Part 12
He has been described as a kind of “Keeper of the Signet;” but his rank in the Egyptian State was much higher than that of the Scottish official. It is a position that appears to have been even greater than that of the Roman _cura anulis_, or “Keeper of the Imperial Seal” (Just., _Hist._, XLIII, 5).
Footnote 60:
_Rekhmara_, Pl. II and III.
Footnote 61:
_Ibid._, Pl. II, lines 5 and 6.
Footnote 62:
Stela of Sa-satet at Geneva. (_Mélanges Arch._, 1875, p. 218.)
Footnote 63:
Griffith and Tylor, _The Tomb of Paheri_, Pl. IX, l. 44. For earlier tours of these officials, see several graffiti on the rocks at Aswân, published in De Morgan’s _Cat._, I.
Footnote 64:
Stela of Pïankhŷ, l. 81.
Footnote 65:
Louvre, C. 30; Mariette, _Mon. Abydos_, 262, 326, etc. _Cf._ for the high position of the _Adenu_, _Boulac Papyri_, No. 18, Pl. XIX, 5.
Footnote 66:
Mariette, _Mon. Abydos_, 125, and De Rouge, _Et. Egypt_, LIII.
Footnote 67:
_Rec. de travaux_, XII, p. 50.
Footnote 68:
Louvre, C. 5; Mariette, _Mon. Abydos_, 229.
Footnote 69:
Lepsius, _D._, II, 135 _h_, etc.
Footnote 70:
Schiaparelli, _Cat. Flor._, 282; _cf._ also Pl. XIV, 2, of the present work.
Footnote 71:
Schiaparelli, _Cat. Flor._, 279.
Footnote 72:
For instance, in Griffith, _Kahun Papyri_, XIII, 21, is named a “scribe in charge of the Seal of Qesab,” a town in the Delta; _cf._ also Pl. XIII, 20, of this work.
Footnote 73:
Griffith, _K.P._, Pl. XIII, ll. 9-12.
Footnote 74:
In order to make the list complete, we must notice an _am-sa ne mer khetem_ (Liebl., _N.P._, 1707), and an _ari at ne sa ne per me khetem_ (Brit. Mus. Stela, 215).
Footnote 75:
Papyrus of NU, in the Brit. Mus., No. 10477. A variant
[Egyptian **] of this title occurs in the tomb of Sebekhetep (_temp._ Thothmes IV), at Thebes.
Footnote 76:
Brit. Mus. Stela, 1012.
Footnote 77:
Tomb of Sebekhetep, at Thebes.
Footnote 78:
_Rec. de travaux_, XII, p. 13.
Footnote 79:
The work of seal engraving is mentioned as a distinct occupation in _Eccles._ xxxviii, 27. In Egyptian there is a verb [Egyptian **] meaning “to engrave,” “to carve.”
Footnote 80:
See a specimen in the Edward’s Collection at University College, London.
Footnote 81:
VII, 69.
Footnote 82:
See p. 50.
Footnote 83:
“On some impressions is a raised line running from top to bottom across the sign, and therefore accidental. This could only be produced by a split in the seal, and such is very likely to occur in wood.” Petrie, _R.T._, I, p. 24.
Footnote 84:
Of King Qa. Petrie, _R.T._, II, Pl. XII, 5.
Footnote 85:
See p. 59.
Footnote 86:
See p. 59, fig. 42.
Footnote 87:
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1897, pp. 366-372.
Footnote 88:
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1897, _vide_ p. 366-372.
Footnote 89:
“Allied or perhaps derivative figures may be seen in the pigmy or embryonic form of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris and its offshoots, and the Phoenician Pataecus (a parallel but variant type is seen in Bes), but there can be no question that the type seen on these early cylinders is the direct reflection of that which appears at a very early date upon those of Chaldea.” A. J. Evans, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1897, p. 369.
Footnote 90:
See Pl. V, fig. 3.
Footnote 91:
See Pl. VI, figs. 1, 2, etc.
Footnote 92:
See Pl. VI, fig. 13.
Footnote 93:
See Pl. VI, figs. 2, 3, 4, etc.
Footnote 94:
See Pl. VI, figs. 1, 10, etc.
Footnote 95:
See Pl. VII, fig. 7.
Footnote 96:
See Pl. VIII, fig. 10.
Footnote 97:
See Pl. VIII, figs. 2, 3, etc.
Footnote 98:
See Pl. VIII, figs. 5, 6, etc.
Footnote 99:
See Pl. VII, figs. 8 and 9.
Footnote 100:
Garstang’s _Mahâsna_, p. 33.
Footnote 101:
Perhaps even earlier.
Footnote 102:
See Mace, in Petrie’s _Diospolis Parva_, p. 39, and _cf._ Garstang, _El Mahâsna_, pp. 33 and 34.
Footnote 103:
For specimens beyond those figured here, see Petrie, in the _Antiquary_, XXXII, p. 136, and Garstang, _El Mahâsna_, Pl. XXXIX.
Footnote 104:
See Arthur Evans, in the _Annual_ of the British School at Athens, No. VIII, p. 104.
Footnote 105:
_The Antiquary_, XXXII, p. 37.
Footnote 106:
“These stone buttons may eventually prove to have quite an exceptional interest in the history of Aegean art, as the direct progenitors of the lentoid beads so much affected by the Mycenaean engravers.” A. Evans, in _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, XIV, p. 335.
Footnote 107:
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, XIV, p. 336.
Footnote 108:
The beetle, called in Egyptian _Kheper_, was the sacred emblem of the god who made all things out of clay.
Footnote 109:
Erman, _Zaubersprüche für Mutter und Kind_, p. 38.
Footnote 110:
P. 25.
Footnote 111:
This interpretation of the scarab was first given by Dr. Birch more than half a century ago, but has generally been lost sight of by archaeologists.
Footnote 112:
See later, p. 70, fig. 59.
Footnote 113:
Prof. Flinders Petrie believes that he can recognize, besides the true scarab, four other varieties of beetle: the _Artharsius_, _Copris_, _Gymnoplearus_ and _Hypselogenia_.
Footnote 114:
_Egyptian Decorative Art_, pp. 18 and 19. The spiral, it should be noted, is found on certain upright and squat prehistoric pots of the sequence dating 39-64, but these are always single, not conjoined or returning spirals.
Footnote 115:
_Proceedings_ of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. XXI, p. 148.
Footnote 116:
_Ibid._, Vol. XIX, p. 294.
Footnote 117:
A small detail of this ceiling (with wrong colouring) is published in Wilkinson’s _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians_, Vol. I, Pl. VIII, fig. 7. Identically the same pattern occurs in a Twenty-sixth Dynasty tomb at Thebes.
Footnote 118:
Milchhöfer, _Die Anfänge der Kunst_, p. 16 _et seqq._; Petrie, _Egyptian Decorative Art_, p. 29.; Much, _Die Kupferzeit_, p. 55; Hall, _The Oldest Civilization of Greece_, p. 157; A. C. Haddon, _Evolution in Art_, p. 141. Dr. Arthur Evans, on the contrary, believes that the spiral was first used in stonework, and only at a later date transferred to metal and other materials (_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, Vol. XIII, p. 329).
Footnote 119:
Petrie, _Egyptian Decorative Art_, p. 22.
Footnote 120:
Among the jewellry discovered by M. de Morgan at Dahshûr (_temp._ Usertsen II) was an exquisite gold ring (certainly _not_ of Egyptian manufacture), with two spirals worked on its bezel in gold wire-work. (See De Morgan, _Dahchour_, I, p. 68, fig. 145.) In the Ashmolean Museum is a black ware vase from Egypt of the style characteristic of the late Twelfth Dynasty deposits, which has a punctuated returning spiral ornament round the upper part of its body.
Footnote 121:
A. J. Evans, _Primitive Pictographs_, in _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, Vol. XIV, p. 328. _Cf._ G. Coffey, _The Origins of Prehistoric Ornament in Ireland_, in _Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland_, 1894, 1895; and A. C. Haddon, _Evolution in Art_, p. 142. J. Romilly Allen, _Celtic Art in Pagan and Christian Times_, pp. 51-54.
Footnote 122:
On this place-name, see p. 172, note 1.
Footnote 123:
An asterisk prefixed to these descriptions means an _ancient_ clay-impression or “sealing,” not an actual cylinder.
Footnote 124:
A cylinder-seal of “Amenemhat, beloved of Sebek, Lord of Anu,” is in the H.-P. Collection (_Cat._ 3813).
Footnote 125:
Nub-hetep-tha-Khred was a daughter of Amenemhat III. (De Morgan, _Dahchour_, I, p. 128.)
Footnote 126:
On this title, see Newberry, _El Bersheh_, I, p. 8, note 3.
Footnote 127:
_I.e._, the Judge or Chief Justice. See my _Life of Rekhmara_, p. 18.
Footnote 128:
The rings, scarabs, etc., figured from the tomb of Maket have been drawn from Prof. Petrie’s _Illahun_, pl. XXVI.
Footnote 129:
This is probably the same place-name as the Kerŷ mentioned in the tomb of Hûŷ at Thebes as the southern boundary of Kush (Ethiopia) at the time of King Tût-ankh-amen (see Pl. II). It was almost certainly the modern Gebel Barkal.
Footnote 130:
The position of the “district of Shetau or (Shetep)” is uncertain. The inscription merely says that the king went down stream, and that the journey took him a night to accomplish, but the name of the place from whence Amenhetep and his officers started is not recorded. Mr. Fraser (_P.S.B.A._, XXI, p. 157) suggests Memphis as the starting place, and the Wadŷ Tumilât as the scene of the hunt, and he further remarks that “except the Fayûm, there is no place that I can think of in Upper Egypt where one can imagine there were ever wild cattle.” I suspect, however, that it was from Thebes that the royal hunter set out, and that the district of Shetau (or Shetep) was one of those wadŷs near Keneh (just a night’s journey from Thebes down stream) which at certain times of the year contain low, but luxuriant vegetation. I have visited this district several times (in February 1896, again in December 1901, and for a third time in March 1904), and was much struck by the great quantity of vegetation which is to be seen in the desert to the east of Kuft and Keneh. There is one wadŷ in particular which extends for some miles in a northerly direction between Legêta and Keneh that literally abounds in low shrubs and other vegetation, far more than enough to support vast herds of wild cattle. It may here be pointed out that the ancient fauna of Egypt differed very greatly from its present fauna. Before the advent of the camel into Egypt, all the wadŷs of the Arabian chain of hills were plentifully stocked with game of all kinds. At Beni Hasan, El Bersheh, and many other places are represented scenes of hunting wild animals, including the lion, bubalis, etc.; and the wadŷs east of Keneh were celebrated as hunting grounds at the time of Thothmes III and Amenhetep II. In more than one private tomb at Thebes we have scenes of hunting which are expressly stated to have taken place “in the _Ant_,” _i.e._, the desert to the east of Kuft, and in the tomb of Men-kheper-ra-senb the superintendent of the hunting at Kuft is mentioned.
Footnote 131:
On this title, see my note in Garstang’s _El Arabeh_, p. 33.
Footnote 132:
Driving the animals into nets was a favourite method of hunting in ancient times (_cf._, among many other instances, my _El Bersheh_, I, pl. VII, and the Vaphio Vase at Athens). Nets are still used for this purpose in some parts of Africa (Baker’s _Ismailia_, pp. 435-438).
Footnote 133:
Dr. Budge has suggested to me that this dyke may have been a series of covered pits into which the animals would fall, thus enabling the huntsmen to capture them easily. He would also identify the _semau_ of the Egyptians with the _rimi_ of the Assyrian inscriptions, an animal hunted by Tiglath Pileser and other monarchs.
Footnote 134:
Since this was written, a study of the inscription on this scarab has been published by Steindorff, from my copy of the Alnwick specimen, in _Ä.Z._, XXXIX, 62.
Footnote 135:
The Vatican specimen gives _kher hen ne Heru_ for the abbreviated _kher Heru_ on the Alnwick example.
Footnote 136:
The Vatican scarab gives the determinative of land (the triangle) in the place of the _t_ on the Alnwick specimen.
Footnote 137:
A mis-reading (Zaru) of this place-name has led to the identification of the city with Zaru or Zal (perhaps the modern Sele), the eastern frontier fort of Egypt. Prof. Breasted, Prof. Steindorff, and the writer, however, all came independently to the conclusion that Zarukha must be the name of the palace-town of Amenophis III and Thŷi, which is situated a little to the south of Medinet Habu; the lake mentioned on this scarab is therefore to be identified with the modern Birket Habu.
Footnote 138:
The numerals given on the Vatican scarab are blundered, and consequently difficult to read.
Footnote 139:
Read _tahen_, not _neferu_; this is clear on the Vatican specimen. An officer of this boat is mentioned on a stela in the Egyptian Museum of the Louvre (C. 207).
● Transcriber’s Notes: ○ On page 5 the Arabic خَاتَمٌ is “khatam” not “khatim,” as described; the latter would be خَاتِمٌ. Both, however, may mean a ring or signet. ○ Links were added from the LIST OF PLATES to each individual plate. ○ The footnotes were gathered and moved to a separate section of the book (see Footnotes.) ○ On page 51 there were two sidenotes for “Class II”. The second was changed to “Class III.” ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected. ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected. ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book. ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).