Matić, Uroš. 2015. Children on the move: ms.w wr.w in the New Kingdom procession scenes. In: There...

potah_Egypt _CROSSROADS II_ A G A M Ahřbet_35 mm C M Y K

9 788073 085759

ISBN 978–80–7308–575–9

edited by Jana Mynářová,Pavel Onderka and Peter Pavúk

Myn

ářo

vá, O

nd

erka

and

Pav

úk

(ed

s.)

Proceedings of an International

Conference Held in Prague,

September 15–18, 2014

Thereand Back Again – the Crossroads II

The

re an

d B

ack

Aga

in –

the

Cro

ssro

ads

II

Thereand Back Again – the Crossroads IIProceedings of an International Conference Held in Prague,

September 15–18, 2014

edited by Jana Mynářová, Pavel Onderka and Peter Pavúk

Charles University in PragueFaculty of Arts2015

strana 1 — titul

The book was published from the financial means allocated for the research project of the Czech Science Foundation GA ČR P401/12/G168 “History and Interpretationof the Bible”.

Reviewed by Luca Girella and Jordi Vidal

Contributors: A. Ahrens, F. Blakolmer, L. Bonadies, V. Boschloos, D. H. Cline, E. H.Cline, S. Cohen, P. P. Creasman, V. Dubcová, J. P. Emanuel, G. Gestoso Singer, F. Höflmayer, D. Kahn, U. Matić, E. Morero, A. Morriconi, E. F. Morris, J. Mynářová,P. Onderka, N. Papadimitriou, P. Pavúk, R. Prévalet, G. Tucci, Z. Simon, V. Vrtal, J. Weingarten, H. Wilde

Cover: Glass flask of Maiherperri from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. Photo by An-dreas F. Voeglin, Photographer Antikenmuseum Basel, Switzerland; the entire SocialNetwork of the Amarna letters with four clusters (© D. H. Cline – E. H. Cline).

Type-setting layout: AGAMA® poly-grafický ateliér, s.r.o., PrahaPrint: PBtisk a.s.

© Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, 2015

ISBN: 978–80–7308–575–9

strana 2

CHILDREN ON THE MOVE: ms.w wr.w IN THE NEW KINGDOMPROCESSION SCENES

Uroš Matić

Introduction

The children in ancient Egypt have received greater attention only in the last twentyyears (Feucht 1990a; id. 1990b; id. 1995; Janssen – Janssen 1990; Lohwasser 2000).This increased focus can be related to the greater attention given to children in otherneighboring fields such as archaeology and anthropology, where issues on theoryand methodology of research of children have also been raised (Baxter 2005;Gilchrist 2004; Fahlander 2011; Sofaer Derevenski 2000). Although scholars special-izing in ancient Egypt did an enormous amount of work on the theme of foreigners,limited few devoted their attention to the children of foreigners as a distinctive socialgroup. Those authors provided a detailed overview of available sources mostly con-centrating on texts. The iconographic evidence was mostly limited to description(Allam 1992; Feucht 1990a; id. 1990b; Hallmann 2006: 300) or only mentioned inpassing (Cowie 2008: 19). The procession scenes in which foreign children are de-picted received little attention and the corpus was never studied in detail.

It is widely accepted that during the New Kingdom, children ms.w and broth-ers sn.w of foreign rulers wr.w were taken to Egypt as nxt.w “political hostages”.After the death of the ruler the hostage would return to the homeland and replacethe predecessor (Urk. IV, 690: 2–5). Most authors see this as evidence of the regularpractice of coercion and submission of the defeated countries.1

This commonly accepted opinion was recently challenged. Paul James Cowieargued that the practice of the taking of foreign children had been a solution toa northern problem first adopted during the sixth campaign of Thutmose III inhis 30th regnal year and that this solution was only ever partially extended to themore settled, compliant regions farther south (Cowie 2008: 19). However, bothopinions are mostly based on temple inscriptions, while the iconographic evidenceand the accompanying inscriptions were largely neglected or selectively referredto. This is best shown by referring to the tomb of Menkheperreseneb (TT 86) ascontaining the only representation of a foreign ruler presenting a child at the

373

1 Bresciani 1997: 241; Helck 1971: 350ff; Hoffmeier 2004: 138; Kemp 1978: 36; Müller 2011: 244; Pana-giotopoulos 2006: 399; Poo 2005: 111; Redford 1992: 198–199; id. 2003: 199; Spalinger 2005: 111; Wilkin-son 2010: 253.

Egyptian court (Cowie 2008: 19; Müller 2011: 244), although there are other repre-sentations similar to this one in the tombs of Amenemhab (TT 85) and Sobekhotep(TT 63), respectively (Davies 1934: pl. XXV; Dziobek – Abdel Raziq 1990: Tf. 33).Additionally, both recurrent views focus only on the children of the elite. This iswhy this paper will analyze the depictions of children of different social classes.

Before introducing the main research questions it is interesting to see howiconographic and other evidence relates to two existing views. Foreign childrenare attested as prisoners of war already during the reign of Sahure (5th Dynasty).The children of the rulers of Libya are brought to Egypt during the reign ofNiuserre (5th Dynasty) and the children of Nubian rulers during the reign of PepiII (6th Dynasty). The children of foreigners are also attested in the Middle Kingdomtomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan (12th Dynasty). Besides these there are alsodepictions of children in battle scenes (Feucht 1990b: 178–183).

Therefore the practice of taking foreign children as prisoners of war, includingelite children is known already in the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom.During the New Kingdom the children brought by wr.w are already attested inthe tomb of Useramun (TT 131) which was according to the stela of one Amen-emhet completed prior to the 28th regnal year of Thutmose III (Wachsmann 1987:31). Here the Syrian men and women bring children and are described in the ac-companying text as wr.w from xAs.wt mHt.t (northern foreign lands) and pH.w sT.t

(far north, Asia). They bring jn.w to the king (Dziobek 1994: 91). Being that thetomb was finished before the 28th regnal year the depicted event must have takenplace before it.

Therefore, according to the attestation from the tomb of Useramun, childrenwere sent from the north before the sixth campaign of Thutmose III. This indicatesthat the practice was not a solution to a problem which emerged with this cam-paign but was already known. That the taking of the children of wr.w was reallynot a solution only to the northern (Syrian) problems is attested already in theOld Kingdom and in the New Kingdom on the Aswan rock inscription of Thut-mose II. Here it is written that after the putting down of the rebellion in Kush oneof the children of the ruler of Kush was brought alive as a living prisoner togetherwith their people and placed under the feet of the king (Urk. IV, 140: 12–14). A laterexample can be found in the taking of a child of TmH.w by Ramesses III for thesame purpose (KRI V, 23: 2–3). Therefore the suggestion by Cowie (2008: 19) thatthe practice of taking of the children of foreign rulers is restricted to northern Syriaduring and after the sixth campaign of Thutmose III is not supported with avail-able evidence.

With the aim of continuing the scholarly debate on the foreign children thispaper deals with the procession scenes depicting or mentioning in the accompa-nying inscriptions foreigners with children in fifteen tombs dating from the reignof Amenhotep I to Tutankhamun and Ay (TT 81, TT 131, TT 86, TT 100, TT 84, TT

Children on the Move: ms.w wr.w in the New Kingdom Procession Scenes

374

85, TT 42, TT 17, TT 63, TT 90, TT 162, Huya, Merire II, TT40, Memphite Tomb ofHoremhab) and three temples dated to the reign of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III andRamesses II (Deir el-Bahari, Armant, and Beit el-Wali).

Foreigners and the children they bring are studied in this paper with particu-lar attention given to ethnicity, gender, age and the status ascribed to them by theEgyptians. Besides the intention to bring balance to the previous studies the re-search questions addressed here offer the possibility of establishing an icono-graphic pattern in relation to the accompanying inscriptions and the possibilityof noticing a difference in the treatment of children with regard to their or theirbearers’ ascribed ethnicity, gender or status.

Foreign Children in the New Kingdom Procession Scenes: The Patterns of Representations

The New Kingdom procession scenes depict registers of foreigners coming fromthe Aegean, Syria, Nubia and Punt and bringing various goods (objects, raw ma-terials, plants and animals) to the king of Egypt. The foreigners are organized inseparate registers followed by inscriptions. The goods they bring are attested asjn.w (“tribute, gift”), bAk.w (“tax”), HAk.w (“booty”), bjA.wt (“wonders”). When theprocession scenes are found in the tombs in front of the registers with foreigners,a figure of the tomb owner can be found inspecting the procession (Hallmann2006). According to the attestations in the tombs of Menkheperreseneb (TT 86)and Iamunedjeh (TT 84), the depicted event occurred during the New Year Festi-val (Davies 1933: 2–9; Hallmann 2006: 14), and according to the attestation in thetomb of Iamunedjeh (TT 84) it occurred in the palace of Heliopolis (Hallmann2006: 16–17).

The children are in the procession scenes brought only by Syrians and Nu-bians with the only exception being children from Punt depicted in the temple ofDeir el-Bahari (Smith 1962: 61). The children of the rulers of Punt are, however,not depicted in interaction with the adult figures as is the case with the Syrianand Nubian children who are the main focus of this paper. The children of Puntiterulers are not presented at the Egyptian court, either, as is the case with the Syrianand Nubian children. The children of Libyans are, however, not depicted in theprocessions scenes (contra Allam 1992: 1).

Transference is well attested for the figures and objects they bring in the pro-cession scenes. It is “the phenomenon in Egyptian art by which objects, figures oran entire part of a familiar stock scene has been transferred en masse to a renditionof a second stock scene to which it is not normally related” (Wachsmann 1987:12). However, we do not find it affecting children as e.g. the children of Syriansor Nubians are never transferred into the registers with the Aegean figures, e.g.TT 131, TT 86, TT 100 (Matić 2014: 287). This indicates that although the procession


375

scenes are ideologically framed, they still bear traces of Realpolitik as the Aegeanwas not under any type of Egyptian control during the New Kingdom.

There are several distinguishable patterns of representation which are goingto be analyzed in this paper. These patterns were noticeable only after the repre-sented figures were grouped according to their ethnicity and gender, and also fol-lowing their mutual comparison and comparison with information in theaccompanying inscriptions.

The depictions of foreigners bringing children can be grouped in many dif-ferent ways depending on the aspects which are to be analyzed. Here the accentwill be on the children and their age in regard to the interaction they have withthe adult figures. We can distinguish three basic groups based on the ethnicityand gender of the adult figures that bring the children: Syrian women, Syrian menand Nubian women. These groups are then subdivided according to the age ofthe children and consequently according to the interaction with the children.Three basic age groups or “series” of children (cf. Fahlander 2011: 18) can be dis-tinguished according to their representation and interaction with the adult figures.There are children in baskets, probably infants still unable to walk; children car-ried by adults or sitting on their backs, probably slightly older but not old enoughto walk independently, and children walking next to the adult figures holdingthem by the hand. It should be stressed that one adult figure can be depicted withseveral children of different age groups at the same time (Tab. 1).

Syrian women are depicted with children in four different manners:

1a (Fig. 1). They carry children in baskets or baby bags on their backs (TT 131).

1b (Fig. 2). They carry children in baskets or baby bags on their backs and holdanother child walking next to them by the wrist (TT 81; TT 100).

1c (Fig. 3). They carry children in baskets or baby bags on their backs whileanother child sits on their shoulders, holding them by the head in some cases(Horemhab).

2a (Fig. 4). The children sit on the women’s shoulders and hold them by thehead in some cases (TT 81).

2b (Fig. 5). The children sit on the women’s shoulders and hold them by thehead in some cases, while the women hold another child walking next to themby the wrist (TT 100)

3a (Fig. 6). The children sit on one or both palms of the women’s hands (TT100).

3b (Fig. 7). The children sit on one palm of the women’s hands, while thewomen hold another child walking next to them by the wrist (TT 100).

4 (Fig. 8). The women hold the children walking next to them by the wrist (TT86; TT 100; TT 42; TT 162; Merire II; Horemhab).


376

Syrian men are depicted with children in two different manners:

1 (Fig. 9). The men hold the children walking next to them by the wrist (TT131; TT 86; TT 85; TT 17; TT 63).

2 (Fig. 10). The children sit on the palms of the men’s hands, with the arm sup-porting the upper body of the child depicted in front of the body of the figure (TT


377

Tab. 1

Tombs and temples withthe procession scenes inwhich foreigners bringchildren.

Syrian Syrian Nubian Term used Context Dating women men women for the Reference children Ineni (TT 81) Amenhotep I– 1b and 2a / 1a Syrian: jn.w; Davies 1963: pl. XXII; Thutmose III Nubian: Dziobek 1992: 33. sqr-anx.w Useramun Thutmose III 1a 1 / Syrian: jn.w Dziobek 1994: 91, Tf. 93. (TT 131) Menkheperre- Thutmose III 4 1 and 2 / Syrian: jn.w Davies – Davies 1933: seneb (TT 86) pls. IV, V. Rekhmire (TT 100) Thutmose III/ 1b, 2b, 3a, 3b / 1b and 2 Syrian and Davies 1943a: 23; id. Amenhotep II Nubian: HAq.t 1943b: pls. XXI, XXII, XXIII. Iamunedjeh Thutmose III / / / Nubian: jn.w Davies – Davies 1941: (TT 84) pl. XIII; Davies 1942: pl. V; Hallmann 2006: 14. Amenemhab Thutmose III/ / 1 and 2 / Syrian: jn.w Davies 1934: pl. XXV; (TT 85) Amenhotep II Hallmann 2006: 45. Amenmose Thutmose III/ 4 / / / Davies – Davies 1933: (TT 42) Amenhotep II pl. XXXIV. Nebamun (TT 17) Amenhotep II / 1 / Syrian: jn.w Säve-Söderbergh 1957: pl. XXIII. Sobekhotep Thutmose IV / 1 and 2 1b Syrian: Dziobek – Abdel Raziq (TT 63) jn.w (?) 1990: Tf. 33; Hallmann 2006: 76. Nebamun (TT 90) Thutmose IV/ / / / Syrian (?): Haq Davies – Davies 1923: Amenhotep III pl. XXVIII. Kenamun (TT 162) Amenhotep II– 4 / / / Davies – Faulkner 1947: Amenhotep III 45, pl. VIII. Huya Akhenaten / / 1b Nubian: jn.w Davies 1905b: 9, pl. XV; Hallmann 2006: 92. Merire II Akhenaten 4 / 1b Syrian and Davies 1905a: pl. XXXVII; Nubian: jn.w Hallmann 2006: 97. Huy (TT 40) Tutankhamun / / 1b / Davies – Davies 1926: pl. XXX. Horemhab Tutankhamun 1c and 4 / / / Martin 1989: 161–165, (Memphite tomb) and Ay pl. 105. Deir el-Bahri Hatshepsut / / / Puntite Smith 1962: 61; Hallmann temple (children of 2006: 213–214. mrw workers): bjA.wt Armant temple Thutmose III / / 1b / Mond – Myers 1940b: pl. IX. Beit el-Wali Ramesses II / / 1b / Ricke – Hughes – Wente temple 1967: pl. 7.

86; TT 85; TT 63). This iconographic manner of representations differs from therepresentations of Syrian women with children in their hands.

Nubian women are depicted with children in three different manners:

1a (Fig. 11). They carry children in baskets on their backs (TT 81).

1b (Fig. 12). They carry children in baskets on their backs and hold anotherchild walking next to them by the hand (Armant; TT 100; TT 63; Huya; Merire II;TT 40; Beit el-Wali).

2 (Fig. 13). The children sit on the women’s shoulders holding them by thehead in some cases (TT 100). The question is whether this is an example of trans-ference as it occurs mostly with Syrian women.

3 (Fig. 14). The women hold the children walking next to them by the wrist(TT 81).


378

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5

Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10

The first peculiar pattern of representation which can be immediately noticed isthe gender of the foreigners who bring the children. Namely, while the childrenare brought by both Syrian men and women, it is only the Nubian women whoare depicted bringing children. There is only one reconstructed male Nubian fig-ure depicted with a child (TT 63), however, it is indeed questionable if this is reallyan accurate reconstruction (cf. Dziobek – Abdel Raziq 1990: Tf. 33). If the recon-struction is accurate it must be explained as transference as it is indeed a rare ex-ample. Nevertheless, this indicates a peculiar gendered difference intentionbehind the depictions.

The children themselves are depicted both nude and dressed and a peculiarpattern regarding the nudity of children can be noticed. Namely, the childrenbrought by the Nubian women are mostly nude: TT 81; TT 100; TT 63; Huya; TT40; Armant; Beit el-Wali (Davies 1963: pl. XXII; Davies 1943b: pls. XXI, XXII, XXIII;Dziobek – Abdel Raziq 1990: 6; Davies 1905b: pl. XV; Davies 1926: pl. XXX; Mond– Myers 1940b: pl. IX; Ricke – Hughes – Wente 1967: pl. 7). The only two caseswhere the Nubian children are half dressed, wearing only long skirts, are girlswho are, judging by their depiction, older than the other children: Ineni TT 81 andRekhmire TT 100 (Davies 1963: pl. XXII; Davies 1943b: pls. XXI, XXII). In thesetwo cases the girls are not interacting with the adult figures, which is another in-dication of them being different from the other children.

The older Syrian girls from the tomb of Nebamun (TT 17) and Merire II are,however, completely dressed (Davies 1905a: pl. XXXVII; Säve-Söderbergh 1957:pl. XXIII). The children brought by the Syrian men are both nude and dressed andthe children brought by the Syrian women are nude.

The dress of some of the Syrian children is the same as the dress of some ofthe Syrian men: Nebamun (TT 17), Ineni (TT 81) and Amenemhab (TT 85) (Davies


379

Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14

1934: pl. XXV; Davies 1963: pl. XXII; Säve-Söderbergh 1957: pl. XXIII). They weara long white gown with long sleeves with decoration on the edges. Such a gownis in the Egyptian depiction of the Syrian figures restricted only to the Syrian men.One of the dressed children has its gown depicted with false transparency so thatthe genitals are also visible: Amenemhab (TT 85) (Davies 1934: pl. XXV). The childis indisputably male (Fig. 10). Elsewhere, Syrian garments are never transparent(Schäfer 1986: 121). The artist probably did it intentionally to clearly show the sexof the children wearing these garments, i.e. to show that they are male. Addition-ally, when children are depicted sitting on the palms of the hands (Menkheperre-seneb [TT 86], Amenemhab [TT 85], Sobekhotep [TT 63]) of the Syrian men, thesechildren are depicted nude (Davies – Davies 1933: pl. IV; Davies 1934: pl. XXV;Dziobek – Abdel Raziq 1990: Tf. 3d). The child seated on the palm of the male Syr-ian bearer (Fig. 10) has a parallel in the hieroglyphic sign A 17. Therefore, there isagain a gendered difference as the women, both Syrian and Nubian, bring onlynude children. The only exceptions are a Syrian woman with a dressed child inthe tomb of Ineni (TT 81; Davies 1963: pl. XXII) and a Syrian woman with possiblya dressed child in the tomb of Amenmose (TT 42; Davies – Davies 1933: pl.XXXIV.). Only the Syrian men bring both nude (male and female) and dressed(male) children.

It can also be suggested that the Syrian and Nubian women with children inbaskets on their backs or in a baby bag are an iconographic counterpart to thephrase ms.w=sn Hr psD=sn “their children on their backs” (KRI V, 97: 3–4) contraryto the opinion that the word ms.w here unambiguously indicates brought goodsparallel to jn.w (cf. Allam 1992: 9–10).

Regarding the gender of the children there is a tendency towards depictingchildren brought by the Syrian men and women as male, although there are alsodepictions of Syrian girls but these girls are clearly not of the same age judgingby the relative size of their figures and the fact that they are dressed. There arefigures of children whose genital area is not preserved and children where al-though preserved it does not indicate any specific sex so we cannot be sure if theobservations regarding the gender of the children are of statistical significance.

Decorum and Meaning

There are certainly different ways one could interpret the patterns established inthis paper. Already Norman de Garis Davies suggested that the Nubian womenin the tomb of Rekhmire “appear to be ranked in order of fertility” as the numberof the children they carry increases from left—adolescent girls(?) without children,to right—mature women with several children (Davies 1943a: 29–30). The genderpatterns concerning children and the figures that bring them do exist but if insome of the scenes the overall symbolic background is fertility cannot be easily


380

argued. Maybe the explanation should be sought in the age of the children.Namely, that the age of the children increases from left—children in baskets andheld by the arm to right—half dressed girls holding baskets who do not physicallyinteract with other figures.

Among the Syrian figures only the men bring dressed male children who wearthe same garments as them. The only exception being a Syrian woman witha dressed Syrian child in the tomb of Ineni (TT 81) and a Syrian woman with whatappears to be a dressed child in the tomb of Amenmose (TT 42). This can be inter-preted as an indication of the high status of these children because the adult fig-ures wearing these garments are of high status. Only the Syrian men are depictedpresenting the children on the palms of their hands. Next to one of these figuresis the inscription wr n Tnpw “Prince of Tunip” (Davies – Davies 1933: pl. IV). Thisis not restricted only to the depiction in the tomb of Menkheperreseneb (TT 86) asit was often suggested by some scholars (Cowie 2008: 19; Müller 2011: 244). Thesame iconographic manner of depiction is found in the tombs of Amenemhab (TT85) and Sobekhotep (TT 63). Interestingly this is restricted to the Syrian figuresand the children they bring. Nubian children are never depicted sitting on thepalms of the figures that bring them. One tentative suggestion would be to relatethis to the practice of taking the sons and brothers of the Syrian rulers to the Egyp -tian court. It can perhaps be understood as a visual counterpart to what we knowfrom the texts. That elite children from Syria-Palestine indeed lived in close prox-imity to the king is evidenced by several Amarna letters, e.g. the son of Aki-Teššupin EA 59 and Yahtiri in EA 296 (Moran 1992: 130, 338). However, none of thesources (stelae, tomb and temple inscriptions, and the Amarna letters) explicitlyclaim that the foreign children live in the institution of kAp as it is often suggestedby some scholars (Bresciani 1997: 232–241; Panagiotopoulos 2006: 399; Wilkinson2010: 253).

The iconographic patterns established in this paper can also be explained bythe difference in the approach to children in these two regions. If we take a closerlook at the inscriptions following the analyzed registers and concentrate on theEgyptian terms used to describe the objects and the children of the foreigners, an-other interesting pattern can be established. When both the inscription and thedepiction of the children are preserved, the Syrian children are in all cases (TT 81;TT 131; TT 86; TT 85; TT 63; Huya; Merire II) labeled as jn.w “that what is brought(gifts, tribute, etc.)” (Bleiberg 1996; Liverani 2001: 179; Matić 2012: 241–242; Tab.1). The only two cases where they are attested as being labeled with another term(HAq/HAq.t) are in the tomb of Nebamun (TT 90) and the tomb of Rekhmire (TT 100).However, the depiction of children in the tomb of Nebamun (TT 90) is not pre-served so we cannot know how they were depicted. Interestingly, when the Syrianchildren are labeled as HAq.t (TT 100) there is no depiction of men bringing themlike when they are labeled as jn.w. This is maybe one more argument suggesting


381

that the Syrian children depicted dressed, brought by men and labeled as jn.wrepresent an iconographic parallel to the practice of taking the children or brothersof foreign rulers to the Egyptian court.

The Nubian children are labeled as sqr-anx “war prisoners” in the tomb ofIneni (TT 81) or HAq.t “booty-spoils of war” in the tomb of Rekhmire (TT 100). Thechildren in the tomb of Iamunedjeh (TT 84) are labeled as jn.w but their depictionis not preserved. The children in the tombs of Huya and Merire II are labeled asjn.w but as the adult Nubian figures in these tombs are depicted as prisoners itshould not be doubted that the children are in this case also brought as prisoners(Davies 1905a: pl. XXXVII; id. 1905b: pl. XV). The Puntite children of mr.w workersare in Deir el-Bahari labeled as bjA.wt (Hallmann 2006: 213–214). Therefore, thesuggestion that the word ms.w is interchangeable with jn.w (Allam 1992: 13) can-not be accepted.

Some of the Syrian children depicted in the procession scenes are according tothe available evidence clearly different in status from the Nubian children. Thisdoes not mean that all Nubian children came to Egypt as sqr-anx or HAq.t, neitherdoes it mean that all Syrian children came to Egypt as jnw, but it does suggest thatthe procession scenes intended to present a clear binary opposition between thesetwo regions. Here it should also be added that no transference has been noticed,therefore this indicates a structured division between the north and the south. Thechoice of the term jnw for the children of the northern princes was certainly moreappropriate than sqr-anx or HAq.t if they were of different status from the other chil-dren who came as prisoners of war from the same region. The use of the term bAk.w

was probably avoided because it indicates a regular yearly tax income (Liverani2001: 177). Therefore, the term jnw as “that what is brought” as an irregular income(Liverani 2001: 177) was probably the only choice for these Syrian children.

It is of crucial importance to properly understand the context of these depic-tions. Namely, the registers in which foreigners are depicted bringing children arepart of the scenes depicting processions of foreigners at the Egyptian court. Theyare, at least in all tombs, depicted in the transverse hall, and therefore could havebeen seen. However, not everyone could have seen the processions with foreignersthemselves as the access to the palace was restricted (Gnirs 2009; cf. Matić 2012:244; Spence 2007). The objects brought by the emissaries are indeed not presentedat the Egyptian court as the ones who sent them wanted them to be. We are wellinformed about this in the Amarna letters. Namely, the king of Babylon, Kadaš-man-Enlil complained to the king of Egypt, Amenhotep III, and referring to himhe wrote (EA 1): “He put my chariots among the chariots of the mayors. You didnot review them separately.” The king of Egypt answered: “Whether the chariotswere here or there, the chariots needed the horses of my country-all were myhorses” (Moran 1992: 2). This was an ideologically structured social encounterwith a potential for the unexpected and unpredictable, but also for tension and


382

the exercise of power. The results of such a social encounter can often be unfore-seen and beyond the expectations and intentions of the involved individuals asthey could go against their intentions (Bhabha 1994; Fahlander 2007: 15–16; Cor-nell – Fahlander 2007: 1–4). That these unpredictable situations included not onlyobjects but also people is attested in the same letter which deals with the chariots(EA 1). Apparently, the Egyptian king asked for a daughter in marriage from theking of Babylon, who answered that his sister, already given to the Egyptian king,was not seen by anyone anymore. The Egyptian king asked the king of Babylonto send his own dignitary who knows his sister to identify her. He complainedhow instead the Babylonian king sent nobodies. The most intriguing however isthe part of the letter saying that the Babylonian messengers were brought in frontof the pharaoh’s wives gathered in his presence. They still could not recognizethe Babylonian princess, even though the pharaoh told them that their mistressstood before them. The Egyptian king replied that he would not have reasons topresent another woman even if the sister of the Babylonian king was dead (Moran1992: 1 2). One could of course argue that this dispute is embedded in a powergame being rather discursive. However, another rather later letter deals with moreor less the same problem, as the Hittite queen Puduhepa complained to RamessesII about the same issue quoting the problems the Babylonian emissary had whenhe wanted to see the princess of Babylon (Bryce 2003: 55; Zaccagnini 1973: 169).This actually demonstrates the problem of identifying something exchanged afterthe exchange itself has taken place, thus the same item of exchange can assumedifferent value depending on the status of the giver relative to the recipient (Feld-man 2006: 21). The emerging question is, if the children of different ethnicity, gen-der and status, and those who brought them, also found themselves in a “thirdspace” in some sense? Could their status have been deliberately changed in thecontext of the procession at the Egyptian court to materialize Egyptian ideologyand decorum as reflected in representations?

The Foreign Children as mr.wt of the Temple Estates

The inscription above the depiction of Syrian and Nubian children in the tomb ofRekhmire (TT 100) states that the children of the princes of the southern and north-ern lands are brought as the best of HAq.t to fill the Sna workshop as mr.wt of thetemple estate (Davies 1943a: 23). Indeed, there is a representation in the same tombof women with children within these workshops. Again, both Syrian and Nubianwomen with children are depicted but the depiction itself does not give us moreinformation on the character of their work but rather only labels them as mr.wt(Davies 1943b: pl. LVII). It can be supposed, however, that the character of theirwork was mostly agricultural as suggested by other attestations of mr.wt (Allam2004: 121–122; Moreno García 1998). The accompanying inscription also informsus that they are given textiles, ointment and clothes as yearly provision (Davies


383

1943b: pl. LVII). The children are however labeled as bAk.w here and it is not clearwhy, as Hallmann emphasized (Hallmann 2006: 186). However, this change in theterm applied to the children can be interpreted through the fact that once givento the temple, the ownership of them was changed. In view of the fact that theybelonged to the temple estates and worked for the temple, the choice of the termbAk.w seems appropriate (Bleiberg 1988: 159–164). Quite similarly the children inthe tomb of Ineni (TT 81) brought as jn.w are given by the king to the temple asannual Htr “income” (Dziobek 1992: 33). This clearly indicates that more than oneterm can be applied to the same children depending on the context.

What is indeed intriguing is the fact that the children are in the inscriptionabove the procession register named as both the children of wr.w and the best ofHAq.t (Davies 1943a: 23). Parallels can be found in the Coronation inscription ofThutmose III and in the Building inscription behind the Memnon Colossi. TheCoronation inscription of Thutmose III informs us that the king filled the templewith HAq.t of the southern and northern countries, consisting of the children of theprinces of RTn.w and Xntj-Hn-nfr (Urk. IV, 172: 6–8). Similarly in the Building in-scription behind the Memnon Colossi it is written that the storehouse of the tem-ple is filled with the children of the princes of all the countries under His Majesty.The temple is surrounded with settlements of Syrians and children of princes (Urk.IV, 1649). Allam suggested that the word ms.w should not be understood as anage group when mentioned in regard to the filling of the temple workshops, butrather as a group of people (1992: 4–5). However, the representations in the tombof Rekhmire are unambiguously showing children in these workshops togetherwith the adults.

Thus, the inscription in the tomb of Rekhmire is not an oddity. However, itcan be noticed that none of the Syrian children depicted in the tomb of Rekhmirewear long sleeved gowns as in the case of the tombs in which they are labeled as jn.w.

Conclusion

The analyses of the New Kingdom procession scenes with the depictions of chil-dren from fifteen tombs and three temples established the iconographic patternsbased on the bearers’ ascribed ethnicity, gender or status. The difference betweenthe children is firstly reflected in a greater variety of iconographic manners of rep-resentation for the Syrian men, women and children. Additionally, while the chil-dren are brought by both Syrian women and men, it is only the Nubian womenwho bring children, not men. Only the Syrian men bring children in long gownsand these children are male. There are, however, two exceptions in which dressedchildren are brought by women (TT 81; TT 42). Only the Syrian men have childrendepicted on the palms of their hands and these children are always depicted nude


384

and labeled as jn.w. There is a larger number of male children brought by Syriansthan by Nubians. The Syrian children are almost exclusively referred to as jn.wand Nubian children as sqr-anx or HAq.t. When the Nubian children are labeled asjn.w (Huya, Merire II), the context and other figures indicate they are neverthelessprisoners. When the children of Syrians are referred to as HAq.t, they are not de-picted in their gowns (TT 100). This allows us to suppose that the Syrian childrenbrought by men and referred to as jn.w (especially dressed male children and nudechildren on the palms of the Syrian princes) are an iconographic parallel to thechildren brought to the Egyptian court in order to later replace their fathers orbrothers as rulers. Some of the children definitely filled the temple workshops asmr.wt (TT 100) and these could also be the children of wr.w. The same group ofchildren can be referred to with different terms (changing from HAq.t to bAk.w inTT 100 or from jn.w to Htr in TT 81) depending on the context. It can be noticedthat in both attested cases the term was changed after the transaction between theking and the temple.

The comparison with textual attestations for the practice of foreigners bringingchildren to Egypt showed that although the practice was known already in theOld Kingdom and was not restricted to northern Syria, it resonated differently inthe procession scenes. Here it is quite clear that most of the depicted children areSyrian. Additionally, there is no parallel for a Syrian prince with a child in the reg-isters with Nubians bringing children. This should not be taken as an argumentsuggesting that the practice was not conducted in Nubia but rather that it was notconducted as often as in Syria. One possible explanation for this should perhapsbe sought in the different spatial and political organization of the two lands, withSyria consisting of mutually concurrent city states and Nubia being a concurrentkingdom in the south.

Bibliography

Allam, S.1992 “Kinder/Volksgruppe/Produkte/Abgaben.” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 19,

1–13.2004 “Une classe ouvrière: Les merit.” In La dépendance rurale dans l’Antiquité égyptienne

et proche-orientale, edited by B. Menu, 123–156. Bibliothèque d’étude 140. Le Caire:Institut français d’archéologie orientale.

Baxter, J. E.2005 The Archaeology of Childhood: Children, Gender, and Material Culture. Walnut Creek:

AltaMira Press.

Bhabha, H.1994 The Location of Culture. London – New York: Routledge.

Bleiberg, E.1988 “The Redistributive Economy in New Kingdom Egypt: An Examination of

BAkw(t).” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 25, 157–168.


385

1996 The Official Gift in Ancient Egypt. Norman – London: The University of OklahomaPress.

Bresciani, E.1997 “Foreigners.” In The Egyptians, edited by S. Donadoni, 221–253. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.

Bryce, T.2003 Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the

Late Bronze Age. London: Routledge.

Cornell, P. – Fahlander, F.2007 “Encounters – Materialities – Confrontations: An Introduction.” In Encounters –

Materialities – Confrontations. Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction, edited byP. Cornell, and F. Fahlander, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Cowie, P. J.2008 “Guaranteeing the Pax Aegyptiaca? Re-assessing the Role of Elite Offspring as

Wards and Hostages within the New Kingdom Egyptian Empire in the Levant.”Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology 19, 17–28.

Davies, No. de G.1905a The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part II, The Tombs of Panehesy and Meryra II. London:

Egypt Exploration Society.1905b The Rock Tombs of El Amarna. Part III, The Tombs of Huya and Ahmes. London:

Egypt Exploration Society.1930 The Tomb of K. en-amūn at Thebes. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.1933 The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmosě, and Another (Nos. 86, 112, 42, 226). Lon-

don: Egypt Exploration Society.1934 “Foreigners in the Tomb of Amenemh. ab (No. 85).” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

20, 189–192.1942 “Nubians in the Tomb of Amunedjeh.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 28, 50–52.1943a The Tomb of Rekh-mi-rē at Thebes. Volume I, Publications of the Metropolitan Mu-

seum of Art Egyptian Expedition XI. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.1943b The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Rē at Thebes. Volume II, Publications of the Metropolitan Mu-

seum of Art Egyptian Expedition XI. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Davies, Ni. de G.1926 The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the Reign of Tutcankhamūn (No. 40). London:

Egypt Exploration Society.1963 Scenes from Some Theban Tombs (Nos. 38, 66, 162, with Excerpts from 81). Private

Tombs at Thebes 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davies, No. de G. – Davies, Ni. de G.1923 The Tombs of Two Officials of Thutmosis the Fourth (Nos. 75 and 90). London: Egypt

Exploration Society.1941 “Syrians in the tomb of Amunedjeh. .” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 27, 96–98.

Davies, No. de G. – Faulkner, R. O.1947 “A Syrian Trading Venture to Egypt.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 33, 40–46.

Dziobek, E.1992 Das Grab des Ineni, Theben Nr. 81, Archäeologische Veröffentlichungen 68. Mainz

am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.


386

1994 Die Gräber des Vezirs User-Amun Theben Nr. 61 und 131, Archäologische Veröffent-lichnungen 84. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Dziobek, E. – Abdel Raziq, M.1990 Das Grab des Sobekhotep, Theben Nr. 63, Archäeologische Veröffentlichungen 71.

Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Erman, A. – Grapow, H.1971 Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. Erster Band. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Fahlander, F.2007 “Third Space Encounters: Hybridity, Mimicry and Interstitial Practice.” In En-

counters – Materialities – Confrontations. Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction,edited by P. Cornell, and F. Fahlander, 15–41. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.

2011 “Subaltern or Subadult? Children as Serial Categories” In (Re)Thinking the LittleAncestor: New Perspectives on the Archaeology of Infancy and Childhood, edited by M.Lally, and A. Moore, 14–23. BAR International Series 2271. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Feldman, M.2006 Diplomacy by Design: Luxury Arts and an “International Style” in the Ancient Near

East, 1400-1200 BCE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Feucht, E.1990a “Kinder fremder Völker in Ägypten I.” In Festschrift Jürgen von Beckerath. Zum

70. Geburtstag am 19. Februar 1990, edited by B. Schmitz, and A. Eggebrecht, 29–48.Hildesheimer Ägyptologische Beiträge 30. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg.

1990b “Kinder fremder Völker in Ägypten II.” Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur 17, 177–204.

1995 Das Kind im Alten Ägypten. Die Stellung des Kindes in Familie und Gesellschaft nachaltägyptischen Texten und Darstellungen. Frankfurt am Main – New York: CampusVerlag.

Gilchrist, R.2004 “Archaeology and the Life Course: A Time and Age for Gender.” In A Companion

to Social Archaeology, edited by L. Meskell, and R. W. Preucel, 142–160. Oxford:Blackwell.

Gnirs, A. M.2009 “In the King’s House: Audience and Reception at Court.” In 4th Symposium on

Egyptian Royal Ideology: Egyptian Royal Residences. Königtum, edited by R. Gundlach,and J. Taylor, 13–43. Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 4. Wiesbaden: Har-rassowitz.

Hallmann, S.2006 Die Tributszenen des Neuen Reiches, Ägypten und Altes Testament 66. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz.

Helck, W.1971 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Ägyptolo-

gische Abhandlugen 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hoffmeier, J. K.2004 “Aspects of Egyptian Foreign Policy in the 18th Dynasty in Western Asia and

Nubia.” In Egypt, Israel and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Studies in Honor of Don-ald. B. Redford., edited by G. N. Knoppers, and A. Hirsch, 121–141. Probleme derÄgyptologie 20. Leiden – Boston: Brill.


387

Janssen, R. – Janssen, J. J.1990 Growing Up in Ancient Egypt. London: Rubicon Press.

Kemp, B.1978 “Imperialism and Empire in New Kingdom Egypt (c. 1575-1087 B.C.).” In Impe-

rialism in the Ancient World, edited by P. D. A. Garnsey, and Charles R. Whittaker,7057. The Cambridge University Research Seminar in Ancient History. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Kitchen, K. A.1983 Ramesside Inscriptions. Historical and Biographical, vol. V. Oxford: Blackwell.

Liverani, M.2001 International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600-1100 BC. New York: Palgrave

MacMillan.

Lohwasser, A.2000 “Gibt es mehr als zwei Geschlechter? Zum Verhältnis von Gender und Alter.” In

Geschlechterforschung in der Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie, edited by AngelikaLohwasser, 33–41. Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 2. Lon-don: Golden House Publications.

Martin, G. T.1989 The Memphite Tomb of H. oremh. eb, Commander-in-chief of Tutcankhamūn. I. The Relief,

Inscriptions, and Commentary, Fifty-fifth Excavation Memoir. London: Egypt Explo-ration Society.

Matić, U.2012 “Out of the Word and out of the Picture? Keftiu and Materializations of ‘Mi-

noans’.” In Encountering Imagery. Materialities, Perceptions, Relations, edited by I.-M. Back Danielsson, F. Fahlander, and Y. Sjöstrand, 235–253. Stockholm Studiesin Archaeology 57. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.

2014 “Minoans, kftjw and the “islands in the Middle of wAD wr” beyond Ethnicity.”Ägypten und Levante 24, 275–292.

Müller, M.2011 “A View to a Kill: Egypt’s Grand Strategy in her Northern Empire.” In Egypt,

Canaan and Israel: History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature. Proceedings of a Confer-ence at the University of Haifa, 3-7 May 2009, edited by S. Bar, D. Kahn, and J. J. Shirley,236–251. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 52. Leiden – Boston: Brill.

Mond, R. – Myers, O. H.1940a Temples of Armant. A Preliminary Survey. The Text. London: Egypt Exploration

Society.1940b Temples of Armant. A Preliminary Survey. The Plates. London: Egypt Exploration

Society.

Moran, W. L.1992 The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Moreno García, J. C.1998 “La population mrt: Une approche du problème de la servitude dans l’Égypte

du IIIe millénaire.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 84, 71–83.

Panagiotopoulos, D.2006 “Foreigners in Egypt in the Time of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III.” In Thutmose


388

III: A New Biography, edited by E. H. Cline, and D. O’Connor, 370–412. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Poo, M.2005 Enemies of Civilization: Attitudes toward Foreigners in Ancient Mesopotamia and China.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Redford, D.1992 Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.2003 The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III, Culture and History of the Ancient

Near East 16. Leiden – Boston: Brill.

Ricke, H. – Hughes, G. R. – Wente, E. F.1967 The Beit el-Wali Temple of Ramesses II. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition 1.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Säve-Söderbergh, T.1957 Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs, Private Tombs at Thebes 1. Oxford: The Griffith

Institute.

Schäfer, H.1986 Principles of Egyptian Art, edited, with an epilogue by E. Brunner-Traut, translated

and edited, with an introduction by J. Baines. Oxford: Griffith Institute.

Sethe, K.1906 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Erster Band. Heft 1–4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichssche Buch-

handlung.1907 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Dritter Band, Heft 9–10. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichssche

Buchhandlung.1957 Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Heft 19. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

Smith, W. S.1962 “The Land of Punt.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 1, 59–61.

Sofaer Derevenski, J.2000 “Material Culture Shock: Confronting Expectations in the Material Culture of

Children.” In Children and Material Culture, edited by J. S. Derevenski, 3–16. London– New York: Routledge.

Spalinger, A.2005 War in Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell.

Spence, K.2007 “Court and Palace in Ancient Egypt: The Amarna Period and Later Eighteenth

Dynasty.” In The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies, edited by A. J.S. Spawforth, 267–328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wachsmann, S.1987 Aegeans in the Theban Tombs, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 20. Leuven: Peeters.

Wilkinson, T.2010 The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt. The History of a Civilization from 3000 BC to Cleopa-

tra. London: Bloomsbury.

Zaccagnini, C.1973 Lo scambio dei doni nel Vicino Oriente durante i secoli XV-XIII. Roma: Centro per le

antichità e la storia dell’arte del Vicino Oriente.


389


390

Matić, Uroš. 2015. Children on the move: ms.w wr.w in the New Kingdom procession scenes. In: There...

Documents

Transcript of Matić, Uroš. 2015. Children on the move: ms.w wr.w in the New Kingdom procession scenes. In: There...