A Protective Measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth Dynasty

Anthony Leahy

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 75. (1989), pp. 41-60.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0307-5133%281989%2975%3C41%3AAPMAAI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology is currently published by Egypt Exploration Society.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/ees.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org
Fri Oct 26 15:54:52 2007
 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS IN THE
THIRTEENTH DYNASTY*

r l new edition of stela Cairo J E 35256, discovered at Abydos at the turn of the century, which records a royal
edict usurped by Neferhotep I protecting a sacred area dedicated to Wepwawet. The original promulgator of the
decree is identified as Khutawyre Ugaf, and it is argued that the area in question is the depression which runs
-
from the Osiris t e m ~ l eto the Umm el-Oa'ab. This served as a ~rocessionalroute between the t e m ~ l eand the
tomb of Djer, already identified as that of Osiris, and was threatened by tombs encroaching from the North
Cemetery. The development of the cult of Osiris at Abydos is briefly traced, and the importance of the Thir-
teenth Dynasty in the process emphasised.

THEstela discussed here (fig. I and pl. VI) was discovered by Mace at Abydos in the
early years of this century.' It is now on display in the Cairo Museum, as JE 35256.' A
facsimile copy with a translation by Griffith was included in the excavation report,
and Breasted published another translation soon afterwards,%ut, although aspects of
it have since been studied, no analysis of the whole text has been attempted. As a text
of some importance in understanding the development of the cult of Osiris at
Abydos, and as one of the few extant royal decrees of the Middle Kingdom, it merits
closer attention.
The stela is of red granite, the inscription shallowly-cut and the surface scratched,
so that the text is occasionally difficult to read. The task is sometimes eased, some-
times made more demanding, by the chalk with which the surface has at an
unknown date been dusted to highlight the signs, and which has spread rather errati-
cally. It is a matter of regret that it was not possible to produce a wholly new copy of
the stela, but I have collated the inscription on several occasions using both natural
and artificial light. Since the text as published is substantially correct, fig. I is based
on the original plate, courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society, with corrections
indicated in red. These improved readings are also noted below, and, where appro-
priate, discussed in the commentary on the translation.

'In the preparation of this article I owe much sti~nulusto Barry Kemp, who has done so much to clarify the
history and topography of the temples and cemeteries of Abydos, and with whom I first discussed this stela
some years ago. I am also much indebted to Vivian Davies for undertaking his own collation of the text of the
stela and for number of epigraphic observations resulting from it.
' D. Randall-blaciver and A. Mace, El Amrah and Abydos (London, ryoa), 64, 84, 93 and pl. xxix. The original
plate is reproduced in J. K. Hoffmeier, 'Sacred' in the Vocabulary ofAncient E a t (Freiburg and Gottingen. 1985),
256. The copies of the text given in F. T . hliosi, A ReadingBook ofsecond Intermediate Period Texts (Mississauga.
1981),1-3, and M'. Helck, Eizitorzich-biographische Texten der 2. ZwischerueitL (Wiesbaden. 1983)~18-19, seem to he
taken, without collation, from ElAmrah, although Helck standardises some signs.
'The stela also bears the Temporary Catalogue no. 12.4.22.5. The number CG 20786 used by J. Clere,
MDAIK 14(1956) 29, refers to an intended publication by him: cf. M. Trad, ASAE 70 (1984-5), 354.
' B A R I. 337-8. 99766-72.
ANTHONY LEAHY
 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS
Notes on new readings
Arc. .& is clear in the serekh; there is little room for the nn underneath suggested by J.
Von Beckerath, Untersuchungen m r politkchen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Aapten
(Gliickstadt, 1964)~244 (8), and Handbuch der akyptischen Konigsnamen (Munich/Berlin, 1984),
70 and 205, and I could not see it.
is clear in the prenomen. As noted by Von Beckerath, Untersuchungen, 244 (8), the
bottom sign is the Hathor sistrum f , not the sceptre, as often in texts of the period and
standard in the writing of this king's name.
The handle is visible at the back of the basket in the suffix pronoun of n. k, and in mk in
line I .

- -
Line I. Part of n is visible in htt-sp. The royal figure may be holding something, here and
in line 3.
Line 2 n is visible between and -+.,. The expected is visible just above 8
. The
hare of wnt is clear.
Line 3. The pt-bird is intact; the determinative of smn is a,not ia;the rsy sign has the
expected base here and twice in line 4.
Line 4. The word r is written with the open hand, not one holding a stick; hr has a stroke
determinative.
Line 5. r 'ff instead of m is clear. The following bird is
has a stroke determinative; t.

Line 6. The form of the hn sign seems to be the normal b , the 'protrusions' in the
published copy being incidental marks.
The overall effect of these mostly minor corrections is to show that the orthography,
palaeography and grammar of the text are more orthodox than appeared to be the case.

Translation
Right half of upper section: Wepwawet, who gives life, prosperity and dominion. Words
spoken by Wepwawet, lord of the necropolis: It is to you that I have givena all life and
dominion, all health, all joy, like Re forever.
Left hag Horus Gereg-tawy, King of Upper and Lower Egypt Khasekhemre, Son of Re
Neferhotep, beloved of Wepwawet, lord of the necropolis, given life like Re.
Main text: (I) It is for his father Wepwawet, lord of the necropolis, that he has made as his
m ~ n u m e n tYear
: ~ four, My Majesty, l.p.h., decrees the protectionc of the holy land (2) south
of Abydos for his father Wepwawet, lord of the necropolis, like that which Horus did for
his father Osiris Wennefer,d forbidding"3) anyone to trespass' upon thisg holy land. Two
stelae are to be set uph on its south and two on its north, carved with the great name' of My
Majesty, 1.p.h.(4) The south of the holy land is to be defined by those stelae which shall be
set up on the south side, and the north by those stelae which shall be set up' (5) on the north
side. As forh anyone who shall be found' within these stelae, exceptm for a priest (6) about
his duties, he shall be burnt." Moreover, as for any official" who shall cause a tombp to be
made for himself within (7) this holy place, he shall be reported and this law appliedq to him
and to the necropolis-guard' as (is the case) today. But as for (8) everywhere outside this
holy place, (it is) an area where people may make tombs for themselves%nd where (9) one
may be buried. May he make for him 'Given life, stability, dominion'. May his heart rejoice
with his ka upon the throne of Horus, like Re forever.
(10) 'Provider of breath''
44 ANTHONY LEAHY YEA 75
Notes
(a) This form may be an 'emphatic' or nominal sdm.n.L L. zabkar, ZAS 108 (1981))
168-70. H. Polotsky's view, Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible and Christziznity, ed. S. Groll (Jerusa-
lem, 1985))380, that the spelling of the emphatic form of this verb is rdi, does not seem to be
universally valid, cf. E. Doret, The Narrative Verbal System of Old and Middle Egyptian
(Geneva, 1986),78 ex. 126 and 80 ex. 132. An alternative interpretation of di, n. ( i ) in this con-
text as a 'performative' (elaborating on Gunn's 'synchronous present'), is proposed by P.
Vernus, in Pharaonic Egypt, 307-16.
(b) mnw need not imply a physical structure, contra Hoffmeier, 'Sacred', 139, but is intrin-
sically an abstract concept, cf. G. Vittmann, W Z K M 69 (1977)~21-32; Vernus, RdE 39 (1988),
153 n. 10. The object of iri, semantically, is the act of protection enshrined in the whole text of
the decree which begins with hjt-sp; grammatically, iri is used 'absolutely' or intransitively.
For the interpretation of ir.n.f as a nominal sdm.n.f; emphasising the identity of the
addressee, see my discussion in Lingua Sapientissima: A seminar in honour of H. J. Polotsky
(Cambridge, 1987),57-64, and Doret, Narrative Verbal System, 80, no. 2, nn. 908-13. Recent
translations embody different views as to precisely what adverbial element is emphasised. In
one case, Doret's rendering implies that it is the recipient of the dedication (80 ex. 129)~as
suggested here; in another, it is an aspect of the dedicator, a phrase extraneous to the
formula (159 ex. 281).Vernus, RdE 38 (1987), 168 (2), places the emphasis on m mnw.f; which
seems to me unlikely since it is an unvarying and uninformative part of the formula. For the
earliest examples, see now S. Tawfik, Mllanges Gamal eddin Mokhtar (Cairo, 1985)~ 11, 309-13.
(c) The phrase mk-hwi is characteristic of royal decrees of protection, cf. A. Theodorides,
LA I , 1040.For the possibility that it has the more specific meaning of 'consecrate' here, see
Hoffmeier, 'Sacred', 139-40, following Gardiner, EG', $307.
(d) Since the is clear (see above), the form is the relative sdmw.n.L and the treatment
of it as a rare example of the sdm. n.f after a preposition (Gardiner, EG', $156, n. 2; Lefebvre,
Grammaire du Moyen Egyptien, $732) redundant. For the alternation of mi wd. n.f/mi wdt. n.f;
see now Vernus, RdE 38,172, esp. n. 49.
(e) Lit. 'not allowing'. n wnt was already becoming obsolete in Middle Egyptian (Vernus,
RdE 36 (1985) 153,n. I; for doubtful anomalous uses, id. ib. 167,n. 86).
(f) hnd usually has the neutral sense of 'tread' ( Wb. 111, 312-13)) but the notion of trans-
gression or violation present here is attested in e.g. P. Harris I, 77,4.
(g) p, acts here as a 'specifier', in the manner discussed by D. Silverman, RdE 33 (1981),
64-5, signifying 'the aforementioned', and this sense is continued by the feminine t~st dsrt
(lines 7-8); cf. Hoffmeier, 'Sacred' 138.It has the same function in its only other occurrence in
this text (n.(q) below), as do the plural forms nn/nl (lines 4-5), used interchangeably to
qualify wdw, 'stelae', after the first mention.
(h) The principal verb forms used to express the royal wishes are passive. smn, irr, wd
and qrs are s4mw.f; here the counterpart of the nominal sdm.J; in contrast to wbd.t(zo).f and
smi. t(w).J;which are the counterparts of the prospective.
(i) For rn wr, see M.-A. Bonhitme, BIFAO 78 (1978) 360-8. Here, as elsewhere in the
Second Intermediate Period, it designates the Horus name and the two cartouches, rather
than the whole titulary.
(j)The group mn at the beginning of line 5 is palpably dittography.
(k) For the 'valeur connective' of fafter ir, with reference, inter alia, to this passage, see
Vernus, RdE 33 (1981))95 (k).
(1) ir r f nty nb tzc: r gmt.f has attracted grammarians (Gardiner, E G z , $333; Lefebvre,
Grammaire, $758). The position of tw between nty and nb has led some to translate as if nb
qualified tw, '. . . him/one whom anyone shall find.. .' (BAR I. $770, followed by D. Lorton,
1989 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS 45
JESHO 20 (1977), 18, $H). However, in comparable clauses, nb invariably refers to nty (e.g.
P. Lacau, Une stile julldique de Karnak (Cairo, 1949)~16) and the transposition here was
probably governed by graphic considerations. In parallels such as the Nauri decree of Seti I,
lines 53-4: ir rm_tnb nty iw. tw rgmt.j tw has the expected auxiliary support.
(m) It is here that the published copy is least satisfactory. Griffith, in El Amrah, 93, n. I,
recognised that 'except' was the translation that gave best sense, and B. Gunn, JEA 25 (1939).
218, sought to substantiate this by reading *m-ms~ as a 'wild' writing of m-SI,and giving the
latter a meaning not otherwise attested before Coptic. With the correction to read m-h(w)
(see above), the problem disappears. Although m-h~(w-hr)in the sense of 'except' is not
especially common (Gardiner, EG', $178, p. 133 top), it is a natural extension of the root
notion of 'excess'.
(n) For wbd meaning 'burn' and not 'brand' as proposed by Lorton, JESHO 20, 18,
following Breasted, see my discussion in YESHO 27 (1984) 199,adding to the literature cited
there on burning as a punishment, J. Yoyotte, Annuaire EPHE, Ve section, 89 (1980-I),
29-102, G. Posener, Le Papyrus Vandier (Cairo, 1985)~32-3, 75-7; M. Smith, The Mortuary
Texts of Papyrus B.M. 10507 (London, 1987),go, n. 372.
(0) For sr as the generic term for an official, see A. Theodorides, RIDA 2 0 (1973)~66-82.
The limitation of the edict against tomb construction to this class clearly does not mean that
others were allowed the right of burial in the sacred area, but assumes that only officials
would have the means or the presumption to offend in this respect.
(p) In two Old Kingdom inscriptions, h ~ describest a burial location within a tomb (is), so
that the translation 'shaft' seems required (Doret, ikrrative VerbalSystem, 78, n. 892 for refer-
ences). It is almost never found on the abundant Middle Kingdom monuments from
Abydos, on which is and mrhrt predominate, although its use in a variety of literary and
legal, as well as religious, texts of the period suggests that it was current ( Wb. III, 12,rg-21). In
these examples, the wider sense of 'tomb' seems appropriate.
(q) wd P I hp hr.f seems to have no exact parallel, cf. Lorton, JESIIO 20, 54-5 PI (n.
(g) above) refers back to the specific legal pronouncement enunciated in the previous clause,
so J.-M. Kruchten, Le Dicret d'Horemheb (Brussels, 1981),217, n. 60 (214-23 on hp generally).
(r) iri smit ( Wb. 111, 445,5 ) is the title of the person responsible for the supervision of the
necropolis (so BAR 1, $770) who would be implicated, by negligence or complicity, in the
construction of any tomb in the sacred area, and subject to the same penalty. A different
interpretation, suggesting that iri smit is a phrase qualifying P I hp (Griffith, in El Amrah, 93;
H. Kees, Ancient Egvpt (London, 1961),243; Lorton, J'ESfO 20, M), is improbable given the
force of P I here.
(s) Breasted, A R I, $771, and E. Otto, Egyptian Art and the Cults of Osiris and Amon
(London, 1968),4,understood the passage bw irrw n.sn rm_th ~ wim t broadly in the way pro-
posed here. An alternative view of bw as an early example of the Late Egyptian negative is
implied in Griffith's translation ('where men have not made themselves tombs'), and made
explicit by Clkre, MDAIK 14, 29, followed by B. Kroeber, Die Neua~pt-izismenzlor der
Amamaxeit (Tiibingen, 19691, 63 ex. 5 ('in welchem sich die 1,eute keine Graber zu machen
pflegten'). This is grammatically difficult, since a paratactic relative use of the perfective n/bw
sg!m.f would not explain the morphologically distinctive i r m , in which, at this date and in
such a 'classical' context, gemination and ending are unlikely to be without significance:
there are no superfluous endings elsewhere in the text.
The socio-linguistic context is also against it. A monumental inscription recording a royal
decree of the high Middle Kingdom is not the setting in which one would expect bw to
appear first, some three hundred years before the next attested instance, especially as all the
other pre-Amarna examples of bw/bn cited by Kroeber, Die Neuaaptkismen, 62-3, are in
letters, apart from the Annals of Tuthmosis 111, where bn appears in a courtiers' speech to
the king. There is no such narrative/dialogue distinction or status differentiation here to
justify the introduction of a vernacular spelling (cf. Doret, Narrative Verbal System, 13-14;
Vernus, RdE 30 (1yj8), 137-42, esp. 140, n. 143, for the alternation of Middle and Late
Egyptian negatives in different microcontexts within an inscription). Clitre, MDAIK 14, 29 n.
2, was probably right in identifying bw in Middle Kingdom names such as B(w)-rhtfas the
negative particle (Vernus, Le Surnom au Moyen Empire (Rome, 1986), 126 n. 160; cf. Kroeber,
Die Neua~ptkismen,63 n. 2), but this has no bearing on the present instance, since personal
names by their nature may antedate the realisation of change in more formal contexts by a
considerable time.
(t) From the determinative htm ow is likely to be a name for the sacred area, as suggested
by Griffith, loc. cit., although a positive sense for htm ( Wb. 111, 196-7) seems preferable to his
'Extinguisher of Breaths' (cf. Wb. rr~,~gj-8).

Commentary

The date of the decree

The original royal titulary has been recut with the names of Neferhotep I. The date
of year four, however, belongs to the king initially responsible for the inscription.
Suggestions as to his period have ranged from the 'XIth or early XIIth dynasty' of
Mace to the early Thirteenth favoured by Clkre and by Von B e ~ k e r a t hThe. ~ latter
specifically proposed Sebekhotep 111, Neferhotep's immediate predecessor, arguing
that the carving of the decree was overtaken by the accession of Neferhotep, whose
workmen changed the titulary but forgot to alter the year date. This is a tempting
solution, but reasons for rejecting it are given below. Potential dating criteria are
provided by the style and language of the decree, the formal arrangement of the arc,
and the remains of the original names.
The few extant royal decrees of the Middle Kingdom are diverse in nature and
form and none offers clear parallels.5 Since the early Thirteenth Dynasty seems to
have continued the administrative traditions of the Twelfth, this aspect would not
provide very precise guidance in any case. The same limitation holds for the
language of the text, although this hints at a date later, rather than earlier, in the
Middle Kingdom.
The arc is more promising. In a discussion of jackal gods on private stelae,
Malaise argues of this stela that, contrary to a Thirteenth Dynasty dating, 'la parenti:
iconographique avec les cintres du milieu de la XII' dynastie nous inciterait plut6t a
la dater de cette epoque'.' The position, context and significance of the jackal are all
different here, however, from the other examples with which Malaise compares it.
The latter are all private, and there the jackal is placed on one side of a cartouche

'blace, ElAmrah, (54;Clere, ,lZIDAIK 14,29 n. I; Von Heckerath, Untersuchungen,36.

'For the royal decrees of the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, see 0. Herlev, OLP 6-7
(1973-5), 36-7; Vernus. Annuaire EPIiE, Ve section (1977-8). 81-4; more generally Thkodoridks, L A I, 1037-43,
For royal stelae of the period recording specific achievements, see E. Rlumenthal, in Agypten urzd Kush, ed. E.
Bndesfelder (Berlin, 1977). 79, and Vernus, ASAE 68 (1982), 129-35.
" 51. LIalaise, Orientaliu J Duchesne-Guillemin Emerito oblata. Hommages et opera minora I X , ed. J. Kellens
and 1'. 1,ecocl (Leiden, 1984). 401 n. 60.
1989 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS 47
containing the king's prenomen at the top of the stela, with Osiris on the other side.
Whether or not Malaise's explanation of the divine figures as 'protecting' the royal
name is correct, there is no overriding need for the jackal to be depicted, and its
appearance is to some extent a matter of fashion in funerary stelae. In the present
case, instead of being confined to the upper arc, the jackal occupies, with the royal
names, the offering area. It is depicted because a dedication is being made to
Wepwawet, and the serekh and cartouches symbolise the king's presence before the
god.
In fact, the composition of the arc points strongly to the Thirteenth Dynasty, since
the titulary consists of the serekh and both cartouches. On the evidence available, the
serekh is accompanied by only one cartouche on stelae of the Twelfth Dynasty.' The
earliest example in which both cartouches appear in such a case dates to the reign of
Amenemhat 111, and this combination becomes normal in the Thirteenth Dynasty.'
A more precise dating can only be obtained from the titulary itself. A crucial point
is that all the original signs in the serekh and both cartouches were chiselled down in
the usurpation of the monument, except for the sun-disc in the prenomen (pl. IX, I).
The implication is that the earlier names had nothing in common with those of
Neferhotep except the sun-disc, since the removal of shared elements uould have
been unnecessary labour. Such logic may not always have prevailed, but a broadly
contemporary parallel does support this interpretation, as do instances from later
dynasties. At Medamud, on a doorway usurped by Sekhemre Sewadjtauy Sebek-
hotep (111) from Khutawyre Ugaf, the sun-disc of the prenomen was retained in the
transition despite the fact that it occupied a much larger area of the original
cartouche than of the usurper's and necessitated a cramped writing of the remainder
of the latter's prenomen."he sun-disc remained intact in cartouches usurped bjr
Horemheb from Tutankhamun.lo There are also numerous examples in which @
&
and , both common to the prenomina of Shabako and the usurping Psammeti-
chus I1 (Nfr-kj-rr/Nfr-ib-rr), were left untouched by those responsible for the

'Sesostris I: Florence 2540 (S. Hosticco, Le stele egiziane, I (Korne, 1959).pl. 29). C'airc) C(; 2oy39 (F1. I,ange and
H. Schafer, Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reiches, I\. (Berlin, I ~ O Zpl. ) , xli). Cairo JE 59483 (K. Engelbach,
.XSAE 33 (1933).pl. ii, 3). Cairo JE 71901(A. Sadek, The Amethyst Mining inscription^, Wudi el Iiudz, 11 (V\*arniinster.
1985). pl. 23); Sesostris 111: Berlin 1204 (W. K, Simpson, The 7'errace ($the Great God at Abydos (New Haven and
I'hiladelphia, 1974)-pl. I), BM 852 ( = R l B M iv, pl. 10); Sesostris 111 and Amenemhat 111: Cairo CG 20538 (1,angi.
and Schafer, op. cit. pl. XI).Where the king is follo~vedby his ka bearing his I-lorus name, he is again identified
by a single cartouche, e.g. Durham 1935 (S. Birch, Catalogue of the Collection of E ~ p t i a nAntiquities at i3lnwick
Castle (London, 1880),pl. iv opp. p. 269); E. Naviile, ?'he XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari, I (Idondon.19oj).
pl. xxiv.
Amenemhat 111: Cairo J E 59488 (Engelbach, A S A E 33, pl. iii, 3); Sebekhotep 111: 1,ouvre C. 8 (\Y.XI. F. Petrie,
1 3 IIzitory ofEgypt I (London, 1894) fig. I ~ I )rock, stela. 51. F. I,. ;\lacAdani, JE.4 37 (ICJ~I),
PI. 6; Neferhotep I :
Cairo JE 6307 ('4. Mariette, Abydos Description desfouilles exkutbes sur l'emplacemet~tde cette cille, 11 (I'aris, 188o),pl.
28); Sebekhotep I\': Simpson, MDAIK 25 (1969), 156 fig. I, pl. vii a; 5lenkhaure Senaaib: Cairo CG 2051;
(Llariette, op. cit. n, pl. 27b). An apparent exception with a single cartouche and serekh (BR.1 1346) belongs in thr
Tivent!.-fifth Llynasty, not the Thirteenth; see L). Franke. Orientalia 57 (1988),250, and 1,eahy. GM 108 (1989)~ 33,
n. 39. In the Thirteenth Llynasty, \\here the king is followed by his ka with the svrrkh, both cartouches identif!.
h ~ r n(e.g. Petrie, Abydos, I (I,ondon, 1go2),pl. lix).
" 1'. XIontet, RdE 8 (1951).163-70.
"'K. Hari. Xezc Kingdom Amarna Period (I,eiden, 1985),pl. xxxvb.
 ANTHONY LEAHY
alterations." If the changes here simply marked a change of reign, without special
animus, there would be all the more reason to keep the work to a minimum.
This inference-that none of the signs erased from the titulary were common, in
that position, to both kings-has useful implications. It excludes the numerous kings
of the early Thirteenth Dynasty whose Horus name contains the word t a y (XIII, 2,
4, 7, 12, 14, 15, 21 of Von Beckerath's sequence). Nos. 12 and 21 are additionally
eliminated by the fact that their nomen, 'Sebekhotep', is identical in its second part to
'Neferhotep', and the former because he also shares the hr of his prenomen (hr-mh-
rr) with Neferhotep I. Von Beckerath's suggestion that the king in question is
Sebekhotep I11 thus becomes untenable.
Although the field can be narrowed in this way, numerous, mostly obscure, possi-
bilities remain, especially as some nomina and many Horus names of the period are
still unknown. The erasure of the original names was thorough, and only at the
bottom of the two cartouches do positive clues survive. In the nomen, the bottom
line of 0 is slightly higher than that of the adjacent u , and is concave rather than
flat. The impression is strong that the bottom sign was originally L and that the
recutting made use of the lines of this in forming the new group (v, pl. VII, I). In
the prenomen two parallel horizontal lines, over which the sistrum was cut, can just
be discerned in the lower half of the cartouche. These suggest t m y and would suit
X11.1, 3 and 16, but a terminal f in the nomen allows only XIII.1, Khutawyre Ugaf,
whose Horus name shm n_tw would have had to be removed entirely to accommo-
date grg tmy, or XI11.19, Sehetepkare Intef, whose Horus name is unknown." The
combination of the two criteria points to Ugaf, a hypothesis which finds support in
the marked upward curve at the right-hand end of the htp sign in the prenomen,
suggesting an underlying tusk hieroglyph. This would require a reconstruction of the
names as follows (or similar):

If the reading is correct, this is the most northerly attestation of Ugaf, who is other-
wise known through objects from Semna, Mirgissa, Elephantine, Medamud and
Karnak.13 The only obstacle to it is the evidence of the Turin Canon. If the now

" J. Yoyotte, R d E 8 (1951). 235-6. d-f; a particularly clear illustration is in hl. and A. XI. Jones. JARCE 22
(198.5)~23, 26-7.
"For Sehetepkare Intef, see M'. V. Uavies, A Royal Statue Reattributed (London, 1981).24. no. 16, 33 n. 22, and
Von Beckerath, Iiandbuch der a ~ t i s c h e Konigsnamen,
n 69, no. 19.Amenemhat-senbef (XIII, 2 ) is excluded by his
Horus name (see above).
"For Ugaf. see Von Beckerath, LA \-I, 838, to the bibliography of which should be added the studies of
Montet (n. 9 above); J. Vercoutter, RdE 27 (1975) 222-34; Davies. A Royal Statue Reattributed, 22, 110s.1-2; Franke,
Orientah 57, 249. For possible members of Ugaf's family, see Franke, Personendaten aus dent Mittleren Reich
(Wiesbaden. 1984)~ 139,no. 177.
 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS
generally-accepted equation of Ugaf with the Khutawyre who occupies first place in
the king-list is correct, he is given only two years, three months and four days in the
reconstructed Turin Canon.'+ However, the relevance of the entry to Khutawyre
depends on the placing of two unattached fragments which, pace Gardiner, is not
beyond doubt.15If the position is substantially accurate, a fractional adjustment of the
relationship shown in Gardiner's plate would still just allow an additional, lost
vertical stroke in the number of years reigned, giving a reading of 'three years...'.
Three completed years would allow a decree to be dated in 'Year four'.
Even if Gardiner's reading is accepted, the Turin list need not be correct. Given
the paucity of comparable information, there is a natural reluctance to disregard any
of its data, but no such record is likely to be infallible for a period over half a
millennium before it was compiled. Our ignorance of the sources on which the Turin
Canon was based and the rarity of dated inscriptions from the Second Intermediate
Period make it impossible to control, or even to gain any useful impression of, the
accuracy of the now fragmentary figures it gives for individual kings of the period.
There may be errors even for the more stable Twelfth Dynasty, as the recent debate
over the length of reign of Sesostris I11 suggests.I6 It does not therefore constitute an
incontrovertible objection to identifying the king responsible for the edict as Ugaf.
The significance of the change of name, and any connection with either the
usurpation at Medamud of another of Ugaf's monuments (see above), or other
erasures of royal names of the period at Abydos," must remain open questions.

The purpose of the decree

The main points of the text are:
(I) ,4 statement of intention to protect an area sacred to Wepwawet.
(2) An order to set up four stelae as boundary markers.
(3) The establishment of penalties for intruders: anyone found within the limits,
except a priest on duty, is to be burnt, while any official having a tomb built there is
to suffer the same fate, as is the necropolis-guardian.
(4) A reminder that anywhere outside the sacred region is a legitimate place for
the construction of tombs and for burial.
The king seeks by decree to prevent burial or trespass in an area which had
probably previously relied on custom for its integrity. The severity of the penalty
must reflect the sacrilegious nature of the offence (n. (n) above). Previous commen-
tators have been content with a general interpretation of the text and have not
sought to relate it to the topography or archaeology of the site. One view has been

I4A. Gardiner, The Royal Canon of' Turin (Oxford, rgjg), pi. 111, col. \ ~ j On
. the identity of Khutawyre with
Ugaf. see Vercoutter, R d E 27,222-7.
"op. cit. fragments 73-4, comment on p. 16. The text on the recto is conlpatible with the placing of the
fragments, without being decisive.
'"See J. Bourriau, Pharaohs and Mortals: Egyptian Art in the ~ZliddleKingdom (Cambridge, 1988) 4-5, for a
convenient summary. On Middle Kingdom chronology generally, see now Franke, Orientalia 57.113-38,245-74.
"1,eahy. Orientalia 46 ( ~ g j j )424-34
, (the Osiris 'bed'); Petrie, Abydos, I , 29, pl. lviii (Thirteenth Dynasty
rather than Seventeenth ?).
50 ANTHONY LEAHY JEA 7j
that t~dsrwas a cult precinct.IYAnother, that it was a part of the necropolis already
occupied by tombs, is most fully expressed by Von Beckerath: 'Das bereits uber und
iiber mit Grabern, Kenotaphen und Stelen besetzte "Heilige Land" (to djoser) sollte
durch einen koniglichen ErlaB geschutzt werden; die Anlegung weiterer Graber, die
ja nur auf Kosten der bereits vorhandenen geschehen konnte wurde bei Androhung
der Todesstrafe untersagt'."'
The latter interpretation may have been influenced in part by the assumption that
t~dsr here means 'cemetery', which goes back to Breasted," and in part by the mis-
taken translation of the last section of the decree as allowing burials 'where men have
not made tombs for themselves' (n. (s) above). If it were correct, the prohibition on
entering the sacred area would prevent many from visiting tombs of relatives or
wandering in the cemetery, which u~ouldbe a restriction alien to Egyptian practice.
In fact, although the edict implies an immediate threat from tomb construction, it does
not support the view that its purpose was to protect already exziting tombs, of which
there is no mention.
The question can be resolved by a closer evaluation of the content of the text
against the topography and history of the cemetery, and particularly consideration of
the situation at the time of the decree and immediately afterwards. The statement that
the area lay 'south' of the town of Abydos helps to locate it only in a very general
way; 'south' here is probably local south, aligned to the Nile." However, the revela-
tion that there were four stelae," two on the 'north' and two on the 'south', is
illuminating given the position of the sole excavated example. This was discovered at
the extreme south-western end of the North Cemetery, on the north-western side of
the wadi which is such a conspicuous topographical feature, and which divides the
ancient necropolis into two main areas." Although the excavation report provides no
detail on the di~covery,'~ there is no reason to suppose that the stela was not found in
its original position, especially as a heavy granite stela, c. 1.67 nl in height, is not likely
to be moved without good reason. In the following discussion, I assume that it was in
situ, and that it is one of the four in question.
It is not stated whether the extant stela belongs to the northern or southern pair.
or whether it is the western or eastern exemplar of either pair, so all these possibili-
ties must be scrutinised. The four broad corollary configurations of t~dsr are illus-
trated in the sketch-map in fig. 2. The distance between stelae, and thus the area

" Kees, Ancient E m t , 24.3; Otto? Egyptian Art, 43-4; Simpson? Terrace. 3 n. 16.
I"Yon Reckerath, CTntersuchungen,56; cf. Kandall-MacIver and hlace, ElAmrah, 63-4.
"'H'4R I ,9768; Griffith, loc. Cit. translated 'Sacred Land'. Hoffmeier, 'Sacred'. 138-9, has also recog~lisedthat it
does not mean 'cemetery' here.
" E.g. I'etrie. l'he Houyal lbmbs ofthe First Uynas(y, I (1,ondon. goo), 3; 7'. E. I'eet. ?'he Cemeteries ofAbydos, I I
(1,:;ldon. 1914).xi\-; cf. I). O'Connor, in Milunges Mokhtar, 11. 162 n. 2. Magnetic north is used here.
--Breasted's suggestion, AR. I, $769, that there \vex only two stelae must be a Homeric nod.
" E l Amruh. 63-4, pl. xxiii. For the prominence of the wadi, see the photographs in L). O'Connor. Expedition
10. I (Fall, 1967) 22, and R1. 1,ichtheirn. Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly ofthe Middle Kingdom (Freibourg
and Gottingen. 1988),pl. ix.
"The excavator recorded his impression, from the disposition of objects around it, that the stela became an
object of veneration in the new Kingdom (ElAmrah, 64).
 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS 51

Frc;. 2. Sketch-map of'Abydos

s = h!.pothetical stelae positions. Kectangles designated b!. Koman numerals =possible areas of reference dis-

xirnate limits of Xlariette's 'ntcropole du nord'.-

crrssrd in the test. 1,etters =cemetery areas. = Carstang's 1907 excavations on the edge of the \\adi. =appro-
= suggested processional route.
I. Osiris temple; n. I'rn el-Qa'ab: 3. Shunet el-Zebib; 4. Petit ternple dc I'ouest; j.-1pproximate location of' chapel
of' Sehekhotep I.
52 ANTHONY LEAHY JEA 75
encompassed, is obviously a matter of conjecture and the alignments (local north)
need not be as rectilinear as suggested here. The reconstruction of the topographical
relationship between the different 'cemeteries' marked is complicated by the history
of poor recording in excavation at A b y d ~ ~ .The L " sketch-map represents the best
that can currently be achieved by the exploitation of unpublished photographic
archives and written records as well as published reports.'"
Each of these sectors has its distinct features:
(I) Although the royal monuments of the Archaic Period at the Umm el-Qa'ab,
especially the tomb of Djer/Osiris, provide an obvious motive for protection here,
one would expect the area to be sacred to the latter, rather than to Wepwawet. A few
Middle Kingdom votive objects have been found in the area," but it was not
threatened by tomb-building.
(11) With the exception of an isolated building of uncertain nature and date, which
contained a probably reused Middle Kingdom stela,'%othing seems ever to have
been built in this sector, probably because it was so far from the temple enclosure.
Like I, I1 can be rejected because the decree would have no relevance to the actual
situation; in both cases, too, the western pair of stelae would be redundant.
(111) If the reference were to the whole, or to any part, of the North Cemetery, the
area would have included a substantial section at its south-western end not occupied
at the time of the decree, which would have been completely ignored subsequently,
since it was precisely in this direction that Second Intermediate Period and New
Kingdom occupation developed. It is also hard to see why it should have been
desired to prevent a south-westerly extension of the cemetery. These decisive objec-
tions emerge sharply from a brief review of the archaeological evidence.
Middle Kingdom remains were most densely concentrated in Mariette's 'nkcro-
pole du nord', the north-eastern section of the North Cemetery, between the Osiris
temple precinct and the Shunet el-Zebib.'9 It was here that the vast majority of the
stelae published by Mariette are said to have been found, and this is probably also
the source of similar ones found earlier in the nineteenth century. Many may come
from 'cenotaphs' such as those recently uncovered on the immediate south-west of
the temple, beneath the 'Portal' of Ramesses 11. These may represent the core of an
area within the 'nkcropole du nord' devoted exclusively to such memorial-chapels, as
distinct from burials," and may also correspond to at least part of the 'Terrace of the

"For a brief history of excavation at the site, see Kemp, in T. G. H. James (ed.), Excauating in Egypt (London,
1982),77: see also Simpson, Terrace, 1-16.
'"
B. J. Kemp and R. Merrillees, Minoan Pottelyfrom Second ~ZlillenniumEgypt (Mainz, 1980), 106, fig. 36, 287-9.
The sketch-map in PM \.. 30 is misleading in its positioning of some of the areas excavated. A preliminary
report on fieldwork by J. Richards, Newsletter ARCE 142 (Summer, 1988),5-8, announces a contour map for the
North Cemetery and success in pinpointing three areas worked by unspecified earlier excavators.
':I'M v, 89-90,
'%. R. Ayrton, C. T. Currelly and A. E. P. Weigall, Abydos, 111 (London, 1904)~10;cf. Kemp, LA 1,37.
"'For the limits of the area, see Mariette, Abydos. rr, 42 $240; Kemp and Merrillees, l'Minoan Pottery. fig. 36
no. 7, with p. 288.
'"O'Connor, in Mhlanges Mokhtar, t i , 161-77.
 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS
Great God',jl so often referred to on Middle Kingdom stelae as a desirable area for
commemoration. However, the decree is concerned with tombs (htwt),not chapels
(mrhrwt), and absence of mention in the decree of the latter, or of the 'Terrace',
militates strongly against the idea that the decree encompasses this area or that the
aim was to preserve a separate chapel area from actual burials.
The main development of the North Cemetery in the later Middle Kingdom is
reasonably clear: a spread south-westward, away from the Osiris temple enclosure
and Peet's cemetery S, towards and then beyond the Shunet el-Zebib, along the
north-western edge of the wadi." This is clearly seen in Garstang's cemetery E."
and in the area on the southern edge of that, 'immediately to the north-west of the
valley', excavated by him in 1907 and described as 'full of tombs of the Middle
Kingdom and the Hyksos Period'." The inscriptions from both consistently suggest
a late Middle Kingdom and later date. Apart from the stela of Khusobek, who died
under Amenemhat 111," they include a stela of Amenysenb, who was responsible for
temple restoration under Khend-jer,'" and two examples of the distinctive stelae
dedicated to Min-Horus, characteristic of the later Thirteenth Dynasty." Parts of the
region beyond, still further south-west, were excavated by Peet, who characterised
them as of the Second Intermediate Period. He concluded: 'Before the beginning of
the XVIIIth Dynasty the whole region (scil. the North Cemetery) was completely
occupied, except the western portion near the Neferhotep stela'.'x
That 'western portion' was Mace's cemetery D. It and the adjacent area excavated
by Amilineau contained New Kingdom and later remains, with the exception of
some poor pit burials of the Second Intermediate Period. ilccording to Mace. the
distance between the Shunet el-Zebib and the south-western edge of the cemetery,
comprising areas I> and E, was 'about five hundred yards' (c. 450 m).'" Ugaf's stela
'' Simpson. Terrace, 9-10, suggests that it was the area around the west gate of the enclosure, 1,ichthelm.
ilutobiographies. 129-34. that it was the temple. Kemp, LA I , 32, 35, takes it to refer to the Lvhole of the North
Cerneteq, on the ground that stelae stating that they were set up at the Terrace have been found alvay from the
immediate environs of the temple. However, the number of such stelae is small, and possible reuse may
invalidate the inference. For example, the stela of Khusobek (n. 35 below), \\.as certainly found in Garstang's
cemetery E, but it comes frorn a very mixed context containing Idate Period objects.
; > r
- I his pattern \vas noticed by I'eet, Cemeteries of Abydos, 11, xv, 3. For his cemetery S. see Kernp and
l

Merrillees, ;Minoan Pottery, fig. 36 no. 8, with p. 288; Simpson, Terrace. 6-8.
"1. Garstang, Elz4rabah (Idondon,1901).
"This remains largely unpublished. For a brief description of the location, see Garstang, L A A A j (1913).
107-11. It is marked as gb on the map in Kemp and Merrillees, Minoan P o t t e ~tig. . 36, and discussed on their pp.
.. 288.
107-8,
" Garstang, El Arabah. H , pls. iiv-v; recent discussion. J. K. Baines, in 120rm und ,Vass Festschriftfur Gerhard
Fecht, ed. J. Osing and G. Dreyer (Wiesbaden. 1g8j), 43-61. For the dating of Khusobek, see Franke, Personen-
daten, no. 455. For other late Middle Kingdom stelae from cemetery E. see Hourriau, Pharaohs and filortal, nos.
39-40 = H;4rabah, pls. vi, iv respectively.
; " l ~ i ~ e r p o oE.l 30, for ~ h i c hsee Bourriau, Pharaohs and ;TZortals, 60-63, no. 48, and 1,ichtheim. Auto-
biographies,
.',- Kemp and 80. 1,ichtheim ~vronglyattributes the stela to Cemetery 'E'.
Merrillees. Minoan Pottery. 234-6 On stelae dedicated to Min-Hor, see also E. Hresciani, Le stele
egiziane del muse0 c i ~ i c oarcheologico di Bologna (Bologna, 1985). 28-9, no. 5, and Franke, YEA 71 (1985).176 n. 2; cf.
hlalaise, ,YAK g (1981),279-81.
-'Peet. Cemeteries ofAbydos, 11, xiv-xv, 54; cf. Kemp and Merrillees, Minoan Pottery, 289 and fig. 36 on the loca-
tion of area C. According to Peet's sketch-map, areas B, X and F were slightly further out.
;"El Amrah. 63, pl. uxiii.
54 ANTHONY LEAHY JEA 75
was thus erected perhaps half that distance from the nearest tomb, and was not
reached by building until the Eighteenth Dynastv, over two hundred years after
Neferhotep I. The fact that tomb-construction continued so consistently and
implacably towards the stela surely eliminates the possibility that any part of the
North Cemetery is the object of the edict.
(IV) If, on the other hand, the wadi is t j &r, as has been proposed by Ken1p,luthe
purpose of the decree becomes apparent. The wadi was threatened by the dense
building of monuments in the North Cemetery, encroaching on its north-western
edge as far as Garstang's and Peet's work. Some stelae from the 'ni.cropole du centre'
of Mariette suggest that the south-western edge of the north-easterly end of the wadi
may also have come into use at this time.4' It needed to be kept clear because it was
the processional route from the Osiris temple to the Umm el-Qa'ab, yet, for precisely
this reason, people sought locations for their tombs as close to it as possible. Apart
from the fact that it is the natural means of access for most of the way from the
temple to the Archaic tombs, this role for the wadi is supported by Mariette's 'petit
temple de I'o~est'~'which stood towards its south-western end. Although nothing
earlier than the Nineteenth Dynasty was found in it, the building could well have
replaced an earlier one, and the best explanation for its isolated position is that it was
a bark-shrine.
The north-eastern end of the wadi may not have been included in the area
marked off for use. Processions are likely to have run from the south-west gate of the
temple enclosure, through the memorial-chapel area and across the high ground of
the 'necropole du nord', so that the owners of monuments there could 'see' them,
before descending into the wadi and turning out towards the Umm el-Qa'ab (fig. 2).u
This stretch might also have been encompassed by the decree. The reason for the
dedication of the area to Wepuawet also becomes clear; it was he who, as 'Opener of
Ways', led the sequence of processions in the Osiris my~teries.~" The fact that no
burials were made in the wadi before Roman times," whereas the areas on either side
of it were used and reused, confirms both the identification and the success of the
decree.

'"Kemp, L/i I , 35-5, and in James (ed.), Excavating in Egypt, 78-9.

'" Llariette, Catalogue des monuments d'Atydos (Paris. 1881).nos. 817-18 etc.-some twenty-five stelae in all. None
of Mariette's Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasty stelae are recorded as coming from that side of the wadi.
" Abydos, 11,36-7; Kemp. LA' I , 37 (II), 29-30, no. j on map.
"Simpson, ?'errace, 9-10. Thus burials in Mariette's 'nCcropole des "chanteuses"' (Mariette. Catalogue des
monuments dybydos, 44.1, and Abydos, 11, 42 $241, 45 $ 2 5 5 ) , which would seem to have crossed the wadi at its
north-eastern end, even if in the wadi itself, need not have interfered bvith the route and could have been outside
the protected area.
4 4 0 n the role of Wepwawet at Abydos in the I/liddie Kingdom, see e.g. I-{. Satzinger. l&IDAIK 25 (1969).
126-30; J. Spiegel, Die Gotter von Abydos (Wiesbadcn, 1973). 54.-9.
"Roman burials were found in another area excavated by Garstang in 1907, marked as 3a in Kemp and
Xlerrillees, Minoan Pottery, 107, 288, fig. 36; for the numerous demotic stelae found there, see Aly ;lbdalla,
Graeco-Roman Funerary Stelae from Upper Egypt, forthcoming. According to Barry Kemp (personal cornrnunica-
tion), pits dug in 1967 around the site of the Pennsylvania-Yale expedition house. kvhich lies further out along
the wadi, showed no trace of ancient use.
 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS
The Umm el-Qafab
That the Umm el-Qafab became a cult centre associated with Osiris is proved by
the granite bier with a recumbent figure of the god found by Amelineau in the tomb
of Djer, and by the numerous votive objects dedicated to him there.4" It has been
widely accepted that the association of Djerjs tomb with Osiris did not occur until
the Eighteenth Dynasty, more specifically ;he reign of Amenhotep 111." This is based
on Petrie's comments on the offering pottery heaped up there, supported by the late
date usually ascribed to the bier, and by the paucity of pre-New Kingdom material
found at the lJmm el-Qafab, which is little enough to be explicable as brought at a
later date.4Vetrie stated that 'in the XVIIIth Dynasty the site had been adopted as
the focus of Osiris worship, the earliest of the pottery heaped over it being the blue-
painted jars which came in under Amenhotep 11, or III.'49All his remarks about the
'Eighteenth Dynasty' date of renovations, such as the introduction of a staircase into
the tomb of Djer, seem to be based on this view of the pottery.'0 In a slightly later
analysis. Hall presented a different view. ascribing some of the pottery to the Old
Kingdom and dating the next phase to the Nineteenth I>ynasty.'' They agreed,
however, that there kvas nothing of the hliddle Kingdom.
If the LTmm el-Qafab were not already ;I cult centre of Osiris in the Middle
Kingdom, then the case for the wadi as a processional route in need of protection
would be weakened, but there are good reasons for rejecting Petrie's inference. Illus-
tration of the offering pottery is notably lacking from his publication, as is any analy-
sis of it, and no ~vorkhas been done since." As his primary concern at the time
was the recovery and publication of the Archaic material, his assessment of the later
pottery may have been impressionistic: the blue-painted lvare may have been merely
the most easily recognisable. Even if he uJas correct, it need only mean that the
custom of depositing vessels as offerings began in the Eighteenth Dynasty; it need
not mark the earliest actual commemoration of Osiris at the site.
Inscriptional evidence suggests a much earlier starting point. The remains of the
partially-erased text on the Osiris bier show that it dates to the Second Intermediate
Period, and probably to the reign of Khendjer," early in the Thirteenth Dynasty, not

"' I'hl v , 78-81; I,eahy, Orientalia 46, 42/4-34,

"I elaborate here on arguments I expressed briefly in G.%I 70 (1984). 48-9. The misconception as to the date
at which Djer's tomb was identified as that of Osiris survives in works as recent as D. Eigner, Die monumentalen
Grabbauten der Spatxeit in der thebanischen .Vekropole (Yienna. 1984).163. where the attribution of the Osiris 'bed'
to the Late Period is also perpetuated.
''Kemp, LA 1, 37.
'"Petrie, Royal Tonzbs, I, 7; cf. id. ib. 11, 8. The pottery may have appeared as early as Tuthmosis 111, but it u a s
produced most abundantly in the period of Amenhotep I11 and Xkhenaten, cf. C. Hope, ~Wedelhaz~smuseet Bulletin
I2 (1977).10-11.
"'The only later building activity which is actually datable is that of the T\venty-sixth Llynasty, sce 1,eahy.
GM 70.46- jo.
" H. K.Hall, in E:. Naville. 7'he Cemeteries ofAbydos, I (London, 1914).38. pis. xiii, xv, xvi.
"Kemp. LA I, 37. The recent German investigations seem to have been concerned only with the Archaic
..
remains. M'.Kaiser and G. Dreyer, MDAIK 38 (1982).211-69.
"Leahy, Orientalia 46, 424-34; cf. Llavies, A Royal Statue Reattributed. 21; Yon Beckerath, I3andbuch der
agyptischen Konigsnnmen, 69; Hourriau. Pharaohs and Mortals. 63; H. Fay, MDAIK (1988)~11 and n. 79. E. C'has-
56 ANTHONY LEAHY 3"A 75
to the Late Period. Again, this does not necessarily represent the beginning of cult
activity. Another object from the Umm el-Qafab may point to the Eleventh Dynasty
as a decisive era-the offering-table dedicated by Sesostris I to Sankhkare Mentuho-
tep.j4 These two kings, together with Nebhepetre Mentuhotep, were responsible for
rebuilding the temple of Abydos after the First Intermediate Period,"" and the
offering-table could mark Sesostris' recognition of Sankhkare's role in a separate but
related enterprise, the rediscovery of the Umm el-Qafab.jhThe archaic stelae set up
there provide a likely inspiration for the round-topped stelae which appear in such
profusion at Abydos, and also at Thebes, from the Eleventh Dynasty onwards."
A development of some importance in the Osiris cult at this time is further
indicated by the appearance of the 'Abydos formula' on Theban ~telae;~%ndthe
introduction of the 'Journey to Abydos"(' as a motif in tomb decoration. As in the
case of the shrine of Heqaib at Elephantine, the Theban rulers encouraged a popular
cult which had grown up during the First Intermediate Period, and this had wider
consequences for Abydos. Inscriptions from the reign of Sesostris Ih" show that the
Osiris mysteries were already flourishing by then, that processions to Poker were
part of the festival, and that 'pilgrims' were already coming to Abydos. The identifi-
cation of Djer's tomb as that of Osiris would have provided exactly the stimulus
needed for these developments.
There is no trace of Osiris at the Umm el-Qafab, or anywhere else, in the Archaic
Period, when the site was used for the burial of the kings of the First, and some of
the Second, Dynasty."' The choice of the site was perhaps governed by its remote,
slightly elevated position, and its prestige probably derived from the kings them-
selves, not from any prior divine association. How, then, did a royal tomb become a
divine cult centre? The process is lost in the mists of the First ~ntermediatePeriod,
but the destruction of cemeteries in the Thinite nome may have facilitated it," in that
it is a prerequisite that the Archaic kings individually had been forgotten. The
association of the tomb of Djer with Osiris would not have been possible if any clear

sinat's ingenious suggestion. Le Mystere d'Osiris au mois de Khoiak (Cairo, 1966), 255, that the bier itself was
dragged to the Umm el-Qa'ab from the temple to senre as a focus for the continuation of an underground pagan
cult in early Christian times, commands admiration but not acceptance.
. . Kamal, Tables dbffrande (Cairo, ~yog),
"A. CG 23005.
" Phl V, 41; for the history of the temple, see Kemp, MDAIK 23 (1968),138-55.

'"Helck, Z D M G 27 (1952). 46 n. I, suggested that the discovery might be the result of a deliberate search,
although
.- assigning this to the Eighteenth Dynasty.
" Malaise, Orientalia 3 Duchesne-Guillemin Emerito oblata. 394. For the early appearance of the round-topped

stela at Thebes, see H. G. Fischer. ZAS loo (1973),20 n. 8.

'"ichtheim, Autobiographies. 55-8 The epithet mjr-hrw makes its appearance as an epithet after personal
names at this time, cf. W. Schenkel, Fruhmittela'srptische Studien (Bonn, 1962) 5 28a.
'"H. Altenmiiller, LA I , 42. The earliest example is the tomb of Dagi, of the late Eleventh Dynasty: see H.
JaroS-Deckert, Das Grab desJnjjG.f (hlainz, 1984) 131,for dating.
""A good example is the stela of the vizier blentuhotep, Cairo CG 20539.
"J. Gwpn Griffiths, The Origins ofOsiris and his Cult' (Leiden, 1980).41-4. The recent excavations at the Urnm
el-(la'ab have, however, uncovered an early reference to Khentamentiu on an Archaic seal with a list of kings:
Dreyer and Kaiser separately, MDAZK 43 (1987).33-43 and 115-19.
"' Cf. J. Vandier, Manuel d'archeologie, ir (Paris, 1954).476 Petrie observed signs of burning. which he thought
was accidental (Royal Tombs, I , 7), and was certain (Royal Tombs, 11, 9) occurred between the Archaic Period and
the renovations for Osiris worship, and was not connected with Coptic vandalism.
 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS
recollection had survived of who the owner of the monument actually ~as.~"he
indiscriminate approach subsequently adopted to the monuments at the Umm el-
Qa'ab shows that this had indeed happened: 'Offerings began to be made to the
kings at their tombs; but very blindly, as several places which did not contain any
royal tomb were heaped up with potsherds, while some of the royal tombs ...had
scarcely anything placed on them'.64
Both Petrie and Hallh"thought that the Archaic kings were initially the intended
beneficiaries of these offerings, and made a vague connection between this revival
and the quickening of interest in the past in the New Kingdom as reflected in its king
lists. It is true that the offerings to royal ancestors are well-represented in the temples
of Sety I and Ramesses IPb and that the list includes Archaic pharaohs, but different
names from those on the Archaic monuments are used and the Ramesside list does
not seem to derive from local archives (see below). Nor is there evidence of any
corresporiding ritual at the Umm el-Qa'ab, or any trace in priestly titles of a
subsequent local cult of these kings, comparable to those attested for them in the
Memphite r e g i ~ n . ~No' doubt there was one initially, and while the site continued in
use, but it soon ceased, and there is no reason to assume a revival of it. By the early
Middle Kingdom, the site was hazily remembered as one of great antiquity, the
burial place of remote kings, whose precise identity was forgotten, and whose funeral
rites could thus be transmuted into the ritual of Osiris.'"he mental process
involved was probably simple: Abydos was, according to myth, the burial place of
Osiris, the Umm el-Qa' ab contained very ancient royal monuments, therefore Osiris'
tomb had to be there. How the initial association of Osiris and Abydos came about
cannot be known, nor the reasons for the selection of Iljer's tomb in particular.
The C7mmel-Qa'ab and Poker
Amelineau's conviction that he had found the tomb of Osiris, and with it proof that
Osiris was a historical king, cannot be sustained. But what had he found? Is the
tomb of Djer the mrhrt of Osiris, which Ikhernofret records as being located at
Poker?
Poker has often been equated with the Umm el-Qa'ab, and I have argued else-
where that Peftjaua~yneith's description of work carried out under Apries and
Amasis, when related to the archaeological evidence, confirms the hypothesis, while
"'This was recognised by Chassinat, Le Mystere d'Osirls, 254, who adduced the dedicatory inscript~onof
Ramesses I1 at Abydos to show that 'Les egyptiens n'ont jamais perdu compli.tement le souvenir du lieu oG les
corps de leurs plus anciens rois avaient &ti.d6posi.s'. In fact, the text merely refers to the hwwt and mrhml(t) of
the nswyul imyzc-hjt, which probably means the 'cenotaph' structures of the Middle and early New Kingdoms, of
which a number are known (on these, cf. Kemp, L A I , 37-8; Simpson. LA 111.389-90).
o -I Petrie, Royal Tombs. I , 7; the evidence does not support Helck's suggestion. (ZDMG 27, 46 n. I ) , that
Heqreshu hill was an earlier cult centre than the Umm el-Qa'ab proper.
"' Hall, in Na\~ille,Cemeteries ofdbydos, I , 38.
hh D. Kedford, Pharaonic King-lists, Annals and Day-books (Mississauga, 1986), 18-21, and ch. 5.
"'The false-door of an overseer of priests of Sened and Peribsen published in Amklineau, Les nouvellesfouilles
d'Abydos, 18978. I (Paris, 1904), pl. xx, and consequently included in PM \-, go, is from Saqqira, not Abydos, cf.
D. Wildung, Die Rolle agyptischer Konige im Bewusstsein ihrer Nachwelt, I (Berlin, 1969). 47 n. 2; cf. id. ib. 113 on the
absence of a later cult at Abydos.
hX Helck. ArOr 20 (1952).72-85.
 ANTHONY LEAHY
possible interpretations of the name Pqr also suit such a l ~ c a t i o n . ~ ~ t hhave
e r s taken
a different view. Gessler-Lohr," elaborating on an argument of Chassinat's,"
opposes the identification on the ground that Middle Kingdom texts describing the
ceremonies imply both a journey by water to Poker, and the existence of a lake there,
neither of which is compatible with the location of the Umm el-Qatab. She suggests
that the latter \vas one of a number of 'Kultstatte' associated with Osiris, but that
Poker should be sought elsewhere. She tentatively proposes that it lay in an area to
the south-east of the Osiris temple enclosure, and also revives Mariette's identifica-
tion of one of two lakes kvhich existed there in his day as the sacred lake of the
temple."
If the latter is correct, the lake may well have been the scene of some part of the
ritual, but several factors militate against the location of Poker here. The stelae on
which a desire to watch or participate in the mysteries is expressed were concen-
trated on the south-west of the temple, and expanded out into the desert. By contrast,
the high ground south and south-east of, and overlooking, the lakes, which ought to
have been a prime situation if this were the site of Poker, was not extensively used
for tombs or other monuments in the Middle Kingdom, or at any period." The
proximity of the lake to the temple scarcely allows a journey of any consequence,
and it is more likely to have been part of the 'Terrace' than of Poker. Gessler-I.ohr3s
reading may also be too literal: even the most detailed account, that of Ikhernofret, is
obliquely phrased.i4 The episodes described may not all have taken place in the
same setting, so that part of the ritual could have been performed on water. If
ceremonies were characterised by symbolic gesture and recital, a 'boat journey'
could be no more than a group of priests carrying the divine image in the nSmt bark --
along the route, stopping at predetermined places for the enactment of key events."
References to water travel may also be a legacy from the Archaic ritual for the kings,
if the prt vt of Osiris derives from the journey of the dead king from Memphis to
Abydos.'" On balance, the evidence seems to rrie strongly in favour of the location of
Poker at the Umm el-Qa'ab; there is certainly no serious alternative known. The
modesty of provision" at the latter is no barrier, since Poker is never said to be a
place where monuments were set up. The Umm el-Qa'ab probably does therefore

"" Leah), GIV 70, 46-30.

'"B. Gessler-Lohr, Dze heiligen Seen agyptkcher Tempel (Hildesheim, 1983)~425-37.
''Chassinat, Le Mystere dlOsiris, 254-60.
"Gessler-I,ohr, op. cit. 433-4; G. hlaspero also placed the sacred lake here, The Dawn of Cicilization'
-.
(London, I ~ I O510.
),
' ' Kemp and Merrillees, ~ZlinoanPottery, 289 and fig. 36, no. 10.
'"For a brief survey, see Lichtheim, Autobiographies, 100 n. 4; cf. I,. B. Xilikhail, Dramatic Aspects ofthe Osirian
Khoiak Festiz'al (Uppsala, 1983). I have not heard or seen M. 1,avier's discussion of 'Les mystires d'Osiris i
Abydos', presented at the Fourth International Congress of Egyptologists in Munich in 1985, and to be
published in SAK Heihefte, 111. For various possible interpretations of a phrase as 'simple' as m ~ nfnc?, j see
Satzinger,
-. h f D A l K nj, 129-30.
I' On these difficulties, see J. Yoyotte in, Lespelerinages, Sources Orientales 3 (Paris, 1960), 34-5 and n. 45.
'"
-- Helck, ,4rOr 20. 82.
" Kemp, M D A l K 23, 148. Chassinat, Le Mystere dJ0sirk, 254, saw this as a further argument against the
identification of the llmm el-Qa'ab with I'oker.
1989 A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS
house the 'tomb' of Osiris. Its relationship with other memorials and reliquaries of
the god is too large a question to be pursued here.'"
The Thirteenth Dynasty and Abydos
The decree protecting the wadi was probably usurped in connection with
Neferhotep 1's visit to Abydos to participate in the Osiris mysteries. This event, in his
year two, is described in detail on another stela, found by Ivlariette at A b y d o ~ . Both
'~
the edict and its usurpation belong in a period of particularly intense royal interest in
Abydos, from the reign of Sesostris 111 to the later Thirteenth Dynasty. Sesostris 111
began the tradition of separate royal mortuary chapels there, and may have been
followed in this by Amenemhat I11 and Khaankhre Sebekhotep I."'Khendier
installed the bier in the tomb of Djer/Osiris as a physical symbol of the nature of the
monument, and, through a local official, Amenysenb, renovated the main temple
built by Sesostris I." Subsequently, Neferhotep 1's brother, Sebekhotep IV, renewed
construction in the temple area," and Khuiqer at some point added a doorway."
Two additional developments in practice distinguish the rulers of the Thirteenth
Dynasty from those of the Twelfth. One is the dedication of stelae which show the
king worshipping a god, but are not explicitly commemoratii~eof anything specific.
These begin with Neferhotep I and include some comrnernorating lesser-known
kings of the late Thirteenth Dynasty whose area of rule was probably limited.j4The
second development is the commemoration of members of the royal family, a
practice in which the relatives of Sebekhotep 111 are particularly well-represented."
Thus, in addition to formal contributions by the crown to the frame~vorkof the
Osiris cult, the period saw greater personal involvement by the kings in the Osiris
festival-epitomised in Neferhotep 1's actual participation where Sesostris 111 had sent

'' Cf. Eigner, Die monumentalen Grabbauten. 163-9.

-"Cairo JE 6307, not currently locatable, PM v, 44. Text in Helck, liistorisch-biographische l'exten,' 21-9, no. 32;
most recent study by K. Anthes in Festschrift zum rjo jahrgen Bestehen des Berliner zjflptzichen Museums, ed. I T .
Luft et al. (Berlin, 1974). 15-41. Neferhotep I is probably also recorded on a stela (11. 84 below) and a fragmrnt
from the temple area (Petrie, Abydos, I, pl. lix; Yon Heckerath, C'ntersuchungen. 244 (10)-the same as 244 (13);~cf.
PA1 48).
\'%

"' 0; stela Cairo CG 20538, vs. 21-2, the address includes the wab-priests of Amenemhat 111 and Sesostris 111.
and 'the priesthood of their temples which are in this town'. Sesostris' temple was probably part of his complex
in Xbydos South, and .4menemhat's may also have been built there. For Sebekhotep 1's chapel, between the
temples of Sety I and Ramesses 11, see Rresciani, EVO 2 (1979). "-20. It nlay h n \ r been among the earliest of a
series stretching south-east from the Osiris temple along the edge of the cultivation, cf. Kemp, LA I , 38.
" 1,ouvre stelae C. 11-12: Lichtheim, Autobiographies, 81-2.
';'IJetrie, Abydos I , pl. lix; 11, pl. xxviii. A limestone lintel of the same king \\as found at Llbydosb! Garstang in
1909 (Brussels E. 3262. PXI V , 100).A statue of his may originally have come from the site (navies. '4RoyalStatue
Keattributed, 26, no. 27).
'' I'etrie, Abydos, 11, pl. xxxii.
"X Neferhotep (Cairo CG 20601) and a Sebekhotep (CG 20146), usually seen as I and I\- respectively, were
followed by hlenkhaure Senaaib (CG 20517), Merhetepra Sebekhotep \'I (CG 20044) and Wepwawetemsaf ( B Y
969) See Franke, Orientalia 57, 259, for local dynasts.
"The mother, a brother, and two daughters of Sebekhotep 111 are cornmenlorated on separate stelae: Xyrton,
Currelly and 1,ciat. Abydos, 111, pl. xiii, Vienna 64, and I.ouvre C. 8. The attribution of the last of these to 'Koptos'
(e.g. Von Beckerath. C?ztersuchungen, 241 (8), and Helck, fiistorisch-biographzj-che Texten,' 17) is contradicted by
internal e~ridence.A son and daughter of king I'entjeni appear on RM 630 (Petrie. Abydos, 11, pls. xxxi-ii). Other
Thirteenth Dynasty royal offspring are commemorated on e.g. Cairo CG no038 and 20430.
60 ANTHONY LEAHY 3"A 75
an official-but also embracing ancillary or newly-popular cults such as those of
Wepwawet or Min-Horus." This direct interest recalls their recent elevation from a
non-royal background and may reflect a combination of religious and political
factors. Such comparative abundance of local commemoration makes the complete
omission of the Thirteenth Dynasty kings from the Abydos King List puzzling. In
the local context, it can hardly be explained by ephemerality," since the feeble First
Intermediate Period successors of Pepy 11, whose impact at Abydos was negligible,
are included. The explanation may rather be that the list was of Memphite origin.
Although almost all the dated private stelae of the Middle Kingdom are of the
Twelfth Dynasty," recent studies have suggested that a substantial number of those
not dated belong in the late Twelfth and early Thirteenth Dyna~ties,~" so that this
period probably also saw the continuation of private commemoration and burial that
necessitated Ugaf's intervention, at the height of the site's popularity. Von
Beckerath" saw this as resulting from a decline in kingly control: in the Twelfth
Dynasty, the cemetery had been restricted to a privileged few by royal favour,
whereas in the Thirteenth Dynasty commemoration at Abydos became much more
widespread. There is, however, little evidence for controls of the kind envisaged. The
vizier Mentuhotep recorded a decree of Sesostris I giving him a rnrhrt at the
Terrace," but there the king was probably only financing the building. If royal
permission were needed, one would expect reference to it to be common. 1,ocal
regulation is more likely but its basis and criteria are unknown." If there was
increased commemoration, and of wider social classes, at Abydos in the Thirteenth
Dynasty-and analysis has not yet answered these questions-it could as well be
explained by the greater popularity of the cults, to which the kings contributed, as by
a collapse in cemetery regulation. The decree discussed here is better seen as an
example of the Thirteenth Dynasty kings' interest in Abydos, and in control of its
cemetery area, than as evidence for belated intervention to remedy a situation which
a declining monarchy had allowed to get out of hand.

''I See the stelae clted in n. 84: the first three are dedicated to blin-Horus, the other two to LVepwawet.
" Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, 18-20, 193.
SX Even during the Twelfth Dynasty, only a small percentage of stelae bore a year-date or cartouche(s). These
belong mostly to people with a specific court or central administration connection, for whom the reigning king
was a personally important reference point.
S"Since the stimulus of Simpson's Terrace, the literature has beer1 abundant. For recent studies in the dating
of Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period monuments, see references in H. De Meulenaere, C d E 60
(1985)~75-84> and Vernus, L e Surnom, I n. I ; Franke. Personendaten, 15-17; Malaise, n. 6 above and S A K 5 (1977).
187-98.
"' CTntersuchungen, 56.
'" Cairo CG 20539, Simpson, Terrace, 9.
"'Satzinger, M D A I K 25, 129-30, suggests that different degrees of privileged access may be seen in the
phraseology of inscriptions.
 Cairo JE 35256 (pp. 41-60)

A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS

 PLATE
VII

I. Cairo JE 35256, detail (p. 48)

A PROTECTIVE MEASURE AT ABYDOS

2. Gardner Wilkinson papers (~11.49)from Calke Abbey, Bodleian Library, Oxford, by kindpermission
of the National T m t (p. 62)

AN EARLY EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY MONUMENT