Egypt Exploration Society

A New Kingdom Royal Funerary Estate Mentioned in the Twenty-Sixth DynastyAuthor(s): Bryan G. HaycockSource: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 50 (Dec., 1964), pp. 180-181Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3855757 .

Accessed: 31/10/2013 01:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.127 on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:14:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

caused in the past, to make him swear not to rebel in the future. Unfortunately this example does not give the wording of the oath, but the situation does not exclude a negative promise.

3. Pap. Salt I24, rt. i, i6: '[Though he swore an oath] s4df-tryt, saying, "I will not upset a stone in the neighbourhood of the Place of Pharaoh", so he said.'

In Pap. Salt, Paneb is accused of rummaging among the royal tombs though he had sworn not to; nothing in the text suggests that he had been brought to trial earlier and escaped by perjury. His office required him to be 'in the neighbourhood of the Place of Pharaoh'. It seems more than likely that a chief workman in the Valley of Kings would be made to swear that he would restrict his excavations to the work on new tombs.

4. Turin Strike Pap., rt. 4, 3-4: 'Pharaoh, my good Lord, made me s?df-tryt, saying "I will not hear anything or see any damage in the great and deep places and conceal it." '2

This again is the oath of a worker at the royal tomb. In the last example, incidentally, the phrase nm swt rcyw mdwt includes the Valley of Kings, the

Ramesseum, and, apparently, Deir el-Medina. This casts substantial doubt on Goedicke's inter-

pretation of t;y kt st r;t mdt in Pap. Lee, I, 4 as referring to the High Gates at Medinet Habu, and of the resulting circumstances of the attempt on the life of Ramesses III.3

The example Amenemope, 21, ii adds little useful information, though the context of mal- feasance of office seems clear. The evidence already cited should be sufficient to demonstrate the function of the oath (n) sdf;-tryt. The beginning of Pap. Lee is too badly damaged to permit a

convincing restoration, but it is highly probable that the accused official had broken an oath promis- ing not to give access to 'any [part] of the place in which I am (i.e. not his office, but the royal resi-

dence) to anybody in the world,' and had given Penhuybin written authorization to enter; whether he was armed with magic only or had more effective means of doing away with his sovereign need not concern us here.

Some meaning such as 'an oath for establishing what is to be respected' may have been the origin of the term.4 But etymology is a notoriously unreliable guide for determining later usage.

KLAUS BAER

A New Kingdom royal funerary estate mentioned in the Twenty-sixth Dynasty

THE publication of Papyrus Wilbour and many other land-revenue documents of the New Kingdom by Sir Alan Gardiner has inaugurated a new era in the study of ancient Egyptian land-tenure, provid- ing a much better understanding of the way in which temples and other waqfs held fields widely scat- tered throughout Egypt, which were administered under thae patronage of high fficials and worked under the direction of subordinate officials or parcelled out to tenant-farmers who worked for a share of the crop. It is clear that the Saite land leases of the reign of Amasis II studied by G. R. Hughes (Saite Demotic Land-Leases, Chicago, 1952) reflect a similar pattern, though all the tenants in the written leases seem to enjoy only annual leases. Probably long-term tenants continued to hold their land purely under customary law. Written leases are very rare until Ptolemaic times, and even then the main point seems to have been to obtain many witnesses to the contract. The temples, especially

Cerny, JEA 15 (I929), 245, 247 (I6), pl. xliii. Bn sdm-f is normally future in oaths: Erman, Neudgyptische Grammatik2, ? 765 (his one exception is our example); Cerny, JEA (I937), i88 and n. 7; JEA 31 (1945), 40 (b); Malinine, BIFAO 46 (I947), 98-99, I02.

2 Gardiner, Ramesside Administrative Documents, 57, 8-io (Goedicke cites the old facsimile published by Pleyte and Rossi). For the tense, cf. Edgerton, JNES Io (95 I), I4I1. For pty 'damage,' cf. Pap. Chester Beatty III, vs. 4, 3; Gardiner, Hieratic Papyri, Third Series, 25 and n. 2. 3 Goedicke, yEA 49 (I963), 85-87.

4 For sdfI in the senses 'establish (a religious foundation), provide', cf. Gardiner, Wilbour II, II6-I8; Wb. iv, 383, 14, earlier example Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 259.

caused in the past, to make him swear not to rebel in the future. Unfortunately this example does not give the wording of the oath, but the situation does not exclude a negative promise.

3. Pap. Salt I24, rt. i, i6: '[Though he swore an oath] s4df-tryt, saying, "I will not upset a stone in the neighbourhood of the Place of Pharaoh", so he said.'

In Pap. Salt, Paneb is accused of rummaging among the royal tombs though he had sworn not to; nothing in the text suggests that he had been brought to trial earlier and escaped by perjury. His office required him to be 'in the neighbourhood of the Place of Pharaoh'. It seems more than likely that a chief workman in the Valley of Kings would be made to swear that he would restrict his excavations to the work on new tombs.

4. Turin Strike Pap., rt. 4, 3-4: 'Pharaoh, my good Lord, made me s?df-tryt, saying "I will not hear anything or see any damage in the great and deep places and conceal it." '2

This again is the oath of a worker at the royal tomb. In the last example, incidentally, the phrase nm swt rcyw mdwt includes the Valley of Kings, the

Ramesseum, and, apparently, Deir el-Medina. This casts substantial doubt on Goedicke's inter-

pretation of t;y kt st r;t mdt in Pap. Lee, I, 4 as referring to the High Gates at Medinet Habu, and of the resulting circumstances of the attempt on the life of Ramesses III.3

The example Amenemope, 21, ii adds little useful information, though the context of mal- feasance of office seems clear. The evidence already cited should be sufficient to demonstrate the function of the oath (n) sdf;-tryt. The beginning of Pap. Lee is too badly damaged to permit a

convincing restoration, but it is highly probable that the accused official had broken an oath promis- ing not to give access to 'any [part] of the place in which I am (i.e. not his office, but the royal resi-

dence) to anybody in the world,' and had given Penhuybin written authorization to enter; whether he was armed with magic only or had more effective means of doing away with his sovereign need not concern us here.

Some meaning such as 'an oath for establishing what is to be respected' may have been the origin of the term.4 But etymology is a notoriously unreliable guide for determining later usage.

KLAUS BAER

A New Kingdom royal funerary estate mentioned in the Twenty-sixth Dynasty

THE publication of Papyrus Wilbour and many other land-revenue documents of the New Kingdom by Sir Alan Gardiner has inaugurated a new era in the study of ancient Egyptian land-tenure, provid- ing a much better understanding of the way in which temples and other waqfs held fields widely scat- tered throughout Egypt, which were administered under thae patronage of high fficials and worked under the direction of subordinate officials or parcelled out to tenant-farmers who worked for a share of the crop. It is clear that the Saite land leases of the reign of Amasis II studied by G. R. Hughes (Saite Demotic Land-Leases, Chicago, 1952) reflect a similar pattern, though all the tenants in the written leases seem to enjoy only annual leases. Probably long-term tenants continued to hold their land purely under customary law. Written leases are very rare until Ptolemaic times, and even then the main point seems to have been to obtain many witnesses to the contract. The temples, especially

Cerny, JEA 15 (I929), 245, 247 (I6), pl. xliii. Bn sdm-f is normally future in oaths: Erman, Neudgyptische Grammatik2, ? 765 (his one exception is our example); Cerny, JEA (I937), i88 and n. 7; JEA 31 (1945), 40 (b); Malinine, BIFAO 46 (I947), 98-99, I02.

2 Gardiner, Ramesside Administrative Documents, 57, 8-io (Goedicke cites the old facsimile published by Pleyte and Rossi). For the tense, cf. Edgerton, JNES Io (95 I), I4I1. For pty 'damage,' cf. Pap. Chester Beatty III, vs. 4, 3; Gardiner, Hieratic Papyri, Third Series, 25 and n. 2. 3 Goedicke, yEA 49 (I963), 85-87.

4 For sdfI in the senses 'establish (a religious foundation), provide', cf. Gardiner, Wilbour II, II6-I8; Wb. iv, 383, 14, earlier example Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, 259.

I80 I80

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.127 on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:14:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS i8i i8i

the Amun-complex, still possessed vast lands which were farmed by direct labour or let out to

ordinary priests, herdsmen, or others.

Unfortunately, however, at the time of the publication of these leases The Wilbour Papyrus had

only just appeared and the importance of several mentions of 'fields of Usimare'-miamiin' in year 17 of Amasis, in lines 4, 5, and 6 of P.Louvre 7845A (Hughes, Document III), was not appreciated, especially since Hughes was unable to read the latter part of the name (the name is in semi-hieratic, as is customary with royal names in early demotic documents, and appears to give little difficulty since

mry corresponds closely to the hieroglyphic form, and the shape of the word Amiin is well attested, cf. Erichsen, Dem. Gloss., p. 30 bottom). Since it does not appear that Piankhi built new temples at Thebes, Ramesses III is almost certainly referred to by the papyrus. As the lease indicates that these fields were to some degree autonomous of the estate of Amiin, it appears probable that they belonged to the funerary temple at Medinet Habu, the continuous survival of which is thus esta- blished as a 'living' institution, rather than to his small temples at Luxor and Karnak.

Little evidence for such late survival of New Kingdom royal funerary cults has hitherto been discovered and it is therefore worth while to note that several fields, forming two distinct groups on

good land close to a canal, are mentioned as belonging to Usimare'-miamun. If such good-quality land had not been re-apportioned by later kings, it may be that the Medinet Habu temple still retained considerable estates, which could explain why it was not used as a quarry in ancient times. It also goes to show how little the character of Upper Egyptian land-tenure altered between late New Kingdom times and the commencement of the Ptolemaic dynasty. It is even likely that the

high status still enjoyed by Ramesses III and Ramesses II, which caused the pious forgeries of their cartouches at Karnak in Ptolemaic times, was partly owing to the survival of their funerary cults- like that of Amenhotpe son of Hapu. BRYAN G. HAYCOCK

The Death of Cleopatra VII

IN his article on this subject (JEA 47 (I96I), 113-18), J. Gwyn Griffiths adduces various classical authors for his belief that Cleopatra used two snakes instead of one for her suicide. I should like to

challenge some of his interpretations and assumptions. His first passage is from Virgil's description of the Battle of Actium. He cites Aen. 8, 697: necdum

etiam geminos a tergo respicit angues. He objects to the view of Henry, which he seems to know only from T. L. Page's note, that the angues gemini are a regular symbol of death and do not refer speci- fically to Cleopatra's suicide. He notes en passant that Henry had adduced parallel passages from the

Aeneid, but does not cite them; instead he hastens to claim that 'the glaring objection to all this is the fact that Virgil's adjacent lines refer to the sistrum, to omnigenum deum monstra, and to latrator Anubis. An Egyptian allusion is plainly demanded in geminos angues.' He is far too eager to prove his point. The first of Henry's parallels was Aen. 2, 203-4, which refers to the gemini angues that came out of the sea to destroy Laocoon at Troy. Henry's other main parallel is Aen. 7, 450, describ-

ing the vision sent to Turnus by Allecto. Here the hideous vision has geminos angues; what is more, Turnus is ordered to gaze upon the horrid spectacle by the imperative respice, the same verb as that used in the first Cleopatra passage. This triple repetition of gemini angues is surely significant. They all presage doom, for Laocoon and Troy, for Turnus and his clan, for Cleopatra and Egypt. Virgil deliberately uses the same symbol in these three manifestations of the same context of impending death. Nor is an Egyptian allusion demanded, as Griffiths asserts, by the adjacent lines. The snakes as a symbol of death are most apposite in the context of an Egyptian queen who has relied upon the aid of animal deities against the gods of Rome. This is the ironical point Virgil is making. And, in so far as the allusion is to the defeat of Cleopatra, the demand for an Egyptian allusion is satisfied!

the Amun-complex, still possessed vast lands which were farmed by direct labour or let out to

ordinary priests, herdsmen, or others.

Unfortunately, however, at the time of the publication of these leases The Wilbour Papyrus had

only just appeared and the importance of several mentions of 'fields of Usimare'-miamiin' in year 17 of Amasis, in lines 4, 5, and 6 of P.Louvre 7845A (Hughes, Document III), was not appreciated, especially since Hughes was unable to read the latter part of the name (the name is in semi-hieratic, as is customary with royal names in early demotic documents, and appears to give little difficulty since

mry corresponds closely to the hieroglyphic form, and the shape of the word Amiin is well attested, cf. Erichsen, Dem. Gloss., p. 30 bottom). Since it does not appear that Piankhi built new temples at Thebes, Ramesses III is almost certainly referred to by the papyrus. As the lease indicates that these fields were to some degree autonomous of the estate of Amiin, it appears probable that they belonged to the funerary temple at Medinet Habu, the continuous survival of which is thus esta- blished as a 'living' institution, rather than to his small temples at Luxor and Karnak.

Little evidence for such late survival of New Kingdom royal funerary cults has hitherto been discovered and it is therefore worth while to note that several fields, forming two distinct groups on

good land close to a canal, are mentioned as belonging to Usimare'-miamun. If such good-quality land had not been re-apportioned by later kings, it may be that the Medinet Habu temple still retained considerable estates, which could explain why it was not used as a quarry in ancient times. It also goes to show how little the character of Upper Egyptian land-tenure altered between late New Kingdom times and the commencement of the Ptolemaic dynasty. It is even likely that the

high status still enjoyed by Ramesses III and Ramesses II, which caused the pious forgeries of their cartouches at Karnak in Ptolemaic times, was partly owing to the survival of their funerary cults- like that of Amenhotpe son of Hapu. BRYAN G. HAYCOCK

The Death of Cleopatra VII

IN his article on this subject (JEA 47 (I96I), 113-18), J. Gwyn Griffiths adduces various classical authors for his belief that Cleopatra used two snakes instead of one for her suicide. I should like to

challenge some of his interpretations and assumptions. His first passage is from Virgil's description of the Battle of Actium. He cites Aen. 8, 697: necdum

etiam geminos a tergo respicit angues. He objects to the view of Henry, which he seems to know only from T. L. Page's note, that the angues gemini are a regular symbol of death and do not refer speci- fically to Cleopatra's suicide. He notes en passant that Henry had adduced parallel passages from the

Aeneid, but does not cite them; instead he hastens to claim that 'the glaring objection to all this is the fact that Virgil's adjacent lines refer to the sistrum, to omnigenum deum monstra, and to latrator Anubis. An Egyptian allusion is plainly demanded in geminos angues.' He is far too eager to prove his point. The first of Henry's parallels was Aen. 2, 203-4, which refers to the gemini angues that came out of the sea to destroy Laocoon at Troy. Henry's other main parallel is Aen. 7, 450, describ-

ing the vision sent to Turnus by Allecto. Here the hideous vision has geminos angues; what is more, Turnus is ordered to gaze upon the horrid spectacle by the imperative respice, the same verb as that used in the first Cleopatra passage. This triple repetition of gemini angues is surely significant. They all presage doom, for Laocoon and Troy, for Turnus and his clan, for Cleopatra and Egypt. Virgil deliberately uses the same symbol in these three manifestations of the same context of impending death. Nor is an Egyptian allusion demanded, as Griffiths asserts, by the adjacent lines. The snakes as a symbol of death are most apposite in the context of an Egyptian queen who has relied upon the aid of animal deities against the gods of Rome. This is the ironical point Virgil is making. And, in so far as the allusion is to the defeat of Cleopatra, the demand for an Egyptian allusion is satisfied!

This content downloaded from 193.227.1.127 on Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:14:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions