by
Damien F. Mackey
“A significant set of evidence suggests the particular interest that Neferhotep I had both in the cult of Osiris at Abydos, and in Senwosret [Sesostris] III in particular”.
Josef Wegner and Kevin Cahail
Introduction
Recapitulating who I think was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and how he was positioned in relation to Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty:
While Moses was in exile in the land of Midian, the mighty Twelfth Dynasty, which had dominated his entire life of some eight decades, had come to an end with a briefly reigning female ruler. This dynasty, which “knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8), and which worshipped the Crocodile god, Sobek, may have been of foreign stock.
The female ruler, Sobeknefrure bore the Crocodile (Sobek) name.
Moses had been run out of Egypt by his foster father-in-law, “Chenephres”, who had married the woman, “Merris”. She was “the Daughter of Pharaoh” (Cheops-Amenemehet), who had drawn the baby Moses from the water (Exodus 2:1-10).
“Chenephres” and “Merris”, of multiple identifications, span various dynasties, and even kingdoms. “Chenephres” is the Fourth Dynasty’s Chephren (Khafre), who married Meresankh (“Merris”). He is, again, the long-reigning Pepi Neferkare (= Kanefere/“Chenephres”), and the Sesostris who pursued Sinuhe (the semi-fictitious Moses character) from Egypt. As Sesostris so-called III, he was the last-reigning king of the Twelfth Dynasty.
But Sesostris and his predecessor, Amenemhet (Amenemes), are also the Crocodile worshipping Sobekhoteps of the so-called Thirteenth Dynasty. We meet Sesostris again as Sobekhotep IV Nepherkhare/Khaneferre (“Chenephres”), who was a contemporary of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Neferhotep (so-called I).
The hard-hearted Pharaoh of the Exodus, Neferhotep, was already well established by the time of Moses’ return from Midian. This would suggest that he had been a well-known and active high official in the late stages of the Twelfth Dynasty. Sesostris may even have made Neferhotep co-ruler with him as his lengthy reign began to fade.
Closeness of late Twelfth Dynasty and Thirteenth Dynasty
In the following article:
Co-Author with Josef Wegner: "Royal Funerary Equipment of a King Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the Tombs of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I?"
(2) Co-Author with Josef Wegner: "Royal Funerary Equipment of a King Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the Tombs of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I?" | Kevin M. Cahail - Academia.edu
we learn of Neferhotep’s profound veneration for Sesostris (III), and of his close association with Sobekhotep IV, who was also this Sesostris (III):
….
Another important issue for consideration is the implications of the fact that [tomb] S10 does not stand alone. S10 is located adjacent to the similarly designed tomb S9. The king Sobekhotep (N) associated with S10 is likely to be connected in some distinct way with another king who reigned in close temporal proximity and who was also able to build a comparably large subterranean tomb at South Abydos. Recent excavation by Dawn McCormack on tomb S9 shows it too was completed and used for a royal burial, although S9 has, as yet, yielded no evidence on the identity of its owner.72
Consequently, these tombs should relate to two longer-reigning kings, quite possibly with familial connections, one of whom, we can now establish with a reasonable degree of certainty, bore the nomen Sobekhotep.
Despite the disjunctions that characterize the Thirteenth Dynasty royal succession, there are a number of clear examples of familial succession associated with the Sobekhotep kings that could be reflected in such a tomb pairing. The two tombs could represent a father-son pair who ruled in sequence, or possibly one of the examples of brother-brother succession. This latter mode of succession occurs prominently at the beginning of the Thirteenth Dynasty during the shorter reigns of the first two Thirteenth Dynasty kings (Sobekhotep I-Sonebef) as well as in the long stable reigns of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV. The other longer reigning candidates, Sobekhotep III and Sobekhotep VI would appear to be weaker options from this angle. Sobekhotep III stands alone in the royal succession, a military official who after his seven year reign was not succeeded by any offspring or family members; similarly Sobekhotep VI appears to be unrelated to both the preceding and succeeding kings. Would either Sobekhotep III or VI have built a tomb at South Abydos, perhaps placing it adjacent to that of an unrelated Thirteenth Dynasty king? This appears possible, but the close proximity and similarity of design between S9 and S10 suggests the greater likelihood of a pair of more intimately connected kings.
From this angle of consideration Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV, already the strongest candidate on the basis of regnal length and building activity at Abydos, emerges yet again as a good option. His predecessor [sic] was his brother [sic] Neferhotep I whose eleven-year reign (ca. 1742–1731 BC) [sic] initiated the phase of long, stable reigns that continued through the period of Merneferre-Ay. Sobekhotep IV appears to have been a coregent during his brother’s reign after the early death of a third brother, Sahathor, who never became king.73 The close connection and long duration of both king’s reigns provides both a temporal and familial context that would accord well with tombs S9 and S10 at South Abydos.
Beyond considerations of regnal length and familial associations, we need to bring under scrutiny the political and religious motivations that may have underlain two Thirteenth Dynasty kings choosing to build tombs at Abydos. While, in theory, the large mortuary complex built by Senwosret [Sesostris] III at the base of Dw-Inpw may have offered an attractive nucleus for later kings seeking to associate themselves with earlier Twelfth Dynasty rulers, it may have required a unique set of circumstances for this to actually happen. It is clear that many Thirteenth Dynasty kings built—or at least initiated—pyramid tombs on the post-Hawara model in the Memphite necropolis and in proximity to the residence at Itj-Tawy. However, what might have propelled two kings of this era to build their tombs at Abydos instead?
Inscriptional sources paired with monumental remains show that a significant number of Thirteenth Dynasty kings were active at Abydos and invested in differing ways in the Osiris cult. Indeed, royal patronage of the Osiris cult may have been the norm rather than the exception even across the numerous short reigns of the Thirteenth Dynasty. In the case of Tombs S9 and S10, however, we should be looking at two closely associated Thirteenth Dynasty kings who display an unusually high level of interest in Abydos and perhaps kings for whom we can discern other motivating factors that could have led to their decision to build tombs in Upper Egypt.
Among Thirteenth Dynasty kings, Neferhotep I stands out through the breadth of textual sources reflecting his investment in the Osiris cult.
These include most prominently the now-lost Neferhotep stela (formerly in the Boulaq Museum) dating to year two of that king’s reign. The stela details how, after consulting documents relating to the Osiris temple, Neferhotep dispatched his custodian of royal property to Abydos to undertake work on the Osiris temple and its cultic equipment. The royal commission was followed by the king’s own visit to Abydos and participation in the Osirian rituals. This remarkable document indicates a level of personal interest in Abydos unparalleled by any Middle Kingdom ruler since Senwosret III. Neferhotep I is also associated with the well-known group of boundary stelae that he rededicated (after the earlier Thirteenth Dynasty king Wegaf) that demarcate the bounds of the private cemeteries on either side of the processional route to Umm el-Qa’ab.
Fundamentally, these sources show how Neferhotep I initiated substantial rebuilding of the Osiris temple precinct in a mode that echoes the earlier investment in that temple conducted by the chief treasurer Ikhernofret on behalf of Senwosret III. Could this enhanced investment in Abydos under Neferhotep I—like that of Senwosret III a century before him [sic] —have had an additional expression in the king’s construction of his tomb at South Abydos?
Interestingly, there is evidence that Neferhotep I sought to connect himself concretely with Senwosret III at another site besides Abydos. Three inscriptions at the island of Sehel demonstrate Neferhotep I’s desire to associate himself with the earlier pharaoh. In two instances, Neferhotep I placed his titulary directly on the left side an earlier inscription of Senwosret III (ig. 29). The Thirteenth Dynasty artists copied the layout and content of the earlier inscriptions, and positioned the copy as close as possible to, and at the same scale, as the original Senwosret III text. An implication of temporality might even be implied by the position of Neferhotep’s text to the left presenting the king as a direct successor of the Twelfth Dynasty pharaoh. In a more complex vignette also at Sehel (ig. 30), Neferhotep I’s artists copied a scene showing the goddess Anukis offering life to the king. Again, the addition by Neferhotep is positioned to the left of that of Senwosret III. As with the titular inscriptions, the two images are virtually identical in artistic layout, orientation and textual content. Taken together, these sources from Sehel and Abydos seem to indicate that Neferhotep I consciously chose to associate himself with Senwosret III. Might this mimicry have extended to funerary architecture at Abydos as well, leading Neferhotep I to construct his tomb (S9) directly next to that of Senwosret III, linking the enclosure walls of the two structures?
The reigns of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV together represent ca. twenty-three years, more than a third of the stable phase of the middle Thirteenth Dynasty that extends from Neferhotep I to Merneferre Ay (ca. 1742–1677 BC). The Neferhotep I family, like that of Sobekhotep III, made no pretentions about royal origins.
The descent of the family from the God’s Father Haankhef and his wife Kemi has been well documented.79 The family appears to have been of Theban origins as stated in Sobekhotep IV’s donation stela at Karnak.80 Both Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV built extensively at Karnak and the Neferhotep stela provides strong testimony that the Theban activity of the kings was matched with an Abydene component.
Also significantly for our present discussion, it was during the reigns of Neferhotep I–Sobekhotep IV that we see a visible resurgence of economic and royal administrative activity in Upper Egypt. Some Egyptologists have viewed the indications for a growing emphasis on the south as reflecting the loss at this time of the Nile Delta by the kings of Itj-Tawy. This southward focus during the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty has been seen as leading up to the eventual (presumed) abandonment of Itj-Tawy and shift of the capital southwards to Thebes during the last phase of the dynasty.81 However, the possibility that the Thirteenth Dynasty had already lost control over the north, paired with the minimal evidence for the transfer of royal capital, suggests what we witness is rather a phase of economic stabilization at the helm of which were successful Upper Egyptian families including that of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV. Could it be in this political milieu that we have two Thirteenth Dynasty brother kings investing in tombs of the post-Hawara design at Abydos?
Returning to the archaeology of South Abydos itself, another possible index to administrative activity during the reigns of Neferhotep I–Sobekhotep IV derives from the temple of Senwosret III and nearby settlement site of Wah-Sut. Archaeological evidence demonstrates this site was a thriving community through the middle Thirteenth Dynasty. Abundant examples of administrative sealings naming high officials contemporary with Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV have been recovered in the temple and town site. Among these we may highlight the frequent impressions in multiple scarab variants of the prominent treasurer Senebsumay whose career spans the reigns of Sobekhotep III and Neferhotep I, as well as other royal officials of the mid- to late Thirteenth Dynasty.82 Indeed, the most frequent royal name seal impressions recovered in the deposits associated with the Senwosret III mortuary temple are those of Neferhotep I. Later identified examples include Sobekhotep VI and Merneferre Ay.83 Wah-Sut at that time was an administrative center that would have formed an ideal context for Thirteenth Dynasty kings who may have wished to construct tombs in Upper Egypt.
In view of the recent discovery of the funerary stela and cedar coffin of a king Sobekhotep at South Abydos, we now have indications for the identity of the Thirteenth Dynasty pharaohs who built tombs near that of Senwosret III at the site of Dw-Inpw/ Anubis-Mountain. The nature and scale of tomb S10 provides strong evidence for identifying Sobekhotep (N) as Sobekhotep IV. S9 may well in that case be attributed to his brother Neferhotep I. A significant set of evidence suggests the particular interest that Neferhotep I had both in the cult of Osiris at Abydos, and in Senwosret III in particular. The renaissance represented by these mid Thirteenth Dynasty reigns, paired with their Upper Egyptian origins, interest in the Osiris cult, as well as the resurgence of monument building may have been expressed in the addition of their tombs near that of Senwosret III at South Abydos. ….
adjacent to and is even physically bonded to the Senwosret III enclosure wall, for brief discussion see: Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III, 377–81.
79 Ryholt, The Political Situation, 225–31. Primary discussions are: M. Dewachter, “Le roi Sahathor et la famille de Neferhotep I,” RdE 28 (1976), 66–73; L. Habachi, “New Light on the Neferhotep I Family,” 77–81.
80 W. Helck, “Ein Stele Sebekheteps IV. aus Karnak,” MDAIK 24 (1969), 194–200.
81 The abandonment of Itj-Tawy is generally assumed to have occurred during or immediately following the reign of Merne-ferre Ay. Evidence for a southward retreat of the Thirteenth Dynasty is, however, extremely tenuous. It appears likely the kings grouped under this dynasty ruled from Itj-Tawy until the end of the dynasty. 82 Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III, 343–51.
83 On the royal name sealings: Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III, 313–15 and 340–43.
162
Observations on the Reuse of the Funerary Equipment of Sobekhotep (N).
One of the notable results of recent work in and around tomb S10 is the evidence for the short time frame that elapsed between the original burial of king Sobekhotep (N) and the dismantling of his tomb and its equipment for reuse by Senebkay and other Second Intermediate period rulers buried at South Abydos. The evidence for the probable date of S10 in the mid-late Thirteenth Dynasty, and its possible attribution to Sobekhotep IV (ca. 1732–1720 BC) would place this tomb approximately half a century before the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty. The adjacent tomb of Woseribre-Senebkay represents a Second Intermediate period king whose reign we may attribute to the beginning of the unnumbered “Abydos Dynasty.” Senebkay may be one of two kings whose prenomina, Wsr///ra, are partially preserved at the beginning of Column 11 in the Turin Kinglist. The evidence appears to place the reign of Senebkay contemporary with the final disintegration of the Thirteenth Dynasty coeval with the emergence of the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty.
Senebkay and his successors engaged in the wholesale stripping of S10 for construction of their own tombs. As we have seen above, this process includes the appropriation of cedar planks from Sobekhotep (N)’s coffin as well as (possibly) the use of Sobekhotep’s funerary stela as part of the masonry construction of Senebkay’s burial chamber. The reuse of portable elements of the burial assemblage of S10 is further amplified by the extraction and reuse of the massive quartzite sarcophagus from S10 to form the burial chamber of tomb CS6, the northernmost tomb of the Second Intermediate period “Abydos Dynasty” group. The process of denuding S10 and cannibalizing its materials thus proceeded within a short time frame from reuse of the tomb equipment to the wholesale deconstruction of the tomb’s interior architecture. Are these patterns of reuse indicative of opportunistic appropriation of valuable materials from an already plundered royal tomb, or are the “Abydos Dynasty” group of kings themselves implicated in the process of despoiling S10 and other late Middle Kingdom royal tombs at South Abydos?
In view of the narrow chronological parameters, it is crucial to observe that Sobekhotep (N)’s burial appears to have survived intact for only a short period.
How likely is it that the massive blocking system of S10 was penetrated and the tomb plundered, leaving in the wake of the robbery a random assemblage of materials of sufficient quality to be gathered up by Senebkay and his successors for reuse in their own tombs? Successful tomb robbery aimed at extracting precious metals, semi-precious stones and other materials and typically resulted in the extensive damage to the funerary equipment. Moreover, the plundering of S10—a prominent monument visible across the entirety of the Abydene landscape— would have required a large work force and explicit support by any authorities present at Abydos. Consequently, it appears that Senebkay and associated Second Intermediate period rulers themselves may have initiated the initial entry into S10’s still-intact substructure along with the acquisition and reuse of the materials and equipment located therein. Significantly, it is during this same timeframe of the later Second Intermediate period that the tomb of Senwosret III at South Abydos appears to have been entered and plundered. Senebkay and his contemporaries appear to have been making use of a rich array of materials deriving not just from the tomb of Sobekhotep, but also from Senwosret III as well as Tomb S9 and perhaps others.
Along with the reused cedar coffin of king Sobekhotep N, the tomb of Senebkay furnishes additional evidence for the purposeful dismantling of monuments associated with the kings and royal officials of the late Middle Kingdom. The burial chamber of Senebkay is entirely built of reused limestone blocks that once belonged to one or more mortuary chapels of a prominent, extended family dating the mid- to late Thirteenth Dynasty. Senebkay’s builders dismantled blocks from three different tomb chapels belonging to members of this family, which include the royal seal bearer and overseer of fields, Dedtu, his son Ibiau who was overseer of the altars of Amun, and another individual, also likely connected to the Amun temple at Thebes, named Senebef. The evidence suggests the presence at Abydos of a Thirteenth Dynasty elite cemetery possibly located in North Abydos that was denuded by Senebkay’s builders.
This evidence for state-supported tomb robbery that includes the dismantling of both royal and elite mortuary structures appears fundamentally to reflect the severely circumscribed economic and political context of Senebkay and other members of the “Abydos Dynasty” group. This activity appears symptomatic of the poverty of Upper Egypt during the Hyksos period and after the final dissolution of the Thirteenth Dynasty. The phenomenon broadly parallels situations such as occurred during the late Ramesside period at Thebes where the highest levels of local administration actively supported the looting of tombs.
What is most striking, however, is the extent to which materials from those earlier burials were being actively incorporated into the funerary assemblages and tomb architecture of the Abydos Dynasty rulers. From that respect an instructive parallel to South Abydos occurs during the Third Intermediate period when the construction and furnishing of the royal tombs at Tanis made extensive use of spolia, as well as precious metals and royal funerary equipment that had been taken from the Valley of the Kings at Thebes.
Objects that had been despoiled, in particular, from the Ramesside royal tombs at Thebes, made their way into the Twenty-First Dynasty burial assemblages at Tanis. This includes the granite third sarcophagus of Merenptah reused as the outer sarcophagus for Psusennes I. Although the scale of burial and distance involved is greater in the case of the Tanite tombs, the royally sponsored reuse of materials we see at South Abydos seems in many respects to parallel the phenomenon of reuse that occurs later at Tanis.
It appears probable that during the Second Intermediate period, tomb S10 and the burial of king Sobekhotep (N) was opened and denuded under authority of Senebkay and his contemporaries. This may have been part of a wider process of robbery of known royal and elite Middle Kingdom tombs at Abydos that may have included the large subterranean tomb of Senwosret III. Regarding S10, however, it is striking the degree to which this particular monument appears to have been targeted at the hands of the “Abydos Dynasty” rulers. This raises an additional possibility to be considered. Conceivably there may have been a more sinister set of motivations in play: a conscious attempt at damnatio memoriae aimed specifically at the Abydene mortuary structures of king Sobkehotep (N) and his contemporaries.
It seems possible that the systematic denudation of Thirteenth Dynasty royal and elite tombs and monuments may reflect a more carefully pursued program of desecration aimed at members of the Thirteenth Dynasty ruling elite. Could the challenging economic and political pressures concomitant with the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty have precipitated regional and familial rivalries, even vendettas, amongst certain members of the Upper Egyptian elite class? These motivations could perhaps be rooted in the events that led to the disintegration of the Thirteenth Dynasty and the formation of local lines of kings at Thebes and Abydos during the later Second Intermediate period.
Thirteenth Dynasty kings with Theban origins—Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I—along with other high-ranking royal officials with Upper Egyptian origins such as the Dedtu family—might in this case have become targets for a concerted program of damnatio memoriae. If so, the very nature of the Thirteenth Dynasty, not as a dynasty in the classical sense, but as a discontinuous succession of elite families ascending to the rulership centered on Itj-Tawy may be of relevance. It appears possible that the rise to power of the Theban family of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV could have resonated in negative ways that persisted a generation or two later during the time of the decline of the Thirteenth Dynasty.
Alternatively, as visible statements of Thirteenth Dynasty associations with Abydos, Tombs S9 and S10 could have been targeted through another form of politically motivated rationale. Recent discussion has highlighted the possibility that Thirteenth Dynasty kings based at Itj-Tawy may have continued even in the context of an increasingly fragmented internal political situation that included the secession of the Theban region and the growth of the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty. For regional kings now using Abydos as their burial ground, and perhaps even in conflict with the vestiges of the Thirteenth Dynasty, there may have been a desire to sever associations with rulership emanating from Itj-Tawy.
While the evidence at present opens up a series of possible scenarios to explain the nonharmonious relationship exhibited between Tomb S10 and the Second Intermediate period tombs near it, we see clear evidence for the short interval that S10 must have survived as an intact royal tomb. Second Intermediate period kings building their tombs at South Abydos evidently had no desire to associate themselves with Thirteenth Dynasty predecessors and indeed themselves engineered the robbery of those earlier royal tombs. It is to be hoped that continued excavations at South Abydos may shed further light on king Sobekhotep (N)—confirming or not the increasingly probable identification with Khaneferre-Sobekhotep IV- and illuminating how and why his burial, “S10” at South Abydos was so extensively dismantled by Senebkay and his successors during the Second Intermediate period.
Comments