranslation. It is clear that the identification of the Ennead with the “Thirty” was not caused

by the number of the participants in both, but by the function which they were said to perform in

assisting or advising the king in administering the state or Osiris in judging the dead. Performing

the same function for the “Master of the Universe” or any other of the gods or goddesses acting as

presiding magistrate in the dispute between Horus and Seth over the right to the crown. The

analogy became extended to the terms DADAt or qnbt as these terms came into use on earth.

For a good example of this confusion in terminology we can also refer to a Middle Kingdom

document in which the deceased is said to express his hope for his future with the words: “glory in

heaven, power on earth, (verdict of) not guilty (mAa-xrw) in the DADAt to the kA of Prince Bebi.”840

The DADAt referred to here, is of course, the Ennead assisting Osiris in the “last judgment.” To this

example may be added another document which moreover throws further light on the identity of

functions envisaged for the divine Ennead on the one hand and the earthly DADAt/qnbt, on the other:

“Before the Great DADAt which is in Abydos on that night of the Heker festival, in the number of the

dead, in counting the spirits.”841 The Book of the Dead version of this same text842 mentions Isis,

Horus and Mesti as being members of this Great DADAt. The interesting aspect of this text is the

highly probable connection of the “counting of the spirits” with the earthly taking of the census

which would further extend the parallel features of the Ennead and the earthly DADAt/qnbt inasmuch

as both were seen to be involved in general administrative matters in addition to jurisprudence.843

Sometimes, it is difficult to be absolutely sure when events described in a specific text refer to civil

and when to temple activities. Such in particular is the passage from the Admonitions844:

“Forsooth, the poor man has come to the estate (?) of the divine Ennead. That (former) procedure

839 Gardiner, Adm., 6, 11; ZAS LXVI, 16 ff etc. 840 Cairo, 20578. 841 L.B.D.C., 18, Col., 6. 842 Budge, B. of the D., Texts, vol., I, chap. XVIII, p. 100, 6, 11. 843 That jurisprudence was at any rate a part of the functions of the “30” also stems from Pap. BM., 10474 = Griffith,The Teaching of Amenophis son of Kanakht = JEA., XII (1926), 217, Ch. XIX. 844 6, 11.

157

of the houses of the Thirty is divulged.” Although it is tempting here to seek comparison with

Netherworld administration, I am reluctant to follow Gardiner in his view that “the first clause

perhaps means that through the publicity now given to the legal code, poor men presume to sit in

judgment like the gods themselves.” The idea which I originally entertained was that this passage

refers to the invasion of temples and religious ceremonies, which were not open to the public, a

view strengthened by the reference to the “houses of the Thirty”, which find no adequate reference

in earthly administration explaining their nature. I now consider that most probably these houses of

the 30 only refer to the venues where the advisory panels convened and that reference to the

procedures of the houses of 30 looks back to very ancient times, but actually reflects what was

happening in connection with the contemporary qnbts-sDmyw throughout the country.

In one text of importance to the understanding of the nature of the DADAt/qnbt itself in general and

the qnbt- sDmyw in particular, as also an important reference to the “Thirty,” we find a mention of

the X11 1" 6\M1 1!t:i\. [VsfK| ].845 - “Investigators at the gate of resolving matters.”

The intended meaning of this entire text is difficult to establish because the nature of the document

itself is very convoluted as we find generally with hymns, which this particular document actually

is: a hymn of praise and gratitude to the gods from one of the Ramesside Kings for his accession to

the throne. In the first surviving line available to us, we are told that “He (Amun(?) caused Him (the

King) to seat himself upon the throne, reposing in the Castle of the Lord of the Universe

(+\!'

>M DM' ); and He assumed the office of Atum.”846 This King therefore represents himself

as the earthly vicar of Atum, the Lord of the Universe. Following this, Gardiner shows great

imagination in his translation based on extensive restorations. All that I can be sure of is the listing

of the groups composing the population of Egypt, the sun-people, namely the pat - nobles and the

rxyt - commoners and the sentence ends with wAH-tp - “doing obeisance”. The remaining surviving

text makes, on the face of it, very little, sense. The following passage, however, switches earthly to

divine: - “That which stated the Ennead of Thebes, namely the DADAt of the Temple of Karnak.” This

is followed by those who participated in that body, namely the gods and the goddesses of “this

temple” (pr-pn) followed by a qualifying passage after which comes the statement !K!U+5X11 1" 6\M1 1!t:i\. [VsfK| ] which Gardiner translates “Collect ye(? ) the

judges of the gateway of decision...”. This again makes little sense in itself and I prefer to take the

word twt as meaning “like” or “similar” and assume that the intention of this very complicated and

largely unreadable text is to endorse the peoples’ acceptance of the new King as the gods have

already done. Gardiner, on the basis of seemingly very flimsy evidence, elects Ramesses IV as

author of this eulogy. This may or may not be so, what does seem to stare one in the face from the

ted

845 P. Turin, 1882, 1, 4; KRI VI, 70, 11; Gardiner, JEA XLI (1955), Pl., I, 4; ibid., XLII, pp. 9 & 12. 846 Here I quote Gardiner’s translation verbatim although in view of the writing of the word transla as “throne” followed by Htp then followed by the perched falcon determinative: 1 eq:

#!/!#+' I would consider Htp to be an adjective qualifying the word throne rather than a

participle referring to the King and translate this passage as “peaceful throne in the Castle of the Lord of the Universe...” This passage is a very strong support for the opinion already expressed that aH was the king’s residence in virtue of his divinity.

158

tenor of this whole text including the highly telling passage847 “I was chosen from the midst of this

land. It was Amun who placed me, it was the Lord of the Gods who brought me in his hand to

induct me into the Castle (aH)”848, is that the King on whose behalf it was written probably had a

tenuous claim to the throne. What is, however of much greater interest is the implied “election” of

the king both by the divine and the earthly committees of “Elders”.

A possible indication from this obscure text is therefore that a new King who ascended the throne

was announced to the populace by the qnbt - sDmyw at the gate to the residency, which formally

confirmed the acceptance of his claim by the elders of the realm, the Snyt. In this instance, possibly

due to special circumstances of the accession, a similar acclamation is also ascribed to the DADAt of

the gods of Thebes, the Ennead. In this connection, the document tells us even more about the

origins and meaning of srw and DADAt/qnbt. This item of information comes towards the end of the

text where we come across the passage849: -

~~444 46!

5 5:!5b 4aM1$QQ $!q:1 1 7n

>tj 4'hjbe~~ -“The “Thirty” (namely) the

magistrates (srw) of the Twin-Land-of-Egypt who were all sent to His Majesty...” Gardiner in this

translation views the two words mabAyt and srw to be in apposition I am not convinced, believing as

already indicated, that Snyt constituted the membership of the 30 and srw of the DADAt/qnbt. Here

therefore the text according to my interpretation tells us that two groups of officials were

summoned: the immediate entourage of the king who traditionally surrounded him and offered their

advice on the one hand and officials constituting the DADAt/qnbts who dealt with the day to day

administration of the kingdom on the other. In this particular text the King claims to have

summoned to his presence the srw from the country’s many qnbts in order to, as the context

suggests, instruct them how to cope with apparently rampant crime. It is surprising, therefore that

Gardiner in his commentary says: I have found it impossible to guess in what connection the high

officers of the court and the magistracy (the’Thirty’) were here mentioned.” That special

instructions were at times issued to the qnbts by their presiding magistrates we know from the

statement of the High Priest of Amun Hapusonb who says that he was one who “gave instructions

(tp-rd) to the sDmyw.”850 Equally explicit is the Decree of Horemheb dealing with dispositions

concerning srw in respect of their service at the palace851 and the passage, which includes mention

of the Thirty:- “I formulated the procedures of the King’s Office and the rules of the royal

household. I equipped (my) government (pr-nswt(?)) with its needs (?)...their...those who are at the

gate852 (qnbt aAt/sDmyw) should, in accordance with their functions be improving853 the entire

government (pr-nswt) (and) that the courtiers should be in their places and the Thirty (act) 847 JEA XLI, Pl., III, 7; ibid. XLII, 10, 3, 6 - 7. 848 The expression e

sn ...1,! - “induct into the Castle” is also found in the Decree of Sethos

I, KRI I, 46, 15. 849 Op. cit., XLI, Pl.,V, 2; ibid. XLII, 11, 5,2. 850 URK IV, 482, 1. 851 Decree of Har hab, G5 - 6; Kruchten, Decret d’Haremhab, 178 - 183. em852 I take >

N:5 ...

#!n as one expression meaning “those who are in attendance on..” (Faulkner,

Dict., 19) 853 sDsr generally means to sanctify, but here, almost certainly a metaphorical meaning was intended.

159

according to their rules...” The imposed action by the qnbt at the Gate of improving the

government probably refers to the fall in the estimation in which the ability of the rulers to dispense

justice fairly may have been held by the populace following the Amarna period. Indeed, the whole

text may point to internal reforms following a period of anarchy. It is interesting to note here that

those (srw) who are seconded to be at the gate dealing with outside people’s problems are treated

separately from those srw who are on duty inside the residence. That “Thirty” was a term used as

equivalent of the qnbt–sDmyw in the trial of Horus and Seth is made clear in the story.

854. “Thirty”

equals the Ennead, equals the qnbt. A number of references are attested to the Thirty where this

apparent confusion seems evident, such as the address to Osiris by the Vizier Paser, who says: O,

eminent god, Lord of the Thirty, victorious bull in Heliopolis...”855 although here as in the case of

Osiris being addressed as Lord/Possessor of the Thirty (see below) this god is seen as king and

therefore entitled to his entourage of Thirty. An Ostracon from Deir el-Medina856 where we are

assured that “The Thirty are satisfied when justice is done.” the “Thirty” again is referred to in

place of the Great Ennead. Finally, when Vizier, Rahotpe under Ramesses II speaks of himself as

“Great one in the pronouncements/dealings (md(w)t) of the Thirty”, he more than likely refers to

his knowledge of and participation in the advice given to the king as clearly the “Thirty” here is the

panel assisting the monarch857. The closeness of the “30” to the monarch is strongly emphasized by

Royal Secretary Tjay under Meneptah who calls himself “foremost of the 30 in the king’s house

G!:t 4

445 6\tb:t7I (KRI IV 118,14)

The one title, which we find associated with the Thirty, is Hry a word describing something which

is over and above. This title is once found the case of the god Horus who is entitled %R444 -

“Horus, Who is Above the Thirty”858 while his father, Osiris is described as >444 1 1H 6 -

“Lord/Possessor of the Thirty”859. In both cases however, the two gods who are frequently stated to

have possessed Enneads in religious texts to assist them, are here most probably seen as kings and

are therefore entitled to the royal advisory panels of 30 (mabAyt). Somewhat surprisingly, this title

also appears in the titulary of earthly bureaucrats such as the case of one official under Ramesses

II860 who carries a number of titles beginning with Hry, the first one of these being R444 41 1!!5 .

Interesting is the fact that this was by no means a high official and while some of his titles seem

genuine, like the well attested R)! 4 !5 - “Commander of the Archers,” others like

R<( e1 1"!5

t~ -“Hry of the Praised Ones of...” seem to be perhaps made up. On the other

hand, it is possible that the use of the “title” Hry in such cases implied no more than being foremost

or senior among the members of the Thirty although this would conflict with the meaning of the

854 Horus & Seth, 3, 9 = LES., 40, 13. 855 KRI 301, 1. (Sethos I). 856 O. Cairo, 25651 = KRI VI, 104, 12. 857 Weil, Veziere, 97 858 KRI III, 698, 10. 859 KRI I, 301, 1. 860 KRI III, 642, 9ff; Černy, O.H., 80, 93 & Pl., XCV; Community, 335, n. 5; O. Cairo, CGC., 25760.

160

kingly titles. Perhaps the equivalent title to the one above, attested in the Old Kingdom861 is jmj-r

DADAt-nswt nt wDa-mdw nb - “Overseer of the DADAt of the King in respect of resolving all matters.”

We know that DADAt/qnbt was the offshoot of the Thirty and often so referred to, and also that the

titles jmj-r and Hry were in general interchangeable.

The Thirty, whom Caminos calls “the traditional grand jury of Egypt”862, in fact appears to have

constituted a panel of highly placed individuals at the King’s court, who, I believe to have been

described as a group as Snyt and who acted as Assembly of Elders to the king863. They were the

group who were presented with the proposed heir to the throne and whom they “acclaimed” as

such.864 The distinction of being incorporated among the Snyt, awaited the escapee Sinuhe on his

return to the Egyptian court after his self-imposed banishment865. “He (the king says) shall be a

companion (smr) among the officials (srw) and he shall be appointed to the membership (rdj tw=f

m qAb) of the Snyt”. Thus not all srw were smrw neither were the latter automatically members of

the Snyt whose function is emphasized in the statement

866: “A king who is the possessor/lord of

Snyw cannot act foolishly”, reference to their corporate wisdom and advisory function. Their

investigative and judicial functions may be reflected in the XVIIIth dynasty passage: 867 “I was not

denounced among the elders (Snyt), no fault of mine could be found in the temples”, This follows a

much earlier document,868 where we read the advice given by the First Intermediate Period King

Akhtoy to his son Merykare’: “if you find a subject of yours (lit. one who belongs to your city) and

his crimes come to your notice (lit. and his doings are passed beyond you), accuse him (srx) before

the Snyt and suppress him”. A very interesting text, once again emphasizing the Egyptian system of

administering justice where even the king did not or could not act alone. The significance of the

Snyt as the traditional assembly of Elders surrounding the Chieftain/king is frequently found

emphasized in a number of texts. From the Second Intermediate Period we have the claim of a

senior royal prince869 who says: “I was one recognised among the Snyt”. Significantly the prince

holds no administrative titles of any kind. Similarly the Coffin Texts afford a number of interesting

examples such as “Snyt which is at the back of Re’870. This expression describing the advisory panel

following the presiding magistrate is frequent and mentioned elsewhere in this chapter871. There is

no reason to suppose that this reference to Snyt in connection with the god Re’ implies that he was

seen as possessing a separate assembly such as the “30” in addition to the Ennead which he was

elsewhere credited with. These comments also apply to a deceased person who optimistically

861 PM., III, 2, 452; cf. Moreno Garcia, Etudes, 133.Mar. Mast. 109, B.16 862 LEM 234. 863 The Second Intermediate Period king Khaneferre’ Sebekhotpe listing all similarities in his actions to individual gods says, among others: “I was skilled with respect to the Thirty like Onnuris”.Exactly what kind of reality this statement reflects is hard to assess; perhaps his skilful use of his advisers. 864 P. Millingen, 2, 5; Gunn, Syn., 180, (8); Lichtheim, AEL. I, 137. 865 B 280-1 866 P. Petrograd, 1116A, ro. 115; Gunn, Syn., 129 (14) 867 URK., IV, 484, 9-10 868 P. Petersburg, 1116, 26 869 Helck, HBT. 43 (58), 3; R. Engelbach, ASAE. 21 (1921), 189-90 + Pl. 870 CT. IV, 179b; cf. 180t 871 Indeed in one passage: CT. VI, 348h (Sp. 720) where the deceased surprisingly expresses dissatisfaction with his Snwt, the latter is contrasted with Smsw meaning followers/assistants.

161

claims872: “I became very great, I came into being, having become the Lord of All at the head of the

Snyt” and even more significantly873: “See, I have come as Lord/Possessor of a Snyt, fear of me is

throughout the Enneads”. Here there is some indication that Snyt which Faulkner translates as

entourage is an assembly superior to the enneads and the passage reflects the “30” of the king as

opposed to the DADAt/qnbts of officials on earth. A most interesting passage874 says: “The Snyt will

act for you among your common people (rxyt). I will cause them to watch over you”. Assuming that

Faulkner’s rendering of this passage is correct, here we have support for the contention that the

original “30” not only advised the chieftain/king but gave him protection in case of unrest among

the tribesmen/commoners (see Chapter I).

The Thirty or Snyt was the committee assisting the King directly in decision-making. This, we find

amply attested from Ramesside documents where high officials at court call themselves “foremost

of the Thirty”875 or even “foremost of the Thirty in the presence of the King of Upper Egypt, able to

approach the King of Lower Egypt”876. Whether the particular association with Upper Egypt points

to the origin of the Thirty prior to the unification, must be left to conjecture. Ramose, a King’s

Auditor in the Necropolis under Ramesses II,877 who was during his career in charge of works, the

Treasury and cattle census, but it seems always concerned with the administration of the Necropolis

and Deir el-Medina, in addressing the Vizier Paser refers to him as “The First King’s Son of Kush

(Viceroy), foremost who ...(?)...in the Thirty.” The individuality of the Thirty as a group is

emphasized in the passage describing the appointment of the High Priest of Amun878 “Thereupon,

the elders (Snyt) (namely) the Thirty united in praising the good qualities (nfrw) of His Majesty”.

The use of qnbt as synonym for the “Thirty” is emphasized by a letter written by a chief of police,

Mininiuy to the Vizier Khay under Ramesses II879. More difficult to interpret are the “Houses of the

30”.880, which were already tackled above. From the passages available to us, I am inclined to

explain them, not as “houses” of any kind, but as the places where the “30” or qnbts officiated

although the likelihood is that the ancient or even godly committees may also have been on

occasions referred to. Hence, the claim of the vizier Nebamon under Sethos I (KRI I, 284,3): -\n ..}K4441 1!!5Pe@Pn

$#K+5%h : “One who gives order to the venues of the 30 in

administering the laws of his king (lit. Horus)”.

Although the frequent equation in usage: srw = mabAyt = DADAt/qnbt to which in the realm of the

gods can be added the Ennead, is supported by extensive evidence, nevertheless certain aspects of

that evidence require, if not a modification than perhaps an explanation of this simple equation. In

872 CT. IV, 178k (Sp. 333) 873 CT. IV, 181a 874 CT. VII, 383a (Sp. 1098) 875 KRI IV, 370, 10. 876 KRI IV, 118, 14. 877 KRI III, 627, 5; ibid. 638, 9. 878 KRI III, 284, 4. 879 O. Toronto A11, II = KRI III, 42, 3. 880 Gardiner, Admonitions, 50; KRI. I, 283 ff.

162

the Preamble to the Nauri Decree, the srw are listed separately from qnbt-sDmyw and this is echoed

by the Edict of Ramesses III881, which was “issued in the Palace on this day to the Vizier, the srw,

the companions (smrw), the qnbt-sDmyw, the mayors (of towns) and local commanders.” Even

assuming that repetition occasionally occurred in Egyptian texts as it does in our modern legaleze,

the specific expression qnbt–sDmyw in addition to srw seems an unlikely mistake in view of the

important and formal nature of this document. What this text probably implies is, in fact a

confirmation of our belief to be expanded more fully later, that whereas srw were the officials from

amongst whom qnbts were selected, possibly by rotation, the qnbt-sDmyw was such a body already

in session and performing a different job. The function of assisting the King or his government

within the precinct of the palace enclosure on the one hand and dealing with petitioners from the

population at large and their various disputes, on the other, were viewed as being separate and

independent and the mention of the two was merely to underline the separation.

(b) OFFICIALS IN COMMITTEE (srw & qnbt / DADAt)

In the Old Kingdom, we are told in one text that the entourage of the King consisted of three basic

groups of persons surrounding the monarch: eM5!5 srw, officials; e\<?!

5 saHw, nobles and

=?!5 bAkw, servants in that order882. By the New Kingdom the list extends to883 55, e]5,

7!

tS5, ?!!!5\\K , >K5[

t! , DMK5

b4[0! and 't11!5 6%1,h - srw,

smrw, Spsw-nswt(?), saHw-st-waaw, jmjw-xnt, wrw-nw-stp-sA and Snyt-Hr-m-aH=f. Of these the

first and the sixth group probably would come under the overall heading of srw, those who advise

and protect the king. Possibly most likely explanation for the third group is that it formed an

integral part of the second, in other words the two groups described would read as one: smrw-nswt,

companions of the king, the sitting dignitary being a determinative and not an adjective884. A valid

objection here, of course is the absence of honorific transposition, which one would expect in this

configuration. The wrw-nw-stp-sA, group six are difficult to distinguish from srw, group one. In

later times and possibly also in very early times, the term wrw may well have been used in place of

srw and hence the title wr-mD-Sma885. If that can be assumed then this group would probably

embrace those officials who were employed in departments such as the royal secretariat but this is

pure speculation, dangerous to make. As to jmyw-xnt-those who are the forefront, this group is

particularly interesting because it brings us back, of necessity, to the frequent references of the

deceased being in the forefront m-xnt of divine Enneads in religious texts covered earlier in this

ss

881 KRI V, 343, 13 - 14. 882 URK I, 106, 1 - 2; cf. Carnarvon Tablet, I, 2. 883 URK. IV, 1380-84 884 This may well be contradicted by a pa age from the Second Intermediate Period (Helck, HBT.

59 (87), 2: if 1tj 4'tJ5he]5 6

Bt51#!nh -“Then spoke My Majesty to the distinguished ones

(Spsw) (namely) the Companions (smrw) who were with him”.The alternative is to take the two groups separetely and not in apposition as “distinguished ones and companions”. 885 For the early period can be quoted as example CT. VII, 177-8 (Sp. 959)the mention of wr n DAD t and for the late: P. Louvre 3228c Col. I, 5 = Malinine, R.d’E. VI (1951) Pl. I; Allam, JEA. 77 (1991), 115 notes 32 & 33. In the 6

A

th year of Taharqo we find references to the wrw n qnbt aAt n nwt: “wrw of the Great qnbt of Thebes”.

163

chapter and this therefore possibly reflected senior officials who acted as magistrates assisted by

DADAt/qnbts. This leaves us with the saHw-st-waaw, dignitaries of the private place, who could only

have been members of a high nobility and possibly even the royal family, who for whatever reasons

remained unemployed. Finally, the bAkw or servants, missing from this list for obvious reasons.

The Berlin Dictionary886 refers to saHw as nobles, however we are not, to my knowledge anywhere,

informed who these nobles were and what, if any was their function at court. Also what was their

relation to the #\! !p5 -pat. the term which collectively described all high officials at court including

the Vizier and who were dealt with in the first chapter of this work. The meaning or rather

meanings of the word saH are well established and not subject to speculation. It is in fact used

expressing two grammatical forms: a verb887 meaning to ennoble and a noun either denoting a

noble-eminent person888 or dignity, rank, position889. At this point it is necessary to emphasize that

the various groups of courtiers described above and below were not individual entities apart from

each other. One courtier could have been and frequently, in fact almost always was a member of

two, three or all of the groups listed.

Officials bearing executive titles were collectively described as srw, which is attested in a number

of sources.890. In an inscription of the Second Intermediate Period an official says891: “I found the

Overseer of the City and Vizier in his office, whereupon, this official (sr) gave me an order to my

face, saying...“ Equally, the Nomarchs were referred to as srw although, here, I must admit that my

translation of the relevant passage differs from that of Fischer892. The passage reads as follows: Me.94 M 8 K!eM5!

5 which Fischer translates as “vigilant as to that which the officials

order.” This translation would imply that some group of officials, presumably the DADAt-wrt in the

capital, even assuming that it included the Vizier himself, gave orders to the highest provincial

official who according to the tenor of this passage, may not even himself have counted as a sr.

Nomarch aJdu II, in this case then boasted of careful obedience. This seems to me inconceivable.

Even if the King’s DADAt did communicate the monarch’s instruction to the Nomarch and here the

srw are not even described as the highest order, the latter might well boast of having obediently

followed the King’s instructions but never those of a committee of officials albeit his own peers.

The translation, in my opinion, should therefore be “vigilant as to that which the officials are 886 Wb. Vol. IV, 49 - 51. 887 CT. VI, 159d (Sp. 557): “The gods who are in the Netherworld will saH you”. The word translated by Faulkner as “ennoble”. It is worth to remember that this usage of saH is to my knowledge unique. 888 CT. IV, 115b (Sp. 317); ibid. VI, 267m (Sp. 647); S. Hassan, Giza, 29-30, 18; Helck, HBT 21 (32), 2; ibid. 31 (37), 3; Helck MDIK. 24, f 889 Pyr. 219a (224): “Aboon which the king grants (Htp-dj-nswt) consisting of all your dignities (saHw)”; CT. IV, 112a (Sp. 317) cf. ibid. 118a; CT. IV, 121h (Sp. 317); CT. IV, 144d (Sp.320) 890 Moreno Garcia, Etudes sur l’administration, 108-109 sees the srw as high central officials dependent on the vizier, supervising central offices through which they extended their authority to the provinces and acted as the closest councillors of the king. Surprisingly, he does not see them as judges. 891 Les. 76, 5. 892 Dendera, 100 - 101. (VIth dynasty).

164

ordered.” Here, he himself counts as a member of the college of srw who follow royal

instructions

893. What the passage indicates is that certainly under the Old Kingdom the collegiality

of Egyptian executive was very strong and probably more so than later in history. It is the college,

which was instructed, and not individuals. When applying for justice, it was generally to the

committee that the application was made and not to the presiding magistrate specifically although

one clearly existed. Such is the instance we find in a IVth dynasty contract made with soul priests

for the maintenance of a funerary cult894. The relevant passage runs as follows:-

1MW!>i!b'

t!hB!M6

4 4b!

rrh<h\,tf nMhMW!BehhhX

!,<M!h:Mh .

tz1\h<!

!fM-!pB

!> ...<! Ke

thY:

!U 't1l eM5!!! - As for any Soul-Priest

of the funerary endowment who should investigate895 his colleague and register a census

deposition896 removing him from (the office of) Soul-Priest, (and) as a result depriving him of his

property share, removing all his field(s), (all his) workers and all (his) chattels which I had given to

him for invocation offerings in respect of it...May that be his termination (probably of employment)

because of not conducting the process before the srw. It was obviously possible to lodge false

documents (cf. Inscription of Mes) while proceedings before a DADAt/qnbt formalised the case and

avoided corruption.897

By the Middle Kingdom, certainly applications to enter into litigation had to be made to the

presiding magistrate, as we see from the procedure described in the Eloquent Peasant A similar but

much later reference to this procedure occurs in the Papyrus Mallet dated to the fourth year of

Ramesses IV898: “Memorandum to the jdnw N to advise the srw (concerning) the items which were

taken from me.” No direct contact with the srw.

Although certainly in pronouncing judgments it seems that the presiding magistrate had the final

say and that probably applied also to matters of formulating policy, nevertheless, it seems that the

srw, or members of the committee did not shirk their responsibilities and fully participated in the

discussions. A number of cases exist where these officials claim that they were “hoary tongued in

893 Fischer himself quotes a Middle Kingdom passage (Louvre, C.172) which supports my translation: - Me.94 :4 8i!

+th -”vigilant concerning that which is being ordered to him.” 894 URK I, 13. 895 The expression '

t! B!M I prefer to translate as investigate s’one or interrogate s’one rather

than “institute proceedings against s’one” (Faulkner, CDME p.268). This certainly seems to be the meaning in the biography of Uni (URK I, 100, 13). 896 For

\, meaning a census deposition under the Old Kingdom, see above, p.33 - 34

897 Goedicke, JNES Judicial Expressions of the Old Kingdom, Pl., XVI, (inscr. 3) & p. 27. translates the relevant part of this passage as follows: “What concerns any Ka-servant eternally, whoever will litigate against his companion...field, people and all things will be taken from him (namely a pHw on account of the interdiction to litigate before the srw.” I cannot accept this version, still less because an interdiction against bringing a case before a lawfully constituted court of law appears to be absurd.. 898 Louvre, 1050, 1, 2 = KRI VI, 65, 2.

165

the booth (zH) of the srw”899, “Possessor of advice in the booth (zH) of the srw”900,. Eager tongued

in the council of the officials”901, etc. In his conciliatory letter to Sinuhe, the King writes: “What

have you done that ought should be done against you? You have not blasphemed, that your words

should be reproved. You have not spoken in the booth (zH) of the srw that your utterances should be

banned”902. As we know that DADAt/qnbts always spoke with one voice, it would be helpful to know

how final decisions were arrived at, this information however did not come down to us and only an

assumption can be made that the srw were balloted probably by a show of hands.

The connection of srw with hearing plaints and therefore with the administration of law is however

the most frequently encountered in our sources. In the Installation of the Vizier903, the King tells the

newly appointed executive: “As for any sr who adjudicates (sDm) skilfully, all his acts are reported

by the water and the winds.” The status of the highest nobility attaching to the central srw

composing the Great qnbt, if indeed this could ever be doubted, comes out clearly from a New

Kingdom ostracon904 where an arrest is recorded: “They took her to the Great Court (qnbt-aAt)

before the Prince (pA jrj-pat) and the Great Judges (srw-aAyt [sic])”. The Vizier, who was the

primus inter pares, apparently took over the onerous task, which the King himself carried out in the

Old Kingdom and probably part of the Middle Kingdom, of appointing high provincial officials

who were in charge of their respective branches of administration and who presided over their own

staff committees (DADAt/qnbt)905. The passage, which is also one of the strongest indicators that these

committees were concerned with all aspects of administration and not only the judicial one, runs as

follows: “He (the Vizier) is the one who appoints the special officials (nty w) m sr(w t)( ) 906 for

Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt, Head of the South and..(?)....(and) they should report to him all that

occurs within their domain at the beginning of every four months. This (report) is to be brought to

him in writing from them themselves and also their respective committees (bb!bI!

5)”. The term

sr could generally be applied to any functionary of the bureaucracy although higher executives

seem to have most frequently claimed it. In a Ramesside stela from Lower Egypt an official

At

899 JEA IV, Pl., VIII 900 El B., II, 13. 901 Siut, III - X, 248. 902 Sinuhe, B.184. The word sH will be discussed later and shown to have been a booth or canopy protecting the DAD /qnbt from the sun when they sat in judgment. 903 URK IV, 1088, 8 - 9; Faulkner, Op. cit., 5 - 6. cf. l. 8. 904 Černý-Gardiner, Hier. Ostr. in the Ashmolean Mus., no. 1945, 37, Pl., LXXIV, 16. Here the crown prince was presumably the presiding magistrate in place of the king. cf., KRI., II, 381, 11 – 382, 4. 905 URK IV, 1112, 9 - 11. 906 The full meaning of this passage is “those who are in the magistracy”. As we have seen, under the New Kingdom all participants of a DADAt/qnbt were described as srw, it is therefore in principle possible that what this passage tells us is that the Vizier appointed ALL provincial officials even the lowly ones. This is not borne out by Middle Kingdom evidence (P. Kah., XIII, 28 - 29) where two officials are asked to “swear by the Ruler in front of the Overseer of Fields N acting as deputy (jdnw) of the nty-m-srt. Whoever this person, who could not be present himself was, he was clearly the presiding magistrate. A representation of two men with this title, approaching the Nomarch Nehri (BH., I, Pl., XXX) in company with other officials of the Nome is hard to explain unless in view of the text of the present passage, men bearing this title were the Vizier’s representatives in the provinces responsible for reporting directly to the chief executive.

166

concerned with taxation says of himself907: “I am a sr beneficial to his Lord in completing (the

quotas of) the harvest tax (and) in completing (the quotas of) the bullion (wealth) tax.” Whatever

individual officials may have claimed, the principle of collective decision making was so strongly

ingrained that even the deified King Amenophis I or rather his statue pronounced judgment (oracle)

in qnbt 908 : Her share was given to him in the presence of the srw and it was the King, Amenophis,

who gave it to him in the qnbt.” Here again srw and qnbt are equated. To what extent the qnbt at

this period of history could act independently of a presiding magistrate is not certain, although such

cases as the one recorded on an ostracon from Deir el Medina909 where a woman assisted by three

workmen (witnesses?) makes an application (smj) that the real property (st) of her husband should

be given to her, tend to indicate that qnbts could and did at times act independently. The srw are

consulted and they said: “the woman is right and gave her the realty.” No mention is made of a

presiding magistrate and it is the panel as a unit, which takes the final decision. In another case,

also from Deir el-Medina, but this time dealing with a criminal case, it is clear that the qnbt did not

or could not pronounce sentence and this may define the difference between functions of the qnbt

in civil as opposed to criminal cases. The facts of the case were as follows: A woman accused of

stealing is tried by a qnbt composed of necropolis workmen and found “very guilty”. No sentence

is however given and the text goes on to say that her case (mdt) would be deferred (wAH) “till the

coming of the Vizier.”

910 In such cases the srw in committee always speak with one voice indicating

joint responsibility: “They said to her, (namely) the srw.”911 Such is also the case recorded in the

Turin Conspiracy Papyrus912 where surprisingly a set of apparently quite middle ranking officials

jointly described as being 5:!5=\!1 1:

+5t !

!!!!el

!M..+" 913- High officials of the

place of interrogation investigated and meted out punishment to the conspirators. The impression

gained from this document is that the presiding magistrate should have been the King who died

after having washed his hands of any responsibility for the whole proceedings. At any rate, no other

presiding magistrate was ostensibly appointed and the whole trial was held in committee. In view of

the nature of the case, this may, of course have been exceptional and probably was. Another

instance, also from Deir el-Medina914 expresses the collegiality of the qnbt, speaking with one

voice: ift!5:!5t !

! F!8!5

t -“The srw of the qnb said to N (name of the plaintiff)”. One other

point arises here: the srw are expressed in the plural, while qnbt is a collective noun and in the

singular, which emphasizes its unified action.

t

907 Bilgai Stela, vo., 16 = Gardiner, JEA XII, (1912), Pl., IV, = KRI IV, 343, 7. 908 P. Boul.X, ro., 14 - 15; Janssen & Pestman, JESHO 11 (1968), Pl., I. 909 O. D el M., 235 = KRI VI, 105, 10 - 15 = McDowell, Jurisd., 67 - 68. 910 Ostr., Nash, I, vo., 4. 911 Pap., BM., 10052, 11, 7.cf. P. Mayer A, 3, 9. 912 4, 1 = KRI V, 351, 11. 913 Another reference to the “Place of Interrogation” is found in connection with the tomb robbery trials (Pap. BM., 10052, 5, 2 - 3; Černý/Gardiner, LEG., Ex., 1343) where we find “Interrogation....by the Vizier (and) the srw in* the Place of Interrogation.” * The preposition t should probably here be amended to read 1 . The two sounds were probably by this time identical. 914 O. Cairo, J.72465 = KRI IV, 418, 11.

167

There is every reason to believe that the Great qnbt frequently must have met without a presiding

magistrate, the implication being that this position was, at least formally, intended to be occupied

by the King himself. This Great qnbt whose members are always described as “Great srw”, is listed

on a number of occasions915 in the New Kingdom and consists of such officials as the Vizier, Royal

Butlers, Overseers of the Treasury, Captains of the Archers, Scribes of the Palace, Scribes of

Pharaoh, etc. Whatever the composition, these officials who constituted the central committee of

the kingdom were the effective government under the King. When Kamose intended to advance

against the Hyksos, he first consulted the DADAt-srw nty m aH=.f “who were in his private residence”

(+\!h )916. This committee of Elders recommend caution which the King needless to say

disregards and this, of course, he was perfectly entitled to do, as was earlier the High Steward Rensi

in the Story of the Eloquent Peasant.

As already observed, the srw were officials assigned to or placed in control of various departments

either in the central administration or in the provinces. Thus, we find srw (n) mSa - officials of the

levy917; srw nw r-pr - officials of the temple918; srw n st-waa - officials of the private apartment (lit.

place)919. Probably the most important reference to srw in respect of their association with hearing

complaints from the public and judging legal cases comes from a document of the time of the Vth

dynasty King Neferirkarea920. Although the text is largely destroyed, the important part is

mercifully intact and it runs as follows: eM5!!!tKM!!&D!! 921 - officials of the gate

of the Hwt wr It will be shown later that in Ancient Egypt the DADAt/qnbt assembled to hear

complaints and resolve disputes at the gate to the respective enclosures containing administrative

departments. No other courts of law are attested. Further, it was already argued that under the Old

Kingdom the

- t.

'!!D! [

55] - Hwt-wrt-(6) was a walled enclosure containing the royal residence and

the central offices of administration, in other words, the 7!

t!4 - pr-nswt. This enclosure under

Middle Kingdom came to be known as Xnrt-wr and under the New Kingdom simply as pr-nswt,

which was what these enclosures contained. What this passage, therefore seems to portray is the

much later attested

qnbt-sDmyw.

At

(ea

915 KRI VI, 244, 13 (D el-M); P. Abbott, II, 6; ibid., IV, 5 - 8.; P. Leop.-Am., 4, 1 - 3; JEA XXII (1936), Pl., XV. 916 Carnarvon Tablet, I, 2; JEA III, 95 ff; ASAE XXXIX, 245 ff; Helck., Hist. Biogr. Texte, 82, nr. 119; S. Allam, RIDA XLII, 17, n.9; cf. URK I, 106, 1 - 2. Here again the DAD is composed of the srw. 917 Les. 98, 3 - Decree of Nebhepetrea Jntef. 918 Griffith, Inscr., of Siut and Deir Rifeh, Pl., XVIII, 3 rly XIIth dyn.). 919 URK IV, 1385, 8: if 1tj

4ht5

5t!

!!5\\1>5

#B!n, - His Majesty said to the officials

of the private apartment who are inside the palace. These, one assumes, must have been appointed officials performing their duties for the King personally. 920 P. Berl., 11301 x+3: Posner-Krieger & de Cenival, HPBM., V, Pl., LXXX (A); Posner-Krieger, Archives de Neferirkarea, II, , 451 - 465; Roccati, Litterature, 285 - 6; Wente, Letters, 55 - 6 (62); Van den Boorn, JNES XLIV (1985), 8 and no. 31. 921 The hieroglyphic signs here had to be adapted. Thus the determinative for wrt (arryt?) in the original seems to represent a gateway also in the original, the wr bird is represented as being inside the Hwt.

168

In the Old Kingdom, we come across instances suggesting that the srw as a body were subject to

some form of control from the appearance of such titles as jmj-r sr922 and sHD n srw923. These titles,

however, are unique and possibly have little impact on administration as a whole.

Already Spiegelberg recognised the connection between srw and qnbt.924 “Bezeichnet F!8

!5 den

Rat als solchen, so fuehren die einzelnen Mitglieder dieser Koerperschaft den Namen 5 - sr. Ich

erinnere nur an die Bezeichnung: t!5:!5

=\!1 1:

+5t !

! F!8!5 (P. Abbott 7/8)...und die

soeben zitierte, Beispiele 5 F!8!5 und 5tF!6 . Eine bemerkenswerte Variante findet sich in einem

noch unveroeffentlichten Papyrus der Bibl. Nat. zu Paris unter der Form: =+t F!8

!5 - “Grosser der

knbt.”

In manchen Verbindungen treten nun die sr geradezu fuer die knbt ein. So haben wir unter dem

Term der Gerichtssprache neben a\n 1" 7M4 1

\: 1l+!! F!8

!5 - mit jemd. vor der knbt

stehen”. (P. Anastasi, VI, 6, 12 - 13; P. Turin, 16, 8) ein a\n 1" 7M4 1

\: 1l+

t!5!

5 - mit

jemd. vor dem srw stehen.” (P. Anast. VI, 2, 8H.C., 4, 23; ibid., vo., 9, 10) und neben der F!8

!5Q!4

die 5!5

tQ!4 (P. Turin, 128, 6). Damit wird aber auch die Bedeutung des Abkuerzungsstriches

klar, welcher sich haeufig hinter unserer Gruppe findet, er vertritt offenbar das schwierige

Determinativ 5 , wie sich tatsaechlich die Schreibung einmal (Rekhmirea Z5) nachweisen laesst.

Gleichzeitig geben mir die letzten Ausfuehrungen aber das Recht, die Angaben ueber die

richterliche Thaetigkeit der sr sich fuer die qnbtt zu verwerten.”

Apart from the examples already quoted above, we can add to Spiegelberg’s list the frequent

expression 5!tF!8

!5 (var. 5!t

F!8+5 )925. All the examples dated to the New Kingdom. Two of

these examples deserve particular attention. In the Cairo Ostracon (25556), we are presented with a

list of individuals so described; they comprise the foreman and eleven men bearing no titles who

are certainly workmen. This example shows that by this time, qnbts sitting in judgment did not

have to consist of members of the bureaucracy and also that irrespective of social standing, all

participants in a qnbt were described as srw. This leads us to another possible conclusion, namely

that by the New Kingdom, or perhaps even the Ramesside period, the word sr, to a large degree lost

its privileged status and simply denoted all those who did at the time or could when required,

participate in a qnbt. To some degree this may find corroboration in a XXVth dynasty text dated in

922 Hassan, Excavations at Giza, II, 155f. 923 J.C. Moreno Garcia, Etudes, 106, n. 334; Hassan, Giza 1930-31, 155ff. 924 Rechtswesen, 14 ff. 925 P. Butler, 534 (BM., 10333), 35 (II, 13) = KRI VII, 15, 7; O. Cairo, 25556 cf. Černy, ASAE XXVII (1927), 200 - 205; P. Berl., 10460, 12 = KRI VI, 864, 4; P. Turin, 2021, 2, 9 = Černy & Peet, JEA. XIII, (1927), 32; Gardiner, Inscr. of Mes, N3; N7 - 8; N9 - 10; N12 - 20.

169

the 6th year of Taharka926 which runs (l. 5): “(I went) with you to law before the wrw of the Great

qnbt of the City (Thebes) and also the Chief Scribe of the Cadastre (zX-n-tmA)”. Subsequently (ll. 9-

10), the author of the document says: -

1:I!R-!t3,<t\t41 1 !5t !

! F!8=!+Q!4Q5'if: -

“(then) the Chief Scribe of the Cadastre and the wrw of the Great qnbt of Thebes stated...” Allam,

here, suggests changes in legal administrative procedure inasmuch as from the inscription of

Rekhmirea we know that all disputes regarding land were dealt with in the provinces by the

Overseer of Tenanted Farms (W8!h 6 ) with the DADAt nt TmA but referred to the vizier927. Here,

however a seemingly low, provincial official acts as supervising magistrate over the Great qnbt in

the capital replacing the Vizier. I am not convinced, but discussion is outside the scope of this

work. What is, however, important is the replacement of srw by wrw, if indeed that is how the word

is to be read928.

The other interesting appearance of the expression sr n qnbt is found in the Butler Papyrus.929 This

document contains a list of army ranks but also some apparent civilians and even a woman. The

inclusion of a sr n qnbt in this list is hard to explain and whatever suggestion is put forward must be

sheer speculation. It may be that the individual so entitled simply wanted to give himself a status.

In the same manner as srw and qnbt we can equate DADAt and qnbt. To my knowledge, the latter of

these is never attested in the Old Kingdom. Pahor Labib930 tells us that the word qnbt is first

attested in the VIth dynasty, but gives no reference. The word certainly makes its appearance

during the First Intermediate Period and the rise of Thebes931. Exactly when qnbt made its first

entry on the scene is virtually impossible to establish because, if my theory of provenance is correct

then the term may have been used in the south throughout the Old Kingdom. However, of the

examples known to us, a graffito from Hat Nub932, which goes: “I travelled south and I arrived at

Elephantine, I travelled north and arrived in the Delta(?) in order to discharge administration on

behalf of my Lord with commissions of the government (pr-nswt). I arrived happy because I

accomplished what I was intended to do. The F!8

!5

t! 7!

t!4 - The qnbt of the Central

Government rejoiced because of the greatness of appreciation (lit. love) of my Lord in the midst of

the

bbb!!5 - DADAt”. The use here of the two words with identical meaning is curious. It is possible

that at this early stage the latter term was closely associated with the King and therefore used as

.

926 P. Louvre, 3228c, Col., I, 5 = Malinine, R d’E VI (1951), Pl., I.; Allam, JEA LXXVII (1991), 115, notes 32 & 33. 927 Davies, Rekh., CXIX - CXXII, 18. 928 Earlier in this chapter suggestion was made that wrw was also early in the Old Kingdom the precursor of srw and that this gave rise to the very frequently attested title wr-mD-Sma 929 Op. cit. 930 Pahor Labib, MDAIK., 25 (1969), 72 931 Allam, RIDA XLII, 13: “un tel college qui fait son apparition des la fin de l’Ancien Empire”; Allam, JEA LXXVII (1991), 116 quotes Lurie, Studien, 63 ff to the effect that the expression DADAtgave way to qnbt but was revived in late dynastic times. He then quotes sources for this revival. 932 Hatnub, Gr. 14 = Anthes, Hatnub, 32 - 33, Pl., XVII; Moreno Garcia, Etudes, 96.

170

synonym for the “30” while the former represented the administrative panel itself. The other early

reference to qnbt comes from Mo’alla933 where Ankhtyfy says:

1K]tnK! ntq

!F!5

t!1M:

t!1;BM

ti\,s

f!,1\~~G\1M3j:9=t=/!#!

[<1!<1 e#Kt?K!5:9!5Bt1

i! 4!

t1e BM,1 nM1sf!,$!<=

!,

This Vandier translates: “J’ai amené934 la qnbt du guverneur du Sud qui réside dans le nome thinite

a venir prendre l’avis de [mon père] le chef des prophètes le grand chef du nome d’Heracleopolis

Hetep. Ce n’est certes pas une chose que j’aie trouvée avoir été faite par les autres nomarques qui

ont existé dans ce nome (et cette chose) je l’ai faite grâce a mes plans excellantes...”

There is a strong implication that whereas DADAt was a Memphite, Lower Egyptian term, the word

qnbt originated in Upper Egypt and was only popularised when an Upper Egyptian dynasty

ascended the throne. We need not be put off from this theory by the fact that an XIth dynasty

official of the Theban King S’ankhkarea Mentuhotpe claims that “All the DADAt of His Majesty were

placed under his authority and they reported to his messengers...”935 The official was almost

certainly Lower Egyptian and even were it not so, the terminology used by the previous Memphite

and Heracleopolitan governments must have been establishing itself in the south. Nor is it

surprising that in the already quoted stela of Kamose, very much a southern King of the XVIIth

dynasty, we should read that “His Majesty spoke in his palace to the DADAt-srw” and not qnbt-

srw.936 By that time the two terms became fully interchangeable when we remember that very soon

after assuming power the Middle Kingdom XIIth dynasty moved north to Lisht and the capital

continued there throughout the XIIIth dynasty.

There is no question that the committees DADAt/qnbt constituted the basis of all administration in

Egypt. The King himself ruled in the company of the DADAt/qnbt-aAt as also by all accounts, the “30”,

to both of which we already had occasion to refer at length, that all high officials were surrounded

by such committees of which they were senior members and therefore that all branches of

administration central or provincial were managed by these bodies. Every town or city was

governed with the participation of a DADAt/qnbt937 and certainly by Ramesside times even workmen

of the Necropolis formed themselves into a qnbt. All this finds full support in our sources

throughout the period under discussion. It seems that nothing happened in Egypt except by

corporate decision.

On reviewing the existing evidence covering the functioning of the various DADAt/qnbt panels in

Egypt throughout our period of history, one becomes increasingly convinced not only that all

933 Vandier, Mo’alla, 186, inscr. 5 II δ, 1 934 The word nK! sometimes means “business” or “procedure”. 935 C - M, Hammamat, nr. 14, 83; Schenkel, Memphis, nr. 426, 256. 936 Carnarvon Tablet, I, 2; JEA III, 95 ff; ASAE XXXIX, 245 ff; Helck, HBT., 83, nr. 119. 937 Helck, HBT. 38 (49), 4:”I am an official (sr) of his (my) city”. Date: 8th year of the Second Intermediate Period king Khaneferre’ Sebekhotpe; In the Coffon Texts Spells 337 and 338 we have long lists of cities spanning the kingdom and including Heliopolis, Abydos, Pe etc.in which are said to have been located DADAt a- At.

171

decisions were taken in committee, but also that resulting from that principle, all institutions large

and small, were run with the participation of such committees. They were given rules (tp-rd), which

presumably circumscribed their area of authority and power to restrict the day-to-day activities of

individual officials. That senior officials such as the Vizier or the High Steward were not obliged to

follow the advice of their respective advisory bodies, there is no doubt and this is clear from our

sources quoted throughout the present work. Needless to say, neither was the King. Thus, we come

across examples of DADAt of the Sna (produce conversion plant) embracing all the officials who

constituted the staff of that department, a DADAt of the Treasury and a DADAt of Osiris covering the

priestly staff of the temple at Abydos. At Sinai, the staffs of officials who surrounded the respective

leaders of expeditions were referred to as DADAt.938. All this is well demonstrated by a passage in the

Inscription of Rekhmirea where the Vizier claims that he was “one who appoints the magistrates of

Upper and Lower Egypt (to wit) the Head of The South and the Nome of Abydos939 . They report to

him all that had happened in their nomes at the beginning of each four-monthly period, and they

are to bring to him the official scribes attached to them and their council (DADAt)”940. Each of these

high officials whom the Vizier personally appointed, therefore, possessed his own scribes and his

own staff of officials under him and who also constituted his advisory panel.

A curious passage comes to us from a Heracleopolitan inscription. Although, here, the translation

seems straight forward, the thought behind it is more than obscure. The passage runs as follows: -

2t=\!pG!1!!F!q!

51$!q5hnn

th1

B! 4t7\ 4

Q!4 <\! <11h - “My son

came here from the place of the qnbt in his nappies. He ruled as a man of one cubit and the Nome

(lit. city) was in rejoicing over him.”941

Two points are of great interest here. In the first place is the apparent assumption of the office of

Nomarch by a minor, the principle is well established throughout the world and history in case of

the monarchy, but otherwise quite unknown in bureaucracy. The second point, one perhaps

connected with the first is that the accession apparently had to be approved by the qnbt and by

general acclamation of the citizens. These two points would be even more significant in respect of

Egyptian “constitution”, were it not for the dating of the passage to a period when local nomarchs

were to all intents and purposes autonomous. This does not, however, detract from the principle

involved albeit, in more stable times applicable only to the monarchy. In this case, however, if my

understanding of the passage is correct, it may imply the acceptance by nomarchs, at this time of

procedures involved in royal legitimation.

938 Sinai, XXVII, 92; ibid. XXXIX, 115; ibid., LII, 139 - 141 (first part). 939 A highly interesting passage indicating how little importance can be attached to the frequent claims by various officials that they exercised their respective offices in “Upper and Lower Egypt”. The claim was either overtly spurious or, if one is to be kinder, merely pointing out that the function exercised applied to the whole country but not through one official. What may be of specific interest here, is, however, that apparently the Nome of Abydos, although not geographically a part of the Head of the South fell within Rekhmirea’s area of competence. 940 Davies, Rekhmirea, Pls., CXIX - CXXII, 22 - 23. 941 H. Brunner, TGHS., 44, III, 13.

172

As to DADAt and qnbt, evidence shows that these two expressions were used synonymously with the

meaning of “staff” or “panel of officials”. When Rekhmirea records his appointment to the office

of Vizier, he tells us that the King set up a staff of officials to assist him. In this case he uses the

word qnbt and not DADAt. Conversely, when a King of the XVIIth dynasty consults his advisers as to

the advisability of attacking the Hyksos, he uses the expression DADAt srw (var. srw n DADAt) that is

parallel to srw n qnbt. This term as sr-DADAt is known to us from the Pyramid Texts and must

therefore be considered to have been of considerable antiquity942

References to the King’s circle of advisers, this time described as qnbt of the Palace we find in an

inscription from Siut943. What is interesting here, however is that the panel in this instance is

composed of smrw companions and not as in other instances srw-officials. This exception, although

not in itself constituting strong evidence, nevertheless points to the fact that the meaning of

DADAt/qnbt was primarily advisory committee and not staff of an institution, although one cannot

deny that both expressions were used to refer to both meanings.

Another, and most important function of DADAt/qnbt was to act as court of law whose duties covered

solving administrative problems of the population, acting as a notary public and naturally also try

cases, both civil and criminal. The full name of this body was qnbt-sDmyw and although many

examples showing how this body functioned will be quoted at a later stage, here it suffices to

mention again that these committees and therefore courts of law existed in all centres of

administration as we see from the Ramesside example F!8

!5X11 1"!

5tu

hDM!Q 944. Also, here

we can quote, one other important text. This is a document recording the advice to his son and heir

Merykarea given by King Akhtoy whose reign is dated to the First Intermediate Period945: “If you

find a subject of yours (lit. one who belongs to your city)946 and his crimes come to your notice (lit.

and his doings are passed beyond you), accuse (srx) him before the Snyt and suppress him.” We

have just come across an exceptional use of smrw - the King’s companions composing a qnbt.

Here, we have the other group forming the Egyptian King’s entourage and this version is not

unique as reference to a qnbt of the Snyt is also recorded in Hammamat947. Other allusions to qnbts

surrounding or rather following the King are found in the inscription of the Elephantine Nomarch

Sarenput and in some Hat Nub graffiti948 but no indication exists as to their composition. It is

perhaps logical to suppose that the King selected his circle of advisers irrespective of their position

942 Pyr. 1713a-1714a (610): “The earth speaks to you, the gate of the Earth God is open for you, the doors of Geb are thrown open for you that you may go forth at the voice (Logos) and spiritualize yourslf. O king, as Thoth and as Anubis magistrate of the tribunal(sr DADAt) may you adjudicate (wDa=k mdw) when you are together with the Two Enneads”. 943 Siut, XIII, 13; cf. BH., XXIV - XXVI, 105. 944 P. BM., 10568, 3 = KRI VII, 101, 3. 945 P. Petersburg, 1116, 26 946 The use of the word nwt - city, here is interesting. It is also frequently used by nomarchs referring to their provinces. It is tempting to assume that this usage goes back to prehistoric times when Egypt was covered by a large number of independent city-states. 947 C-M. Hammamat, 43. 948 ZAS XLV, 123 ff; Hat Nub, Gr., 24 & 26.

173

in the state bureaucracy resulting in different groups of courtiers forming his personal qnbt and

therefore as stated earlier in this section, the various groups of courtiers were interchangeable

which clearly led to this apparent confusion. The business of day to day government on behalf of

the monarch or perhaps at times with his participation was conducted by the DADAt/qnbt-aAt/wrt

otherwise probably referred to as qnbt of the capital (Xnw) (Neferti, 4 [restored]) under the

chairmanship of the Vizier concerning which more will be said later. A very curious inscription of

the Heracleopolitan period may indicate that high officials such as nomarchs were in principle, at

least, chosen from the ranks of the DADAt/qnbt. This again may derive from a very ancient tradition -

the election of the chieftain by acclamation. The text quoted above seemingly shows this in respect

of the Nomarch’s infant son acclaimed as the next chief.

Documents at our disposal, in a number of cases, describe the “staff” of temples as qnbt.949. That

this qnbt nt H(w)t-nTr represents the executive staff of the temple is shown by the text of the

Contracts of the Nomarch Hepdjefai. These contracts are drawn up between the Nomarch on one

side and on behalf of the temple, the executive staff, which is described as qnbt nt H(w)t-nTr, on the

other. The members of this body are in one of the contracts actually listed.950. The meaning of

“staff” of an organisation is further supported by the occurrences of a DADAt n mSa-“staff of the

levy/army”951 and “qnbt of soldiers”952.

That each city or nome possessed its own qnbt around the person of the Nomarch and later the

mayor, we know from a number of sources but specifically, the inscription of Tefibi, a Nomarch of

Siut953 who tells us in his own words: “then came my son in my place, the qnbt was under his

authority.” In no way can we consider the meaning of qnbt in this passage as anything other than

the administrative staff of the nome.

There is some indication that Egyptian officials participated in the qnbt in some kind of rotation

and to this, I shall revert later. At this stage, two rather interesting XVIIIth dynasty documents can

be mentioned. These are the Gurob II Papyri numbers 1 and 2. Both these texts refer to one and the

same legal case which was heard over a number of days, the two papyri being dated respectively to

day 5 and day 10 + (?) of the same year and month. Although it appears that on both these days the

presiding magistrate was the same, the composition of the panel itself partly differed. The

indication here that individual members of this qnbt participated in rotation is quite strong. It must

be remembered, however that this was a qnbt-sDmyw, which as will be seen later, was a panel of

officials (srw) selected to deal with outside petitioners. There is every reason to suppose that the

fairest method of assembling such a committee was by rotation. The problem, however, as indeed

demonstrated by this particular case, was that ultimate verdicts of such continually changing juries

were given on evidence heard in part. As we observe from later, XXth dynasty examples, this

problem does not appear to have been addressed at least during our period of study. There is no

949 e.g. Cairo, 20318. 950 Siut, VII, 283, 284 & 289; ibid. 293 & 295; ibid., 304 (here the qnbt acts as a notary witnessing the signing of a contract). 951 Davies, Rekhmirea, CXIX - CXXII, 24. 952 Louvre, C. 26. 953 Siut, XI, 13.

174

strong evidence known to me, which would suggest that similar system of rotation also existed

within the personnel of various organisations. One passage (BM. 344, 6-8), however, where an

official describes himself as “one who is efficient of heart, who does not become lazy, who is

vigilant in his tour (wnwt) of duty”, seems to suggest it.

On the face of it, the meaning of DADAt/qnbt presents no difficulties. A panel of officials assisting the

most senior official present in making decisions concerning local matters which included the

dispensing of justice. Every high executive of the realm from the King down, had a qnbt under his

authority while at the same time being a member of it. These were the qnbts of individual offices

each of which had such a committee to assist the top official. Town-districts possessed them, and

even workmen’s villages had them at least in the New Kingdom. It seems therefore that every

member of the bureaucracy was a “sr”. In this case, the question immediately comes to mind: what

was the difference in a given city-district between the individual committees of the offices dealing

with various branches of administration and the committee of the city-district itself which

presumably would came under the authority of the Mayor (HAty-a)(?). For this, however, there is no

direct evidence and as we shall see, the position of the “Mayor” in provincial administration was a

curious one.

In his publication of the Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446954, Hayes maintains that “...though there is

ample evidence that the DADAwt frequently - especially in the Old Kingdom performed the function of

courts of law955 (note 174) they appear to have been basically administrative and advisory bodies

best described as ‘councils’ (note 175)”. As already seen, I am in total agreement with this view. In

another part of his publication, Hayes further states956 that qnbt and DADAt existed side by side since

Heracleopolitan times. Here again, agreement can be registered. He goes on to say however, that

prior to the New Kingdom, qnbt was apparently purely administrative, while DADAt was also judicial.

In the New Kingdom, he continues, DADAt gradually disappears while the judicial responsibility

becomes vested in the qnbt. As must be clear from all that has already been stated, I categorically

reject this view, which would imply that the two were separate and distinct bodies. I find no

evidence for this view and the only discernable division seems to occur in Ramesside times when

DADAt appears only in texts dealing with religious matters while qnbt covers all secular activities.

The actual meaning of the word qnbt has not been established, at least to my knowledge. The

Berlin Dictionary957 refers to two versions neither of which I am able to substantiate. One is B!t n

tq!F!5 , which may or may not be a synonym for qnbty, and

ntq

!! (var.

ntq:

!h 4 ! ) which assuming that the determinatives are significant in these instances, may refer

in a general way to the place where the qnbt deliberated (cf. “Houses(?) of the 30”) or in the case

of the second example, to the area over which it had authority. One version of the writing of this

954 page 45. 955 URK I, 196,1; ibid. 197, 18; ibid. 202, 9 & 11; cf. CT. I, 10 (Sp. 3). 956 page 140. 957 Vol. 5, 54

175

word, which curiously is omitted from the Berlin Dictionary although well attested, is F!8+5 958

written with a book determinative, therefore pointing to some documentary association. In this

particular text dated to the time of Ramesses II, the word occurs in the heading: F!8+5

tV 4#

t -qnbt

Of This Day followed by a list of its members, which is in itself of considerable interest. The

papyrus records a land dispute probably concerning the land administered by temples but rented out

to officials for cultivation. The qnbt, therefore includes, apart from the High Priest of Amun,

Bakenkhons, two prophets of Amun, one prophet of Mut, two wab-priests of Amun and one wab

priest of the temple estate of Amun (pr-jmn) who in virtue of this title may have been concerned

with estate management. No such doubt can exist in respect of the Steward of the Estate of Amun

(jmj-r pr jmn) and the Scribe of the Cadastre of the qnbt of the City (Thebes), clearly representing

the civil authority. Proceedings were, in fact conducted at the

-

\1 1!!6

t!=!!'jbe1Q!4 8

!h 4 -

“Gate of the Royal-Palace--Enclosure l.p.h. in the Southern City (Thebes)”, where petitions in law

were heard. The fact that in this case the number of members of the qnbt was the apparently

optimal ten may be and probably is pure coincidence; there are, however, in this document other

points of great interest and importance which deserve mention: one that in two places in the text (ll.

16 & 31) the sitting committee is referred to as qnbt-sDmyw-literally a committee of hearers and

this term as I shall attempt later to show, referred to the qnbt summoned specifically for judicial

and administrative functions accessible to the public and therefore receiving petitioners from the

general public outside the government enclosure. The other point of importance is, that in every

instance in this papyrus, the word qnbt is determined with a book determinative and this, in my

opinion points to the true meaning of this word in this usage. The expression “qnbt of this day”

shows that being a member of this body was not a permanent function, but, like committees of

present day, these bodies were summoned to discuss and decide upon specific matters and as we

shall see, their composition varied not only in accordance with the duty to be performed, the present

example being a case in point, but also from day to day, covering the same case or cases, as we find

in the Tomb Robbery Papyri959. In the late Middle Kingdom Kahun Papyrus960, we have a record of

a DADAt nt Sna -” committee of the conversion plant”, t!7: 4H!j

tBb>"

!"$5

tV 4#

t which

Griffith, translates “who are in the rota (?), eating bread on this day.” This apparently shows that

lower ranking officials worked in some kind of rotation either fixed in respect of time, or they were

on call whenever needed. It was an established principle in Egyptian bureaucracy that officials on

duty received their food on the premises. This custom is described in detail in Papyrus Boulaq 18.

What is, however, likely is that high officials, in this case presumably the jmj-r Sna, who in this

document is conspicuous by his absence, were on permanent duty not subject to rotas and therefore

not included in the above mentioned list. The expression “qnbt of this day” and similar references

958 P. Berl., 3047 = Helck, JARCE II (1963), 72, 4 - 8 959 Bedell, CLERP., 47 refers to “court of the day”.cf. Deir el Medina:Černý/Gardiner, Hier. Ostr., O. Nash, I, Pl., XLVI, 2, vo., 5 - 7; ibid., O. Nash, II, Pl., XLVII, 1, vo., 16 - 19. 960 P. Kah. XXVIIa, 9ff.

176

to the same, are well attested961. The examples make it quite certain that qnbts were summoned for

specific days and specific purposes. On a stela of an early XIIth dynasty official entitled

1M`! 49# which here probably means “Commander of a Troop of Guards”, we read962 : -

1M b?! UM!

9#tQ!4hP#,B,!!4 1

V4

tB<6!4

b?H

!v!

,V 4 n

tq!F H5-

”As for myself, indeed I was foremost of my city who opened the office on the day of zH, I wasnever

aabsent.on the day of the qnbt.” The metaphors in this sentence are not easy to interpret, but on the

basis of probability, we can say that as zH was the canopy or booth set up to protect the qnbt from

the heat of the sun presumably each time that body met to deliberate, in this text it represents the

day of the meeting. In the event therefore repeating immediately “The day of the qnbt” seems a

superfluous duplication and the word qnbt can be assumed to have a more specific meaning such as

summons to the assembly as opposed to the assembly itself. The word tSAw with the book

determinative presents some difficulty. With the determinative “n”, the word tSj means to desert,

to escape or as tSw to be absent: in this context grotesque. Therefore, either we must assume that

the negative verb !U1 is omitted, possibly as superfluous or replaced in a different form, thus

the whole meaning: “I am not one who is absent on the day the summons (qnbt) comes into effect”.

What seems probable however is that the sitting “god” is not a determinative for ink, but the God

Atum, phonetically representing the negative verb tm963 I am inclined further to believe that the

original meaning of the word qnbt reflected in the book determinative was something like summons

to the meeting on a specific day. It is therefore not particularly surprising that from the XXVIth

dynasty onwards the word qnbt “became a standard term to signify the sort of document that can

be laid before law-courts and acknowledged by them.”964 The reason for the change in the meaning

of the word qnbt at this time stems from the fact that for the first time, as it seems, permanent

courts of law were established in Egypt and therefore the committee of officials specially

summoned on a daily bases ceased to exist as simultaneously did the document of summons or qnbt

which had also described the committee itself. It is scarcely conceivable to imagine that a word

describing an assembly of officials alone could suddenly change its meaning into a document. This

change in the usage of the word qnbt resulting from an administrative reform probably also caused

the return to the ancient word DADAt, which since the Old Kingdom actually described the committee

itself and not any document establishing it.

(c) THE KING AND THE QNBT

In his article on Ancient Egyptian Kingship965, Professor Baines postulates, if I understand him

correctly, that the function of the Egyptian king was largely ceremonial and ritual and that

executive power was delegated. I cannot agree with this theory. The King, already under the Old

961 P. Sall., vo., 6, 3 = LEM 93, 4; P. Turin, 1881, 8, 1 - 3 “This day making a qnbt for A together with B (jrt qnbt n A Hna B); McDowell, Jurisdiction, 143 & notes. 962 BM., Stela 1628 = HTBM., V, Pls., 1 - 2. 963 This usage of the god determinative ios otherwise unknown to me 964 Allam, JEA LXXVII, (1991), 116; ibid. n. 37. 965 Edited by D. O’Connor and D. Silverman, p. 133, paragr. 3.

177

Kingdom, possessed a highly sophisticated secretariat, which controlled both the central and

provincial sectors of state administration and reported directly to Him. That the king possessed his

panel of advisers around him is indicated by an Old Kingdom title (Mar. Mast. 109, B.16):

“Overseer of the King’s DADAt for Resolving All Matters (nt wDa mdw nb) It is not surprising

therefore that the two cases of excessive longevity of monarchs such as Phiops II and Ramesses II

were followed by disintegration of the kingdom in the first instance and rapidly progressing decay

in the second.

As already indicated elsewhere, the king ruled the kingdom in the same organisational manner as

the progressively widening pyramid of officials under him to whom the same system was

delegated. In other words, he ruled surrounded by councils of elders, but the ultimate decision was

his. The value of advice from wise and experienced counsellors could not have been better

emphasized than by king Akhtoy to his son Merykare’966.: “Great is the great man whose great

men are great; strong is the king who has councillors; wealthy is he who is rich in nobles

(advisers)”.Such were the cases exposed to us by the already quoted stela of Kamose967 as also by

the Old Kingdom text968 which tells us that the entourage of the King consisted of srw, saHw and

bAkw and we already know that the srw constituted the DADAt/qnbt and were synonymous although it

is likely that not all srw served on the DADAt/qnbt simultaneously, but rather that their participation

took place in some form of rotation, which, as already pointed out, was likely to apply perhaps only

to the qnbt-sDmyw who dealt with the populace at large. Allam969 lists a number of cases where the

king is specifically said to have been surrounded by his advisers in critical situations.970 All these

cases appear to refer to the advisers immediately surrounding the person of the king, it does not

follow and cannot be assumed that in the royal residence this was the only DADAt/qnbt. From a

document dated to the XVIIIth dynasty, but almost certainly originating from the XIIth,971 which

records an alleged prophesy made to Snofru, the first king of the IVth dynasty foretelling the

accession of the XIIth dynasty972 we learn that “One day, it happened that the qnbt n Xnw came

into the pr-a in order to report (nD-xrt) (and) departed (after) having reported according to

- t-

A their

duty for every day”. Here, following our earlier discussion of the layout of central administration,

we have the administrative committee covering the outside administrative offices of the capital

t

966 Merykare’, 45 = Lichtheim, p. 100 967 Op., cit. 968 URK I, 106,1 - 2. 969 Quenbete et Administration autonome = RIDA., 42 (1995 970 Op. cit. (p. 17, n. 8) Catastrophic storm in the Theban/Dendera area under Ahmosis. The king went to survey the disaster with his advisers in tow (qnbtyw m xt=f) (see Vandersleyen, R.d’E 19 (1967), 123 ff; ibid., 20 (1968), 127 ff; Helck HBT. (1975), 107 [124, 13]. (p. 18, n. 11). Similar natural catastrophy under Sebekhotpe VIII (XIIIth d.). Again the king visited the site with his advisers (Hna qnbtyw) (see Habachi, SAK., 1 (1974); Helck, HBT., 47, nr. 63, 4-5). (pp. 18-19, n. 12). Ramesses III in procession at Medinet Habu. The king is surrounded by armed guards, but immediately behind him come 4 men described as qnbtyw fd Xr pH=f (M.H., IV, Pl. 197 = KRI., V, 201, 3) 971 Helck, Die Prophezieung des Nfriti, 4 ff; Goedicke, The Protocol of Neferyt (1977), 53 ff. 972 This is yet another indication of the insecurity felt by the XIIth dynasty monarchs concerning their right to the throne.

178

city973 reporting daily to the king, directly or indirectly within his personal enclosure. Similar daily

reports but by the vizier and the high treasurer are recorded in Rekhmire’ albeit later.

The association of the reigning monarch and the DADAt/qnbt is well attested throughout the three

kingdoms establishing our conviction that the King ruled with their advice. In the New Kingdom

literary text of the Two Brothers974we find the younger son appointed to be crown prince and who,

on succeeding his father, summons his srw and also his wife975 and in turn appoints his older

brother to succeed him. These srw or qnbt were presumably necessary to secure legality through the

tribal custom of acclamation. The presence or even participation of the Queen in discussions of

matters of state, side by side with the qnbt, is also mentioned in the inscription of the Elephantine

Nomarch Sarenput under Sesostris I976 where the Nomarch boasts: “I appointed craftsmen to the

work in my tomb and His Majesty praised me on account of it very greatly and very often in the

presence of the qnbt and the Mistress of the Land (the Queen).” Here we have the “elders”

surrounding the Chief to offer advice and the Queen’s opinion appears to have been deemed

important enough for her to participate. This again may refer back to a remote prehistoric period

when women were included in the advisory committee. Although no evidence for this exists from

state documents of historical period, as we shall see later from the trial of Horus and Seth, gods and

goddesses were equal participants in the qnbt, which tried the case, and at one stage a goddess even

acted as presiding magistrate. There is some evidence that this participation of women although not

attested in historical Egypt did exist in Nubia, down to the end of the Second Intermediate Period

and probably later. In the Papyrus Boulaq 18977 it was once thought that a “woman of the qnbt” was

included in a Nubian embassy, to Thebes and apparently to emphasize this, the word “qnbt” itself

has both man and woman determinative. This was since shown to be based on a misreading.

Furthermore, it was even suggested that Egyptian kingship may have originated in Nubia.978

The association of the King with his elders around him, is also found in an inscription at Hatnub979

where both a Vizier and a Nomarch describe themselves as being “known to the King and his

counsellors (qnbtyw)”. And at Hammamat an inscription of a leader of an expedition to that quarry

in the reign of Ammenemes III was himself known to the King and chosen from among the

counsellors (qnbtyw) and elders (Snyt)980. In the Tempest Stela of Ahmosis981 we are told that “His

Majesty went down to his ship, his qnbt behind him.” In ceremonial events taking place in front of

973 The determinative for Xnw in this case, which is “Q ” emphasizes thaat something like a city is meant. 974 18, 9 - 19, 6. 975 The presence of queens in important meetings of kings with their advisers is well attested in Egyptian history and several times mentioned in this work. 976 Gardiner, ZAS XLV (1908), Pl., VI, 9. 977 Pl., XXIX, 1 - 10. 978 B. Williams, “Forebears of Menes in Nubia; Myth or Reality?” = JNES. 46, (1987). On the evidence of Qustul cemetary L. Contra opinions: T. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt (2001), 39; K. Zibelius-Chen, Die Ägyptische Expansion nach Nubia (1988), 48. 979 Anthes, Die Felseninschriften von Hatnub (1928), p. 60 ff., (n. 26, 4); cf., Lae., II, 414; Anthes, Hatnub., p. 54ff. (n. 24, 2). 980 C - M., Hammamat, (1912), p. 48 (n. 43, 8 - 9). 981 Vandersleyen, R. d’E., XIX (1967), 124 ff; Pl., X, 2.

179

the King, the srw are always mentioned as one of the groups attending the monarch. During the

already mentioned investiture of the Vizier Weser under Thutmosis III982, groups of courtiers are

listed which had already been translated and discussed earlier in this chapter (p.162). What is

additionally interesting arising out of those groups is the difference implied between stp-sA and aH

suggesting, as already seen, that the former was the enclosure containing the various offices of

central administration, such as the service area, administration buildings, etc. while the latter was

the actual dwelling and office of the God-King983. In this case, the various groups of functionaries

do not appear to have had any specific duties to perform except to surround the person of the King

and as the text actually states, to pay respects and report (nD-xrt) to him. Thus, the monarch

henceforth addresses all of them as a group with the term smrw, or “companions”. The principle of

ruler surrounded by elders was translated into the world of the gods as seen from the Stela of the

Second Intermediate Period king Neferhotpe (Helck, HBT. 25, 18-19) recording a procession

involving Osiris: Then the Majesty of this God was made to appear with the Ennead united behind

him”. The only specified function was performed by the Vizier who entered and reported to the

King on the state of the two lands (nD-r Hr xrt-tAwy). A similar inclusion of srw around the person of

the King is found in the Koller Papyrus984: “Remember the day of bringing jnw-tribute, when you

pass into the presence beneath the window (sSd), the srw in two rows in the presence of His Majesty

l.p.h., the chiefs and envoys of every foreign land standing dazzled at seeing the tribute.” In

litigation between two men, the King himself acted as presiding magistrate over the qnbt judging

the case985. The King was directly involved in the traditional manner as the Chieftain surrounded by

the elders in administrative matters, but also directly with judicial cases. There are, indeed,

instances where passing trivial cases by unimportant people to Pharaoh, may simply imply “palace

administration”986. There are, however, cases which cannot be so explained and prove that the King

himself and not some nebulous “administration” was involved987. A number of Deir el Medina

workmen’s complaints regarding their rations were submitted to the Pharaoh, twice by the Vizier

and once by the High Priest of Amun988. It is scarcely believable that a person in the position of an

Egyptian King could find time to deal with matters, which at least to our modern perception, seem

to have been of utter triviality.

982 URK IV, 1380 -1384. Op. cit. 983 Some examples can be quoted for the two expressions as follows: +

\! 4 Faulkner, CDME 46 (P.

Westcar, 5, 3; 9, 18; URK IV, 256, 3; JEA. XXXIX, 25; Sin. B.46, B.50; UMR. VII, 61, 18 - 19; Siut, I, 218 - 222); BM., 614, 5 (JEA. XVII, 55 - 61);Carnavon Tablet, I, 2; V. Condon, Seven Royal Hymns of the Ramesside Period, MAeS., Heft XXXVII, Pl., LXXXVII, 4; Les., 26, 11 - 15; URK IV, 897, 6 - 7; ibid., 951, 4; ibid., 968, 7 & 9; ibid., 969, 8; ibid., 975, 2; Helck, URK., 18 Dyn., 1380, 15; ibid., 1429, 6; ibid., 1449; KRI I, 307, 13; ibid., VI, 390, 9; ibid., 391, 16; ibid., 540, 1; ibid., VII, 137, 7; ibid., 164, 3; P. Turin, 1882 ro., I, 1; ibid., ro. 3 = Gardiner JEA. XLI, Pl., III, 7; ibid. XLII, 10, 37. [0! - Les., 3, 12 = Gardiner, Notes on Sinuhe, 108 ff; URK IV, 354; ibid., 400, 13; R d’E XXIX (1977), 170, Pl., XVI. 984 P. Koller, 5, 1ff. = LEM 120, 3ff. 985 LRL., 59, 4 - 5. 986 McDowell, Jurisdiction, 237 - 238; O. BM., 5631, 13 - 14; O. D el-M. 592; O. Cairo, 25237, 5; RAD., 57, 6 - 58, 6. 987 P. Genf., D191 vs., 8 - 11 = LRL., 59, 4 - 7; O. Asch. Mus., 1945.37 + 1945.33 & O. Mich., 90; P. Salt, 124, rt., 2, 17-18; P. BM., 10383, 3. 988 Mc. Dowell, Jurisdiction, 236; P. DelM., 28, 4 - 6; O. DelM., 1148 - 9; O. Cairo, 25310.

180

In the late Middle Kingdom Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446989 we read in Hayes’ commentary on plates

V and VI of his publication the surprising fact that petitions recorded in insertions “B” and “C”

both appear to have been made directly to the King, without the knowledge of the Vizier who had

to be subsequently informed. Hayes explains that this must have been because the Vizier was away

from the capital at the time. This may well have been so, but surely this would have placed the

King in the humiliating position of acting, to all intents and purposes, as his own Vizier’s deputy-an

unlikely scenario. In insertion “C”, we are told of a high official appealing directly to the King

concerning the removal of his estate workers, seemingly by pressgang methods for compulsory

labour and he asks for replacements. The King then instructs the Vizier to look into the matter. As

workers on officials’ estates were within the King’s gift it seems that the procedure followed by the

wronged official was the correct one although the claim of Rekhmirea has to be remembered that

“to him (the Vizier) is reported every petitioner to the Lord (King)”990. The King, in this case,

clearly also acted correctly.

The exact procedure in cases of appeals to the King by members of the public is unfortunately not

known and in view of the volume of work that this of necessity must have involved, it seems likely

that some state mechanism existed to deal with this although the King himself took credit. One

wonders if the King’s qnbtyw did not have something to do with it. Even from our meagre sources

available, it seems that instances of such appeals were not rare. In one case, for example, a man

condemned to compulsory labour was released as a result of an appeal by his father to the King991.

Another reports crimes to Necropolis officials and threatens them: “Let me see what you will do to

them (the alleged criminals) or I will complain (about) them to Pharaoh my Lord l.p.h. and likewise

to the Vizier, my Overseer.”992 It is worth pointing out that this man was a common worker. In

another instance, a robbery was reported directly to Pharaoh by a Prophet of Amun993.

In Papyrus Amherst994we are told that: “The interrogation and the verdict were put in writing and a

report was made concerning it to the Pharaoh by the Vizier, the Inspector, the Registrar and the

Mayor of Thebes.” This presumably had to be done in order to have the verdict legally confirmed.

The following passage (Pl., VII, 1- 2) continues: “The robbers of this pyramid of this god who are

missing were put in charge of this High Priest of Amonrasonther in order to cause them to be

brought and placed as prisoners in the prison of the Temple of Amonrasonther together with their

condemned colleagues whose punishment, the Pharaoh, our Lord l.p.h. has communicated.” This

passage from this papyrus is of great importance because it may hold the key to the treatment of

appeals made directly to the King, but above all it brings us to the already mentioned fact that

apparently only the King had power to authorise penalties of execution and mutilation995. It seems,

989 Hayes, p. 78. 990 URK IV, 1112, 3. 991 Erman, ZAS XLII (1905), 105. 992 Turin Strike Pap.,rt., 4, 14 - 16a = RAD., 58, 993 P. BM., 10383 = Peet, T.R., 1, (Pl., XXII), 1 - 3. 994 Newberry, Pl., VI, 9; VII, 1 - 3. 995 Pleyte & Rossi, P. Turin, Pls., LI - LX = Peet, JEA X (1924), 121, ro., 2, 3.

181

on the basis of all we know from our available sources, that the qnbt-aAt usually presided over by

the Vizier, was in point of fact the advisory body of the King who was so to speak its chairman.

,

How much Kings of Egypt associated their duty to ensure that justice (mAat) was dispensed in

accordance with the terms of the laws, with the qnbts which surrounded them in the process of

decision making and pronouncing sentences, comes to us from a hymn to Amun, probably

composed for Ramesses IV.996 Here, the King says: “As for the (short) period of time of my

working in the qnbt, justice is exact (lit. in its precision) and the clauses (lit. prescriptions) of the

laws are firmly established. Judgments are not being disregarded”997. Clearly we cannot

reconstruct the daily timetable for an Egyptian Pharaoh and say with certainty that all that which he

claimed to have done or that which was attributed to him, he did himself and in person. What is

certain however is that the king’s duties as chieftain of his tribe were taken most seriously

throughout the period studied..

Having gone through the existing evidence on the advisory bodies surrounding and following the

king of Egypt we appear to be no nearer to solving with any degree of precision the different

functions performed by the “30” on the one hand and the royal DADAt/qnbt on the other. Both

assemblies were apparently chaired by the king himself, although references to the former are far

less frequent than to the latter. The general impression gained is that the two assemblies, certainly

in historical times performed similar functions, as a result of which the two tended to be confused.

It seems however that the Thirty was convened rather on very special occasions such as the

endorsement of the successor to the throne, while DADAt/qnbt, the panel of experts, assisted the king

in his day-to-day decisions even of such apparent importance as going to war.

996 P. Turin, 1882, ro., II, 9 - III, 1= Gardiner JEA XLI (1955), Pl., XIII - XIX; ibid., XLII (1956), 10; Allam, RIDA. XLII, 19, n.13. 997 I have permitted myself slightly to amend Gardiner’s translation.