Overseers of Upper Egypt in the Old to Middle Kingdoms, Part 1

ZÄS 140 (2013) / DOI 10.1524/zaes.2013.0009 91

EDWARD BROVARSKI

Overseers of Upper Egypt in the Old to Middle Kingdoms

Part 1

Hierzu Tafel XV–XVI

In memoriam Wolfgang Helck

In 1985 I committed to writing a contributionto the “Lexikon der Ägyptologie” on the “Over-seers of Upper Egypt”. Much to my regret, thepressure of other work forced me to informProfessor Helck that I would be unable to keepmy commitment. Subsequently Professor Helckcontributed a pithy contribution on the subjectto the Lexikon, but did not include a list ofholders of the title1. In partial expiation, thepresent article endeavors to provide a list of theholders of the title from the Old to MiddleKingdoms.

Introduction of Office and Scope

Klaus Baer supported Kees in his belief that·|õµ{uu (32) was the oldest known holder of thetitle in the reign of Izezi2. If Strudwick is correctin his dating of the vizier ¥AY (41) to the reign ofNiuserre, the distinction may belong to thatindividual, however3. It would then be Niuserre

1 LÄ 6, 1986, cols. 1076–1077.2 K. Baer , Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom

(Chicago, 1960), 274.3 N. Strudwick , The Administration of Egypt in

the Old Kingdom (London, 1985), 142 (136). N. Ka-nawat i , Governmental Reforms in Old KingdomEgypt (Warminster, 1980), 14, dates ¥AY and ·|õµ{uu tothe middle and end of N[[Y’s reign respectively. Baer ,Rank and Title, 138, 294 [505] places ¥AY in the latereign of Izezi or early Unis.

who introduced the office of overseer of UpperEgypt, not Izezi.

Baer believed that it was the concentration oftitles from all the important branches of thelocal administration in the hands of certain indi-viduals by the beginning of the Fifth Dynastythat brought about the creation of the office ofYh\õwA µh|n

4. This observation would presum-ably hold true even if ¥AY was the first holder ofthe title “overseer of Upper Egypt” rather than·|õµ{uu.

Émilie Martinet has suggested that the titleYh\õwA µh|n served to give structure to an areathat had been neglected by the kings of theFourth Dynasty who were more invested in thedevelopment of the Delta than Upper Egypt5.One wonders if the apparent inbalance is notactually the result of the limited nature of theevidence surviving from the Fourth Dynasty,since only A�sõ|A, ³}, and ½³wõ|{w'�, provide uswith our knowledge of the provincial admini-stration of that time6. Then too, it should beremembered that the treasury official N[Y wasuµhõsA u{Ans µh|n in the middle to late Fourth

4 Baer , Rank and Title, 281.5 E. Mart inet , Le Nomarque sous l’Ancien Em-

pire (Paris, 2011), 175.6 For the monuments of these three individuals, see

ibid., 15 [1], 18 [3], 20 [4]. Chr. Zieg ler , Catalogues desstèles, peintures et reliefs égyptiens de l’Ancien Empireet de la Première Période Intermédiaire (Paris, 1990),98, actually dates A�sõ|A to the late Third Dynasty.

92 E. Brovarsk i : Overseers of Upper Egypt ZÄS 140 (2013)

Dynasty7, a title that certainly expresses interestin the Upper Egyptian nomes at an early date8.

Kees pointed out that the earlier holders ofthe title Yh\õwA µh|n (like ¥AY and ·|õµ{uu) at theend of the Fifth Dynasty were buried at theResidence and were connected with the centraladministration9. Presumably, they resided in thecapital as well. Two of these individuals underKing Unis, A�sõ«s{ (1) and »s«õ«s{ [II]: ¯�Y (19),early and late in the reign respectively, were vi-ziers. By contrast, ®}Yuõ|}� (10) was not a vizierbut rather a “king’s son”.

If Kanawati’s dating of Chõ }n of Akhmim(33) to the early part of the reign of Unis is ac-cepted, this individual would be the earliestholder of the office of Yh\õwA µh|n outside thecapital10. But another 60 years or so would haveintervened before the posting of ®}Y the Elder(8) as overseer of Upper Egypt to Abydos in thereign of Merenre. Perhaps Kanawati’s originaldating of Chõ }n to the reign of Teti11 wouldbetter fit the picture, since it was apparently thatsovereign who reorganized “the administrationof the southernmost part of Upper Egypt byplacing the entire administration (for the firsttime officially) in the hands of one person”12.That person was, of course, N[Y of Edfu, whowas appointed «w\õs{ |A } u{As of Upper Egyptnome 213. Even so, some 50 years would stillhave had to elapse before ®}Y the Elder suc-ceeded to the office of overseer of Upper Egypt.

7 W. Barta , Die altägyptische Opferliste, (MÄS 3;Berlin, 1963), 44–45; Strudwick , Administration, 65(17).

8 Svetlana Hodjash and Oleg Berlev gather togetherthe monuents of N[Y in S. Hodjash, O. Ber lev , Egyp-tian Reliefs and Stelae in the Pushkin Museum of FineArts, Moscow (Leningrad, 1982), 22–37.

9 Cf. H. Kees , “Beiträge zur altägyptischen Provin-zialverwaltung und der Geschichte des Feudalismus: 1,Oberägypten”, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft derWissenschaften zu Göttingen. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, N. F.I, No. 12 (1932), 88.

10 N. Kanawat i , Akhmim in the Old Kingdom,Part 1 (Sydney, 1992), 34.

11 N. Kanawat i , The Rock Tombs of El-Hawa-wish 7 (Sydney, 1987), 8–10.

12 Baer , Rank and Title, 297.13 See E. Edel , “Inschriften des Alten Reichs I. Die

Biographie des Gaufürsten von Edfu, §[k”, ZÄS 79(1954), 11–17.

Perhaps the appointment of Chõ }n should beseen as an isolated experiment.

In the reign of Teti, three overseers of UpperEgypt served in that capacity at the capital. Twoof these, ½�wõuµhõ·|: ÞuY (30bis) and ¥Aõ�h'}ý'Yû: hY (43) were viziers. The other, ½\õjAnõN[[Y(27, 28), who as �«As\õ|, uhw n|s\~, �shs\õ�Ys\, Yh\õwA µh|n, is the addressee of a decree of King Tetifor the temple of Khentyamentiu at Abydos,was not14. In fact ¥Aõ�h'}ý'Yû was also Yh\õwAµh|n sAõh«n, “overseer of Upper Egypt and theDelta”, and Yh\õwA } sA wõÛw'�, “overseer of theentire land”. Kanawati remarks that these titlesalong with �Yh\õwA~ n{s h sA wõÛw'� show ¥Aõ�h'}ý'Yû’s authority over the whole country. Healso comments that it is curious that such acommonly assumed position of the vizier is notregularly expressed15.

For the long reign of Pepy I, only two over-seers of Upper Egypt are seemingly attested.Both are viziers. The first is «n (24), whoserved in office in the early or middle reign ofPepy II and was buried in the Unis PyramidCemetery at Saqqara. The other is N}nõ }n (3),who perhaps followed «n around the middleof the reign and owned a small tomb in themastaba field to the north of Teti’s pyramid. Inaddition, there is »{\õu}� (17), known from astele from the Middle Necropolis at Abydos,who, on account of his name, must belong tothe reign of Pepy I or later.

14 H. Goedicke , Königliche Dokumente aus demAlten Reich, (ÄA 14; Wiesbaden, 1967), 37–40, fig. 3;T. G. H. James , Hieroglyphic Texts from EgyptianStelae etc., Part 1, 2nd edition (London, 1961), pl. 31(hereafter HTES I2); see also, N. C. Strudwick , Textsfrom the Pyramid Age, (Writings from the AncientWorld 16; Atlanta, 2005), 102–103.

15 Kanawat i , Governmental Reforms, 25. It maybe noted that Nµ³Y in the late Sixth Dynasty is Yh\õwA u{Ans �oA~õh«n; Et. Dr ioton and J. Ph. Lauer , “Ungroupe des tombes à Saqqarah: Iche°Y, Nefer-khouou-ptah, Sebek-em-khent et Ânkhi”, ASAE 55 (1958), 226,pl. 19. On the date of the tomb, see E. Brovarsk i ,“False Doors & history: the Sixth Dynasty”, in M.Bárta (ed.), The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology,Proceedings of the Conference, Prague, May 31–June 4,2004 (Prague, 2006), 110–111. Even earlier, in theFourth Dynasty, the treasury official N[Y wasunµnýæû h u{Ans oAõh«n; see note 8.

ZÄS 140 (2013) E. Brovarsk i : Overseers of Upper Egypt 93

Under King Merenre, the Yh\õwA µh|n ®}Y theElder (8) had authority in U. E. nomes 1–22. Itis difficult to know if ®}Y was the only overseerof Upper Egypt to serve Merenre. This hesi-tancy pertains to dating difficulties. For example,Baer on the basis of his system of title sequencesand Harpur on stylistic grounds date »{\õ|}�:=nY (14) of Sharuna between Merenre and earlyPepy II, while Kanawati dates the same individ-ual more closely to Merenre16. Similarly, Baerand Harpur date ®Yn: N\n (7) at Sheikh Said tothe same time span as »{\õ|}�: =nY, but Ka-nawati assigns him to the latter part of the reignof Pepy II.17 Then again, Baer determines ½\õ|}�õ{{\: C{Y jh (26) of Meir belongs to the pe-riod between Merenre and Year 15 of Pepy II,whereas Harpur assigns him to Years 1–34 ofPepy II, and Kanawati thinks he belongs to themiddle to late reign of Pepy II18.

Fischer thought by the reign of Pepy II thatthe title of “overseer of Upper Egypt” had cometo be held almost exclusively by nomarchs19. It istrue that many nomarchs held that title duringPepy’s reign (infra). Nevertheless, we now knowthat the vizier ·|õnw (31) was probably Yh\õwAµh|n in the early part of the reign, while thevizier ½�õjAnõCw: N�n (30) in all likelihood heldthe same office in the second quarter of thereign, and the vizier »wõµ}|\ (18), known fromhis tomb at South Saqqara, had the title in themiddle or second half of the reign of Pepy II. Tothe second half of the reign of Pepy II probablyalso belongs the vizier and overseer of UpperEgypt wwY (23), proprietor of a small tomb onthe north of the court of the Ptahhetep complex

16 Ibid., 52–53.17 Ibid., 89.18 Baer , Rank and Title, 84, 291 [212]; Y. Harpur ,

Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom(London and New York, 1987), 280; N. Kanawat i ,“Chronology of the Old Kingdom Nobles of El-QusiyaRevisited”, in Z. A. Hawass , P. Der Manuel ian ,and R. B. Husse in (eds.), Perspectives on AncientEgypt: Studies in Honor of Edward Brovarski (CASAE40; Cairo, 2010), 217.

19 H. G. Fischer , Dendera in the Third MilleniumB.C. (Locust Valley, New York, 1968), 94, with theexception of »wõµ}|\ (18).

at Saqqara20. In terms of the provincial viziers,both »{\õ|}� Cw\õY� (12) at Meir in MiddleEgypt, and his presumed successor, »{\õ|}�: C}Yjh (13), were likewise “overseers of UpperEgypt”. Although not nomarchs, they were headof the priesthood of the important temple ofHathor, mistress of Cusae.

Another vizier who was Yh\õwA µh|n probablyin the early reign of Pepy II (but not nomarch) isN�Y (4), whose tomb stone, CG 1577, was foundat Abydos. Kees, Helck, and Baer21 maintainedthe identity of the owner of CG 1577 with thevizier N�Y, who appears in the original decorationof the funerary temple of Pepy II22 in the secondquarter of the latter’s reign23. Notwithstanding,the names of the two viziers are spelled differ-ently. The name of the N�Y in Pepy’s funerarytemple is written with the ideogram of a seatedchild with hand to mouth, whereas CG 1577 hasthe ear ideogram, and thus probably belongs to adifferent individual24.

The question is whether N�Y of CG 1577 pre-ceeded or succeeded the other vizier N�Y in of-fice. There is little evidence in favor of eitheralternative. Nevertheless, the owner of CG 1577is u«Û «hnõ}³w of the pyramid of Pepy II, andStrudwick points out that the title of “inspectorof priests” of a royal pyramid is not commonafter the middle of the Sixth Dynasty, but is

20 wwY is dated by both Strudwick (Administra-tion, 99 [67]) and Harpur (Decoration, 274) fromMerenre to early Pepy II. The fact that his false doorpanel shows the figure of the deceased unaccompaniedby service furniture or cult vessels argues for a date inthe second half of the reign of Pepy II (Brovarsk i , inOld Kingdom Art and Archaeology, 114ff., pace ibid.,102.

21 H. Kees , “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Veziratsim Alten Reiche”, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft derWissenschaften zu Göttingen. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, N. F.IV, No. 2 (1940), 39–54; W. Helck , Untersuchungenzu den Beamtentiteln des ägyptischen Alten Reiches(ÄF 18; Glückstadt, 1954), 141; Baer , Rank and Title,61 [73A].

22 G. Jéquier , Le monument funéraire de Pepi II,vol. 2, (Cairo, 1938), pl. 48.

23 Strudwick , Administration, 63–65.24 H. G. Fischer , “A Provincial Statue of the

Egyptian Sixth Dynasty”, AJA 66 (1962), 67, points outthat the name N�Y with the ear determinative means“one who is hard of hearing”.


replaced in titularies of viziers, particularly theprovincial ones, by Yh\õwA }Yns ýhwû

25. The ownerof CG 1577 is both u«Û «hnõ}³w }õ|}�õ½�wjAw|and Yh\õwA }Yns ýhwû and thus belongs to a transi-tional period between the two usages. He istherefore apparently earlier than the viziers ofthe latter half of Pepy II’s reign, such as ½�wõuµhõ�µAs: =}n, Prince osY, and w\w|õYAh, who are Yh\õwA }Yns ýhwû

26. For that reason he may belong tothe early reign of Pepy II and have preceededthe vizier N�Y shown in Pepy II’s funerary templein office.

An Yh\õwA µh|n who was neither vizier ornomarch is the =nY (36) who follows directlyupon the vizier N�Y and an overseer of tenants-farmers whose name is damaged in a relief onthe walls of the the antechamber to the sanctu-ary of Pepy II’s mortuary temple. =nY in his turnis followed by the overseer of all works Nh{\

27.The overseer of Upper Egypt was thus third inimportance in the hierarchy of officialdom ofthe kingdom in the second quarter of the reignof Pepy II28.

Strudwick believes that the =nY depicted inthe antechamber to the sanctuary of Pepy II’smortuary temple is identical with the like-namedindividual of Coptos B (37) dating to w}{s �s [{55 of Pepy II29. Odds are that both of these in-dividuals are the same as the proprietor of asmall mud-brick tomb with limestone fittings inthe Teti Pyramid Cemetery at Saqqara (38).

The nomarchs who were also “overseers ofUpper Egypt” in the reign of Pepy II resided atEdfu (21), Dendera (5), El-Qasr wa Es-Saiyad(6, 44), Akhmim (42), Deir el-Gebrawi (2, 45,46), and Sheikh Said (22), in other words inU. E. nomes 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 15. This includes w\w|ý»{\ûõ}�w: TAw of Edfu (21) who received

25 Administration, 318.26 Ibid., Table 29.27 Nh{\ was evidently a son of the overseer of all

works of the king Nekhebu known from his lengthyautobiography found at Giza; see E. Brovarsk i , TheSenedjemib Complex, Part 1 (Giza Mastabas 7; Boston,2001), 33–34.

28 For the date of the various phases of Pepy II’smortuary temple, see Strudwick , Administration, 64–65.

29 Ibid., 64, n. 3

his first provincial appointment under Merenrewhen he was sent south to the second nome ofUpper Egypt as “sole companion, great overlordof the nome, overseer of Upper Egyptian grain,and overseer of priests”30. The title of overseerof Upper Egypt is not amongst the titles thatQar received from Merenre, and Kanawati be-lieves he was not promoted to Yh\õwA µh|n untilthe first part of the reign of Pepy II31. Similarly,¥Aõ«{: ¯sY (42), who was appointed by Pepy I tobe head of the priesthood (uhA }n) of the localtemple of Min at Akhmim, was promoted to“great overlord” at the end of Merenre’s reign orearly in that of Pepy II32, and subsequently wasraised to the dignity of Yh\õwA µh|n, presumablyby the latter sovereign.

It is necessary to briefly discuss the identifica-tion of N�n (6), son of the great overlord of thenome and overseer of Upper Egypt ¯AnsY (44) atEl-Qasr wa Es-Saiyad. The assumption is gener-ally made that ¯AnsY of tomb T 73 was the fatherof N�n: �}}Y of tomb T 6633. On the south wallof ¯AnsY’s tomb ;[A'� uhun hw\�'� «As\õ|, Yh\õwAµh|n, N�n, “his ;beloved eldest son�, the countand overseer of Upper Egypt N�n” is depicted34.On the north wall of the same tomb, he occurstwice among the offering bearers, once with thename destroyed, and once with the name dam-aged N��' ' ' ~

35. In the first instance, he is entitled[A'� uhun «yA «ns uhw n|s\. In the second he is[A'� uhun uhw n|s\ ]w\õ«�s. In his own tomb, N�nsometimes has the by-name �}}Y

36, but he is

30 Kanawat i , Governmental Reforms, 50.31 Ibid., 64.32 A. McFar lane , “The First Nomarch at Akhmim:

The Identification of a Sixth Dynasty BiographicalInscription”, GM 100 (1987), 63–72; N. Kanawat i ,The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish 3 (Sydney, 1982), 14;idem, Akhmim in the Old Kingdom 1, 98–102.

33 T. Säve-Söderbergh, The Old KingdomCemetery at Hamra Dom (El-Qasr wa Es-Saiyad)(Stockholm, 1994), 20.

34 K. R. Leps ius , Denkmaeler aus Aegypten undAethiopien, Text 2 (Leipzig, 1902), 179; P. Montet ,“Les tombeaux dits de Kasr-el-Sayad”, Kêmi 6 (1935),108; Säve-Söderbergh, Hamra Dom, pp. 20–21,pl. 14

35 Ibid., pp. 20, 47, 48; pls. 19, 22.36 Ibid., pls. 6, 7, 8.


elsewhere referred to simply as N�n37. T 66 is

badly damaged and it is possible that the titleYh\õwA µh|n appeared elsewhere on its walls. Forthe time being, we assume that N�n of T 73 isindeed identical with the N�n: �}}Y of T 66.

On the basis of his system of title sequences,Baer was uncertain whether N�n: �}}Y belongedto the period between Merenre and year 15 ofPepy II or years 55–85 of the latter38. Taking thedecoration of his tomb into account, Harpuropts for the later period39. If ¯AnsY indeed passedaway around year 54 of the reign of Pepy II onthe basis of the decoration of his burial cham-ber40, this too would argue for the later date forN�n: �}}Y.

wn: á�Y (22) at Sheikh Said in U. E. nome 15was not a nomarch («w\õs{ |A). Still he may beconsidered a provincial governor, since he borethe older type of titles assigned to such41. He wasalso awarded the office of “overseer of UpperEgypt”. Baer dated him to Years 35–55 of PepyII and Harpur similarly42.

Cwõ�n'� (34) and �A�}Y I (40) at Aswan inU. E. nome 1 were once again not nomarchs,but rather caravan leaders and overseers of for-eign lands. They nevertheless were appointedYh\õwA µh|n, not only because they controlledthe resources of foreign trade, but probablybecause they represented the crown in this dis-tant part of southern Upper Egypt.

Honorary or Actual Character of the Office

Due to the multiple holders of the title “over-seer of Upper Egypt” in the Sixth Dynasty, andin particular in the reign of Pepy II, Breasted,

37 Ibid., pls. 6, 9.38 Rank and Title, pp. 63, 288 [83].39 Decoration, p. 281.40 See E. Brovarsk i , “The late Old Kingdom at

South Saqqara”, in L. Panta lacc i and C. Berger-e l -Naggar (eds.), Des Néferkarê aux Montouhotep,(TMO 40; Lyon, 2005), 42.

41 For the difference between the older and newertypes of provincial titles, see e.g., Baer , Rank and Title,275; Fischer , Dendera, 9–10; Kanawat i , Govern-mental Reforms, 51, 72, and passim.

42 Baer , Rank and Title, 81, 290 [182]; Harpur ,Decoration, 280.

Kees, Stock, and Helck all thought that the titlewas honorary by this time43. Goedicke refutedthis viewpoint, observing that the Coptos de-crees of the time of Pepy II and later confirmthe reality of the authority of the Yh\õwA µh|n aswell as the continued functioning of the admini-stration of Upper Egypt. In particular, he ob-serves that ÞhAY (68–71) and his son N�Y (52–54)in the Eighth Dynasty were appointed as over-seers of Upper Egypt on the same day in thereign of King Neferkauhor, the former havingjurisdiction over all 22 nomes of Upper Egypt,and the latter in Upper Egyptian nomes 1–7,subordinate to his father44.

Fischer has remarked that the “number ofOverseers of Upper Egypt known at this periodmake it probable that many of them had controlof far less than the entire southern half of thecountry”45. He examines this question in light ofGoedicke’s 1956 article, which deals with thetitle Yh\õwA µh|n and the s{õµh|n in the OldKingdom. Comparing the circumstances of ÞhAYand N�Y in Dynasty VIII with the case of »{\õ|}�Cw\õY� at Meir (12), who calls himself “overseerof Upper Egypt in the Middle Nomes” in years35–55 of Pepy II, Goedicke reasons that therewere four coexistent Yh\õwA µh|n at any onetime, one having control of all Upper Egypt, thethree others subordinate to him and controllingthe southern, middle, and northern thirds of thesame territory46.

Fischer finds this theory “extremely attrac-tive”, although the evidence advanced in favorof it admits the possibility that a nomarch hold-ing the title of overseer of Upper Egypt couldhave jurisdication over a still smaller region,which might even be limited to his own prov-ince”. Fischer adds that this would not meanthat the title was honorific, but only that “it wasmore limited in geographical scope”.

43 J. H. Breasted , A History of Egypt (New York,1937), 138; H. Stock , Die Erste Zwischenzeit Ägyp-tens (AnOr 31; Rome, 1949), 4; Kees , Provinzialver-waltung 1, 92; Helck , Beamtentitel, 110.

44 H. Goedicke , “Zu Yh\õwA µh| und s{õµh| im Al-ten Reich”, MIO 4 (1956), 1–10.

45 Fischer , Dendera, 94.46 Goedicke , MIO 4 (1956), 7–10; Fischer , Den-

dera, 94.


In fact, given Pepy II’s very long reign of atleast 62/63 census years47 or 90 plus years ac-cording to a broken figure in the Turin Canon48,something in the nature of fifteen overseers ofUpper Egypt during that span of time is perhapsnot overly excessive. If our temporal estimatescan be relied on, an interesting fact emergesregarding the five Yh\õwA µh|n who apparentlyserved in office during years 35–55 of Pepy II,for example. N�n [I] of Dendera (5) had thatposition in U. E. nome 6, while ¯AnsY of El Qasrwa Es-Saiyad (44) held it in U. E. nome 7, andØ|n of Deir el-Gebrawi (45) was Yh\õwA µh|n inU. E. nome 8 (and 12). If they really were closelycontemporary and did not occupy the officeindependently for a few years each during thattwenty year span, their authority would havebeen restricted to one nome apiece (except Ø|n).Similarly, »{\õ|}� Cw\õY� at Meir (12), if he reallydoes belong to the middle of Pepy II’s reign,was overseer of Upper Egypt in U. E. nome 14,while wn: á�Y of Sheikh Said (22) held the sameoffice in neighboring nome 15. Indeed, wn: á�Ymay have worked under the supervision of »{\õ|}� Cw\õY�, since the latter was “overseer of Up-per Egypt in the middle nomes”. The evidenceappears to indicate that the title Yh\õwA µh|n hadlost something of its original high status, but thisdoes not necessarily mean that it had completelylost its functional significance. The nomarchs,other provincial ministers, and overseers ofpriests may still have collected taxes and madethe required levy for corvée service in the dis-tricts under their control (infra).

Subdivisions of Upper Egypt

Recognizing that the “middle nomes of Up-per Egypt” are found in the titles of officials atHammamiya (U. E. 10), Meir (U. E. 14), andSheikh Said (U. E. 15), Kees thought U. E.

47 M. Baud, in E. Hornung, R. Krauss , andD. A. Warburton (eds.), Ancient Egyption Chronol-ogy, (HdO 1.83; Leiden and Boston, 2006), 152–153,156.

48 A. Gardiner , Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford,1961), 436.

nomes 10–15 belonged to this region49. Pre-sumably, the corresponding southern area there-fore would have consisted of U. E. nomes 1–9and his northern area of U. E. nomes 16–22. Bycontrast, Goedicke located the southern of histhree sections between U. E. nomes 1–7, themiddle of his sections between U. E. nomes8–15, and the northern one between U. E.nomes 16–2250.

Baer too found evidence for a triple divisionof Upper Egypt into three areas based on theevolution of the titles of provincial governors; asouthernmost one; a central district; and anorthern one. His border lines were in each caseone nome further south than Goedicke’s.51 Hethus concluded that the southern region com-prised U. E. nomes 1–6, the middle one U. E.nomes 7–14, and the northern one of U. E.nomes 15–2252.

Fischer concurred with Kees’ reasoningabout the extent of the “middle nomes”, butsupposed that the Ninth Nome was also in-cluded53. He also makes reference to the title of aSixth Dynasty nomarch of Zawiyet el-Meitin,½\õ|}�õ»{\, Yh\õwA n{s h u{Ans Ï, “overseer ofcommissions in 9 nomes”54. To Fischer, thisgroup of nomes apparently represents the por-tion of Upper Egypt north of the “middlenomes”, thus U. E. nomes 16–22. He excludesU. E. 15 from the nine nomes under ½\õ|}�õ»{\’s jurisdiction, since it had its own governorsfrom Dynasty V onwards, but he counts theFayum and the “Goat District” to its south toreach the total of nine nomes. He is uncertainwhether the area south of the “middle nomes”included the Thinite nome (U. E. nome 8),which was associated with the central admini-stration to an exceptional degree and which

49 Kees , Provinzialverwaltung, 101.50 MIO 4 (1956), 9–10.51 Baer , Rank and Title, 284–285.52 Kanawat i , Governmental Reforms, 68.53 Fischer , Dendera, 65–66.54 K. R. Leps ius , Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und

Aethiopien (Berlin, 1849–1859), Abtheilung 2, pl. 111 dand i.


represented a secondary seat of the Memphiteadministration55.

Unlike these other scholars, Kanawati (in1980) argued that even though there existed agroup of provinces that the Egyptian referred toas the “middle nomes”, these did not constitutea well-defined administrative section. Rather heconsidered nomes 10–20 an economically im-portant area56. His arguments are too detailed tosummarize here. At any rate, it seems he had tosome extent changed his mind in his 1981 publi-cation of the rock-cut tomb of Þ{uõ{nõ }n: ?}õ|}�ýnû: ?}Y (67) at El-Hawawish, the necropolisof Akhmim. This individual bore the title Yh\õwAµh|n h u{Ans h«ss, “overseer of Upper Egypt inthe northern provinces”. Kanawati though itonly logical to expect the “northern provinces”were located north of the “middle provinces”,which means that ?}Y was overseer of UpperEgypt only in nomes 21 and 22, perhaps in addi-tion to his own nome, U. E. 957. He remarksfurther that it is curious that ?}Y, who was re-sponsible for the economic management of arelatively small area in the northern part of Up-per Egypt, was located (or at least buried) be-tween the middle and northern sections of thispart of the country. However, the situation ofthe Deir el-Gebrawi nomarchs of late DynastyVI, who were responsible as great overlords forthe Thinite nome as well as U. E. nome 12,seems roughly comparable58.

Þ{uõ{nõ }n: ?}õ|}�ýnû: ?}Y is dated by Ka-nawati to the end of the reign of Pepy II59,whereas Harpur assigns him to the period span-ning late Dyn. VI to Dynasty VIII60. Given thatfive or six nomarchs or overseers of priests in alllikelihood succeeded him in office beginning in

55 Dendera, 67; see also H. G. Fischer , “Four Pro-vincial Administrators at the Memphite Cemeteries”,JAOS 74 (1954), 32.

56 Governmental Reforms, 3ff.57 N. Kanawat i , The Rock Tombs of El-

Hawawish, vol. 2 (Sydney, 1981), 7–8.58 On the Gebrawi nomarchs, see Fischer , JAOS

74 (1954), 33; E. Brovarsk i , The Inscribed Material ofthe First Intermediate Period from Naga-ed-Dêr, PhDThesis, University of Chicago (UMI Dissertation Ser-vice, 1989), 124–125.

59 Kanawat i , Akhmim 1, 127–132.60 Decoration, 281.

the early reign of Pepy II, it is likely that ?}Ybelongs to the end of the Old Kingdom andpossibly even the early Heracleopolitan Period(Dyn. IX)61.

Reign of Pepy II

Before proceeding to a discussion of theoverseers of Upper Egypt in the First Interme-diate Period mention should be made of onesuch individual who possibly still belongs to thereign of Pepy II. While two features of his falsedoor point to that conclusion62, it is not clear towhich period of Pepy’s long reign that he be-longs. This is C[\ (35), the proprietor of a smallmud brick mastaba northwest of King Teti’spyramid at Saqqara.

Another individual who may have servedPepy II is the «As\õ|, Yh\õwA µh|n ½�ý'Yûõhõnu�s(29). ½�ý'Yûõhõnu�s’s false door possesses a sup-plementary frame consisting of a lintel and twojambs outside the cavetto cornice and the falsedoor proper63. The earliest datable false doorwith the supplementary frame belongs to w\w|õYAh, who apparently worked for Pepy II as vizierat the end of the first half of his reign. Otherexamples of the supplementary frame belong tothe end of Pepy’s reign or immediately follow-ing64. Another feature of import for dating is thetable scene which is confined to the seated fig-ure of ½�ý'Yûõhõnu�s at table of bread and a sin-gle ewer and basin. This disposition of the tablescene begins seemingly in the early part of thereign of Pepy II. The datable examples of thescheme all appear to belong to the long reign ofPepy II65.

61 See Appendix.62 See Brovarsk i , in Old Kingdom Art and Ar-

chaeology, 104.63 I would like to express my thanks to Drs. Vincent

Razanajao, Francisco Bosch-Puche, and ElizabethFleming of the Topographical Bibliography for infor-mation about the false door as well as a schematic draw-ing of its layout by Dr. Bosch-Puche.

64 Brovarsk i , in Old Kingdom Art and Archae-ology, 109–111.

65 Ibid., 89–94.


In the case of the overseer of Upper Egypt w\õ}hs\ (20), who was buried in the Pepy IIcemetery at South Saqqara, a lack of offeringformulas or other diagnostic criteria render itdifficult to know whether he actually belongs toPepy II’s reign or to Dyns. VI–VIII, as othersof the individuals known from the cemeterydo66.

Responsibilities of the Overseersof Upper Egypt

As overseer of Upper Egypt in its entirety,®}Y claims to have acted for Merenre “in a satis-factory manner, so that no man did harm to hisfellow; carrying out every task; assessing every-thing which was assessed for the Residence inthis Upper Egypt on two occasions and everyregular duty which was assessed for the Resi-dence in this Upper Egypt on two occasions;performing the office of a magistrate so as tomake my reputation in this Upper Egypt”67.

From ®}Y’s statement it is clear that the mainresponsibilities of the bearers of the title Yh\õwAµh|n were in the sphere of tax collection andfinancial management68. This written evidence isreinforced by pictorial testimony in the tombchapel of »{\õ|}� Cw\õY� (12) who is shown“making the tax (Yws Ywn) of cattle and goats ofthe Middle Nomes”69. Similarly »{\õ|}�: C}Y jh(13) oversees in his chapel the “making the taxconsisting of oxen and small cattle”70. However,in the latter’s case this seems to have been in hiscapacity of overseer of priests, and the samemay have been true of »{\õ|}� Cw\õY�. In theinstance of Ø|n (45) of Deir el-Gebrawi, he is

66 On the chronology of the cemetery, see Brovar-sk i , in Des Néferkarê aux Monotuhotep, 31–71.

67 Cf. Strudwick , Texts from the Pyramid Age,355–356; E. Doret , The Narrative Verbal System ofOld and Middle Egyptian, (Cahiers d’Orientalisme 12;Geneva, 1986), 53; Kanawat i , Governmental Re-forms, 54, 56.

68 Kanawat i , Governmental Reforms, 71.69 A. M. Blackman, The Rock Tombs of Meir,

Part IV (ASE 25; London, 1924), pl. 16; Fischer ,Dendera, 95.

70 A. M. Blackman and M. R. Apted , The RockTombs of Meir, Part V (ASE 28; London, 1953), pl. 32.

specifically identified as overseer of UpperEgypt as he views the “census (³}ns) of cattle”71.Another responsibility of the overseer of UpperEgypt was to issue the order for corvée servicewith the lists of men to be levied; the nomarchsand other officials, such as the greatest of theUpper Egyptian tens, overseers of phyles, andso on then made the required levy in the districtsunder their control72.

Status of Abydos

Abydos was clearly the vantage point fromwhich ®}Y the Elder (8) oversaw the affairs ofthe 22 nomes of Upper Egypt. Several monu-ments of other Sixth Dynasty overseers of Up-per Egypt were found at Abydos. These includea stele from the Middle Necropolis belonging to»{\õu}� (17), who may have served Pepy I or alater sovereign of Dyn. VI, another stele of anN�Y (4), who served in that capacity probably inthe early reign of Pepy II, an inscribed blockfrom the northern enclosure of the Kom es-Sultan commemorating ®ÛAY (11), who maybelong to the first half of the reign of Pepy II,and the false door and a side piece from a niche-chapel of »{\õ}�s (15, 16), who held office at theend of the reign of Pepy II or later. None ofthese constitute absolute evidence that Abydoswas the seat of the principle overseer of UpperEgypt, for it is possible that the fame ofKhentyamentiu led officials to erect cenotaphsat Abydos as they later did at the “terrace” ofOsiris’s temple73.

We do know that an overseer of Upper Egyptwas resident at Abydos in the later NinthDynasty, for Ankhtify of Moalla caused the“council of the overseer of Upper Egypt who isin the Thinite nome”, to visit Moalla in order to

71 N. de G. Davies , The Rock Tombs of Deir el-Gebrâwi, Part 2 (ASE 12; London, 1902), pl. 9.

72 Fischer , Dendera, 95; cf. E. Mart in-Pardey ,Untersuchungen zur ägyptischen Provinzialverwaltungbis zum Ende des Alten Reiches (HÄB 1; Hildesheim,1976), 154–159.

73 W. K. Simpson, The Terrace of the Great Godat Abydos (PPYE 5; New Haven and Philadelphia,1974).


consult about a matter which concerned hispredecessor Cs{

74. Fischer also believed that|�õY«n (55), who likewise belongs to the NinthDynasty, was overseer of Upper Egypt at Aby-dos because of the precedence given to theThinite nome emblem before the other twonomes he governed75. If the fragments of a falsedoor found by Petrie under the Osiris temple atAbydos (82) indeed belong to the same timespan, there is additional evidence for the pres-ence of a resident overseer of Upper Egypt atAbydos in the Ninth Dynasty.

First Intermediate Period

It is unfortunately not possible to date anumber of overseers of Upper Egypt moreclosely than the late Old Kingdom, that is, fromthe end of Pepy II’s long reign to the end ofDyn. VIII.

Starting at Aswan, there is �A�}Y II (65), sonof »{\õ}�s: CyAõY�. Baer dates »{\õ}�s: CyAõY� tothe period extending from year 85 of Pepy II tothe end of the Eighth Dynasty76. »{\õ}�s’s son�A�}Y II presumably belongs at not too differenta period from his father. Harpur’s findings onstylistical and iconographic grounds agree withBaer’s conclusions as to the date of these indi-viduals77. On account of the restlessness andrevolt in Nubia recounted in a biographical textin »{\õ}�s’s tomb and his office at Pepy II’spyramid, Edel dates him to the end of the longreign of Pepy II78. If �A�}Y I (40) indeed belongsto the last generation of that king’s reign, how-ever, that would place both �A�}Y II and his fa-ther, »{\õ}�s: CyAõY�, in Dyn. VII–VIII.

Proceeding northwards, at Thebes thenomarch ®}Yuõ|}� (56) was likewise Yh\õwA Þh|n.

74 Vandier , Mo|alla, II, δ, 1.75 Fischer , Dendera, 202.76 Baer , Rank and Title, p. 289 [136].77 Decoration, p. 282. Cf. the chronological chart set

out in E. Edel , Die Felsgräbernekropole der Qubbetel-Hawa bei Aswan, Part 1, vol. 3 (Paderborn, 2008),1796.

78 E. Edel , Die Felsgräbernekropole der Qubbetel-Hawa bei Aswan, Part 1, vol. 2 (Paderborn, 2008),698.

Fischer thinks that the date of the three OldKingdom tombs of the nomarchs N«\, his son=}s\, and ®}Yuõ|}� (56) at Thebes are probablyno earlier in date than the second half of theSixth Dynasty79. In fact, the representation of abox under the couch of =}s\ and his wife is anindication of a date no earlier than the first partof the reign of Pepy II for his tomb. With theexception of a parallel in the tomb of N�Y at Deirel-Gebrawi, which probably belongs to the firstthird of Pepy II’s long reign, other examples of abox (or a box and mirror) under the owner’schair are not well-dated. Even so, none are de-monstrably earlier than the occurrence in N�Y’stomb and some may well postdate the SixthDynasty80. In both the tombs of =}s\ and ®}Yuõ|}� the presence of a table scene in which themore usual gueridon with tall loaves of bread isreplaced by a low, rectangular offering tableheaped with foodstuffs suggests a date at theend of the Sixth Dynasty or later for bothtombs81. That ®}Yuõ|}� may be a near contempo-rary of the nomarch ½\õY�õ}uns: á�Y at Denderais suggested by the occurrence in both tombs ofw}'� |A before the name of the owner, while else-where during this period in Upper Egypt themonuments introduce the owner’s name withw}'� }�w

82. If so, this would make the tomb of®}Yuõ|}� the last of the three Old Kingdomtombs at Thebes, not the first as Saleh suggestedon the basis of his basilophoric name. The im-

79 H. G. Fischer , review of Three Old-KingdomTombs at Thebes, by M. Saleh , in BiOr 36, no. 1/2,January-March 1979, 30–31.

80 M. Saleh, Three Old-Kingdom Tombs at Thebes(AV 14; Mainz am Rhein, 1977), pl. 8; see Harpur ,Decoration, 219; E. Brovarsk i , “A Second Style inEgyptian Relief of the Old Kingdom”, in S. E.Thompson and P. Der Manuel ian (eds.), in Egyptand Beyond: Essays Presented to Leonard H. Leskoupon His Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyp-tology at Brown University, June 2005 (Providence, RI,2008), 76.

81 See E. Brovarsk i , “An Unpublished Stele of theFirst Intermediate Period in the Oriental Institute Mu-seum”, JNES 32 (1973), 459 and n. 22. On ibid., 461,the provenance of Louvre C. 198 was inadvertentlygiven as Naga ed-Deir, when Abydos was actually in-tended.

82 Fischer , Dendera, 76, 117.


plication is that ®}Yuõ|}� belongs to the end ofthe Sixth Dynasty after the death of Pepy II.

A small false door from Abydos preserves thename and titulary of the vizier and overseer ofUpper Egypt N�Y (50). Palaeographic and stylisticconsiderations assign his false door, CG 1457, tothe end of the reign of Pepy II or a little later83.

The overseer of Upper Egypt ½\õ«�õu�õ»{\(59) is known from the stele of his father, thevizier N�Y, which was found in the Middle Ne-cropolis at Abydos, CG 1575. If he is identicalwith the vizier ½\õ«�õu�õ½�wjAw|, as Baer sug-gests84, he may date from year 85 of Pepy II tothe end of the Eighth Dynasty85. On account ofthe decoration of the ½\õ«�õu�õ½�wjAw|’s burialchamber, the present writer has suggested itdates to the end of the reign of Pepy II or toDyn. VII86. The fact that, in his burial chamberand on his false door, ½\õ«�õu�õ½�wjAw| lacks thetitle Yh\õwA µh|n

87, need not negate the identifica-tion, especially as the time frame is about right,since N�Y himself appears to belong to the sec-ond quarter of Pepy II’s reign88.

The presence of a supplementary frame con-sisting of a lintel and two jambs outside the ca-vetto cornice and the false door proper evidentin the false door of the the Overseer of UpperEgypt, ��jõ«s{ (66) (Taf. XV), indicates a datefor the latter no earlier than the end of the firsthalf of the reign of Pepy II89. The same is true ofthe lone ewer and basin that sits at the foot of

83 See Fischer , AJA 66 (1962), 67, n. 22;E. Brovarsk i , “Abydos in the Old Kingdom and FirstIntermediate Period, Part II”, in D. P. S i lverman(ed.), For His Ka: Essays Offered in Memory of KlausBaer (SAOC 55; Chicago, 1994), 34–39; idem, in OldKingdom Art and Archaeology, 96.

84 Rank and Title, 86, 291 [229A].85 Ibid., 291.86 Brovarsk i , in Des Néferkarê aux Montouhotep,

49.87 G. Jéquier , Monument funéraire de Pepi II,

vol. 3 (Cairo, 1940), 56–60, figs. 59, 60.88 Baer , Rank and Title, 61, 288 [73A];

Strudwick , Administration, 63 (16).89 Brovarsk i , in Old Kingdom Art and Archae-

ology, 99–110. I would like to express my appreciationto Mme. Guillemette Andreu, Directrice du departe-ment des Antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Louvrefor a photograph of the false door and permission toillustrate it herein.

the offering table of the deceased90. An epi-graphic feature of importance is the suppressionof the falcon-sign in the writing of Khentyamen-tiu. At Abydos this suppression occurs in twofalse doors that belong to the end of the reign ofPepy II or a little later and a stele which can“hardly be any earlier than the last years of theSixth Dynasty, and may very well belong to theEighth”91. Henry Fischer has in fact suggestedthat Louvre C 28 probably derives from Aby-dos92.

Erected within the enclosure wall of themastaba of the vizier wwõnýYûõjAý'Yû, the smalltomb of the overseer of Upper Egypt ¥Aõ}õ}�'�:=}n (72) consists of a false door, two side-pieces, and a lintel. Firth believed =}n was a sonof wwõnýYûõjAý'Yû who inserted his figure in thewell-known scene of wwõnýYûõjAý'Yû painting theseasons93. Baer rejected the identification andinstead thought =}n belonged to the late OldKingdom94. Perhaps this was on account of thetitle string ]w\õs{ }uns Yh\õwA µh|n, which alsooccurs with the overseer of Upper Egypt ®}Yuõ|}� (56)95. Like ®}Yuõ|}�, too, =}n is Yh\õwAµ}ns\. =}n’s false door is fragmentary and thediagnostic table scene missing, but the presenceof four jambs (rather than six jambs) may indi-cate a date in the second half of the reign ofPepy II or later96.

Coptos decree I, addressed by an unknownking of Dynasty VIII to the Yh\õwA }Yns, sA\s\ [A�³As\, Yh\õwA µh|n, Yh\õwA «hnõ}sw, uhA }n ÞhAY

90 Ibid., 89–93.91 H. G. Fischer , “The Cult and Nome of the

Goddess Bat”, JARCE 1 (1962), 10.92 H. G. Fischer , “A Parental Link between two

Thinite Stelae of the Heracleopolitan Period,” BES 9(1987/1988), 15.

93 C. M. Fir th and B. Gunn, Teti Pyramid Ceme-teries, 2 vols. (Cairo, 1926), 27, 38, pl. 17 D.

94 Rank and Title, 145, 294 [533].95 Saleh, Three Old-Kingdom Tombs, figs. 3–4. It

should be noted that the same pair of titles are attestedfor the much earlier overseer of Upper Egypt »s«õ«s{�¦¦~: ¯�Y (19), who probably belonged to the reign ofUnis; see R. F. E. Paget and A. A. Pir ie with com-ments by F. Ll. Gr i f f i th , The Tomb of Ptah-hetep(London, 1989), pl. 35 and, for the date, Baer , Rankand Title, 75, 290 [161]; Harpur , Decoration, 274.

96 Brovarsk i , in Old Kingdom Art and Archae-ology, 99–100.


(71) placed the latter in charge of the twenty-twonomes of Upper Egypt97. Subsequently, In thereign of the penultimate ruler of Dynasty VIII,King Neferkauhor, the scribes of fields of theDenderite, Coptite, Disopolite, Thinite, andPanopolite nomes (U. E. 5–9) were ordered tocooperate with the vizier and overseer of UpperEgypt ÞhAY in assigning fields in Upper Egyptiannomes 5–9 to a new religious foundation atCoptos98.

In 1956 Labib Habachi discovered the falsedoor of Princess ½�s of the Eighth Dynasty,wife of the vizier ÞhAY, at Kom el-Kuffar, abouta kilometer to the south of the main ruins ofQift99. Some twenty years later, between 1979and 1982, Rabia Hamdan, Inspector of Antiqui-ties at Qena, excavated the tomb more com-pletely and found that the edifice belonged toboth ½�s and ÞhAY

100. Subsequently, four inscrip-tions carved on a wall of the corridor leading tothe offering room of the tomb were publishedand translated by Maha F. Mostafa101. In addi-tion, in December 2001, the Qift Regional Ex-pedition uncovered three limestone steles whileclearing the eastern part of the mastaba’s north

97 Goedicke , Königliche Dokumente, 172–177,fig. 18. W. C. Hayes , “Royal Decrees from the Templeof Min at Coptos”, JEA 32 (1946), 20, believes thedecree was issued by the immediate predecessor of ½�wõjAnõCw, Goedicke to the latter ruler.

98 Goedicke , Königliche Dokumente, 163–171,fig. 17 (Coptos L).

99 L. Habachi , “The Tomb of the Princess Nebt ofthe VIIIth Dynasty discovered at Qift”, SAK 19 (1983),205–213; see now E. Brovarsk i , “False Doors andHistory: The First Intermediate Period and MiddleKingdom,” in D. P. S i lverman, W. K. Simpson, andJ. Wegner (eds.), Archaism and Innovation: Studies inthe Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt (New Havenand Philadelphia, 2009), 359–362, figs. 1–2.

100 Mr. Hamdan very kindly showed me photo-graphs of the tomb in 1982, shortly after its discovery.

101 M. F. Mostafa , “Erster Vorbericht über einenErsten Zwischenzeit Text aus Kom El-Koffar”, ASAE70 (1984–1985), 419–429; idem, “Kom el-Koffar.Teil II: Datierung und Historische Interpretation desTextes B”, ASAE 71 (1987), 169–184; idem, “TheAutobiography ‘A’ and a Related Text (Block 52) fromthe Tomb of Shemai at Kom el-Koffar/Qift”, inK. Daoud, S. Bedier , and S. Abd el -Fat tah , Stud-ies in Honor of Ali Radwan, vol. 2 (CASAE 34; Cairo,2005), 161–195. The publication of the tomb is con-fided to Dr. Mostafa.

face102. In Text B from the tomb, ÞhAY is ad-dressed as Yw\õ{|s, «As\õ|, uhw n|s\, ]w\õ«�ýsû, Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w, uhA }n, but not vizier or overseerof Upper Egypt (70). On one of the steles, how-ever, he is Yw\õ{|s, «As\õ|, Yh\õwA µh|n, Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w. Exept for the last title, this is the same dig-nity that ÞhAY is known by on a basalt statue basein the Brooklyn Museum (69). It seems likelythat the ÞhA;Y� mentioned in the Elephantinearchive (68) represents the vizier ÞhAY at an ear-lier stage of his career103, when he still was «As\õ|,Yh\õwA µh|n and before he was promoted to Yw\õ{|s, «As\õ|, Yh\õwA µh|n and ultimately to vizier.

Coptos M and O constitute decrees of KingNeferkauhor naming N�Y (53) overseer of UpperEgypt in U. E. nomes 1–7 subordinate to hisfather, the Vizier and Overseer of Upper EgyptÞhAY, who has overall authority over all thenomes of the South, as we have already seen. Inthe two decrees, N�Y is addressed as «As\õ|, �shs\õ�Ys\, Yh\õwA µh|n. N�Y was elevated to the vizier-ate as Ys }³w, hw\ }³w, Yw\õ{As, uÛs\ }un, Yh\õwA }Yns,sA\s\ [A� ³As\, uhA }n presumably at the death ofhis father by Neferkauhor’s successor, KingNeferirkare II104.

It seems likely that ÞhAY and N�Y were theprincipal representatives of the central admini-stration in southern Upper Egypt. Yet Text B atKom el-Kuffar, dedicated by N�Y after his fa-ther’s death, suggests that the influence ÞhAYexerted over the affairs of the kingdom in theSouthland did not go unresented105. At the veryleast it is clear from the inscription that ÞhAY’stomb and statues (and those of his ancestors aswell) were damaged and were restored after hisdeath by his son N�Y, who also took vengeanceon the perpetrators. It is probably against this

102 G. P. Gi lber t , “Three recently excavated funer-ary Stelae from the Eighth Dynasty Tomb of Shemaiat Kom el-Momamien, Qift”, JEA 90 (2004), 73–79,figs. 2–7.

103 As suggested by H. Goedicke , “Zur Chronolo-gie der sogenannten ‘Ersten Zwischenzeit’”, ZDMG112 (1963), 248, n. 41.

104 Hayes , JEA 32 (1946), 21; see Goedicke ,Königliche Dokumente, fig. 28 (Coptos R); Mostafa ,in Studies in Honor of Ali Radwan 2, 171–172.

105 Mostafa , ASAE 70 (1984–1985), 419–429,pls. 1–2.


background that Coptos decree R, issued by theHorus �hÛõY�õsAn\ on N�Y’s own behalf is to beunderstood106. In the address N�Y is now vizier,and the text of the decree threatens with annihi-lation and eternal damnation “all the men of thisentire land” who shall destroy his statues, steles,ka-chapels, woodwork(?) or other monumentswhich are located in any offering-place or tem-ple whatsoever107.

The titulary by which N�Y is addressed on aninscribed dagger blade in the Metropolitan Mu-seum of Art (52), Ys }³w, hw\ }³w, Yw\õ{|s, «As\õ|,�shs\õ�Ys\, Yh\õwA µh|n, Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w, wouldrepresent an intermediate stage in the career ofN�Y, since he bears the title Yh\õwA µh|n, but isnot yet vizier (Taf. XVI)108.

The Metropolitan dagger blade is closelyparalleled by two dagger blades from Komel-Dara109. On archaeological grounds Seidl-mayer comes to the conclusion that the proprie-tor of Kom Dara, a certain King =nY, was acontemporary of ®A«õ|}� Intef II, a local poten-tate whose attempt to found a dynasty inde-pendent of Heracleopolis and Thebes ended infailure110. Elsewhere the present writer hasargued that King =nY was one of the short-lived predecessors of King Merikare in earlyDyn. X111.

N�Y’s name in the Coptos degrees, in Text B atKom el-Kuffar, and on the Metropolitan daggerblade is determined with the sign of the child

106 Goedicke , Königliche Dokumente, pp. 214–225, fig. 28.

107 For this reconstruction of events, see E. Bro-varsk i , Naga-ed-Deir in the First Intermediate Period,Chapter 2 (forthcoming).

108 I would like to express my appreciation toDr. Diana Craig Patch, Associate Curator-in-Charge,Department of Egyptian Art, Metropolitan Museum ofArt, for permission to publish the object here, andDr. Marsha Hill, Curator in the same department, forproviding a photograph of the dagger.

109 École du Caire (IFAO) and Musée du Louvre,Un siècle de fouilles françaises en Égypte 1880–1980,exhibition catalogue Paris, 21 May–15 October 1981,cat. nos. 95, 96.

110 S. J. Se id lmayer , Gräberfelder aus dem Über-gang vom Alten zum Mittleren Reich, (SAGA 1; Hei-delberg, 1990), 351–352, 402–403, 405, 414.

111 Naga-ed-Deir in the First Intermediate Period,Chapter 2 (forthcoming).

sitting with hand to mouth. A different N�Y (51),determined with the ear, is known from abronze collar terminal found in tomb T 8 atEl-Qasr wa Es-Saiyad. Taking into account thehonorifics Ys }³w, hw\ }³w, Yw\õ{|s, which proceedhis title of Yh\õwA µh|n, it is likely that this N�Ybelongs to Dyn. VIII or the early Heracleopoli-tan Period; cf. (52, 54, 57, 71, 75–78).

We have already stated our belief that the«As\õ|, uhw n|s\, Yh\õwA µh|n; Yh\õwA µh|n h u{Ans;Yh\õwA µh|n h u{Ans h«ss Þ{uõ{nõ }n: ?}Y:?}ýYûõ|}�n (67) belongs to late Dyn. VIII oreven the early Heracleopolitan Period. Regretta-bly, there is no way of knowing the relationshiphe or the N�Y of El-Qasr wa Es-Saiyad (51) hadwith ÞhAY and N�Y of Coptos.

Another «As\õ|, Yh\õwA µh|n of this period whowas buried in rock-cut tomb No. 39 at Deir el-Gebrawi is E}yn: ?ssY (61). Davies initially datedthe tombs in the northern cliff at Deirel-Gebrawi, where ?ssY’s tomb is located, to thelast reign of the Fifth Dynasty and the first tworeigns of the Sixth Dynasty, largely on the basisof the personal names that occur in the tombs112.Kanawati’s arguments are wider ranging, but hesimilarly dates these tombs to the first half ofthe Sixth Dynasty113. Chõ·|: N[Y in particular heassigns to the end of King Teti’s reign and theearly reign of Pepy I114. However, because of oneiconographic feature in particular, this can notbe the case. Beaneath the chair or couch onwhich Chõ·| and his wife are seated rests awooden box115. The presence of boxes under thechair of the tomb owner are good indications ofa date in the reign of Pepy II or later (supra).Thus, Chõ·|’s tomb must be at least as late.That being the case, he must postdate the SixthDynasty nomarchs buried at Deir el-Gebrawi,who served in that capacity from the reign ofMerenre to the end of the long reign of PepyII116. As a result Chõ·| and his brother, E}yn:

112 Deir el-Gebrâwi 2, 38–40.113 Deir el-Gebrawi 1, 12–20.114 Ibid., 20.115 Davies , Deir el-Gebrâwi 2, pl. 17; N. Ka-

nawat i , Deir el-Gebrawi, vol. 1 (Australian Centre forEgyptology: Reports 23; Oxford, 2005), pl. 46.

116 See Brovarsk i , Naga-ed-Deir in the First In-termediate Period, Chapter 4 (forthcoming).


NYõ�u}næ~'� cannot be earlier in date than the endof the Sixth Dynasty. Archaeologically, E}yn:?ssY’s tomb is later than the tombs of the twobrothers. He may have decorated it at the end ofthe Old Kingdom; on the other hand, the tombcould belong to the early Heracleopolitan Period(Dynasty IX).

At Deir el-Bersheh in the Hare Nome (U. E.15), four nomarchs held the office of overseerof Upper Egypt in the late Old Kingdom andthe first two generations of the HeracleopolitanPeriod (Dyn. IX). The earliest of these is prob-ably the «As\õ|, Yh\õwA µh|n; «As\õ|, �w{ }us\, Yh\õwAµh|n N«A (48). Although no sepulcher is as yetknown for him at Bersheh, N«A left a number ofrestoration texts in the Old Kingdom tombs ofthe governors of the Hare nome at Sheikh Saidas well as a graffito in the Hatnub alabasterquarries. N«A was “great overlord of the Harenome” and “overseer of priests of Thoth, lordof Hermopolis” in addition. He apparentlyserved in office during much of Dynasty VI–VIII, since the graffito at Hatnub is dated to hisYear 31117.

N«A was succeeded in office by the overseerof Upper Egypt and great overlord of the HareNome =nn (62) whose tomb was discoveredby Osiris Ghobrial in the village square of Deirel-Bersheh in 1972118. Iconographic and struc-tural similarities point to a date for his false doorat least as early as the time of the nomarch|«Aõ}�s I, who himself governed the Hare Nomeat the end of the reign of ®A«õ|}� Intef II orunder ½�sõ}�õs{õ}�w Intef III119. =nn’s son, the«As\õ|, �w{ }us\, Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w, Yh\õwA µh|n, «w\õ

117 See ibid., Chapter 2.118 H. S. K. Bakry , “Recent Discoveries of Pharao-

nic Antiquities in Cairo and Neighbourhood”, RSO 46(1971), 7–8, pl. 5; H. Wi l lems, Dayr al-Barsha, vol. 1(OLA 155; Leuven, 2007), 15, 196–108; E. Brovar-sk i , “The Hare and Oryx in the First IntermediatePeriod and Early Middle Kingdom”, in A. Woods ,A. McFar lane , and S. Binder (eds.), Egyptian Cul-ture and Society: Studies in Honour of NaguibKanawati, vol. 1 (CASAE 38; Cairo, 2010), 52, n. 132;see also E. Brovarsk i , “A phantom debate?”, inE. Bechtold , A. Gulyás , and A. Hasznos (eds),From Illahun to Djeme: papers presented in honor ofUlrich Luft (Oxford, 2011), 25–30.

119 Brovarsk i , ibid., 52, 67–68 and passim.

s{ |A } ®}s, Ø«ns\õ}�s (80), left a graffito in theHatnub alabaster quarries with a damaged car-touche that probably contained a throne namefollowed by the personal name ;?��s~\

120. If thecartouche belonged to the first King Khety ofDyn. IX, =nn’s son Ø«ns\õ}�s would be hiscontemporary, and his father =nn then wouldhave belonged the last generation of Dyn. VIIIand succeeded N«A in office. They may both haveserved under the vizier and overseer of UpperEgypt ÞhAY (68–71).

The next governor of the Hare nome was the«As\õ|, �w{ }us\, Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w, Yh\õwA µh|n, «w\õs{ |A } ®}s, Ø«ns\õ}�s uA Ø«ns\õ}�s (81). In an-other graffito at Hatnub, he is associated withthe Heracleopolitan sovereign w\õY�õ·| Khety,probably the second ruler of Dyn. IX121.

Contemporary with Ø«ns\õ}�s uA Ø«ns\õ}�s inthe far South was the king’s eldest son ®uw (57).On his basalt false door from Khozam in theCoptite nome ®uw is Ys }³w, hw\ }³w, Yw\õ{|s, «As\õ|,Yh\õwA µh|n. He is Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w, Yh\õwA �Auns,Yh\õwA �Auns YA�ss Yh}ss, «w\õs{ |A } áAn\ as well.Fischer wondered why ®uw elected to reside atthe southern extremity of the province he gov-erned as “great overlord”, rather than residing atCoptos itself. He concluded that ®uw belongedto the Heracleopolitan house and was stationedat a strategic point between Coptos and Thebesin order to break the alliance |}�'s\'�\ of Moallarepelled122. A slight modification of Fischer’stheory concerning the Coptite-Theban alliancewould also fit the available evidence. To whit, itwas ®uw who initially forged the alliance be-tween the nomes, whether by diplomacy orforce of arms123.

Fischer also thinks that a red granite offeringslab in the Cairo Museum which names anYw\õ{|s, «As\õ|, Yh\õwA µh|n ®uw (58) belongs to theowner of the basalt false door.

120 See recently Brovarsk i , Naga-ed-Deir in theFirst Intermediate Period, Chapter 2 (forthcoming).

121 Ibid.122 H. G. Fischer , Inscriptions from the Coptite

Nome (AnOr 40; Rome, 1964), 42–43.123 Brovarsk i , Naga-ed-Deir in the First Inter-

mediate Period, Chapter 2 (forthcoming).


®uw’s successor at Khozam was probably theYw\õ{|s, «As\õ|, Yh\õwA µh|n ¯AnsY (74), whose falsedoor also derives from that site. ¯AnsY was not aking’s son, but Fischer nevertheless believed itunlikely that ¯AnsY, who shared ®uw’s location atKhozam, would have acknowledged a ruler of adynasty which the latter opposed124.

A graffito discovered in recent years by Deb-orah and John Darnell may provide further sup-port for this version of events125. The inscriptionis carved on a rock face at the Wadi el-Hôl, deepin the desert, in the middle of the Luxor-Farshûtroad, specifically at Gebel Qarn el-Gir. In thegraffito the overseer of Upper Egypt ¯AnsYõY�yw~states: “I [have] made this for crossing this ge-bel, which the ruler of another nome had closed,(I) fought with [his] nome”126. There is littledoubt that this ¯AnsYõY�yw~ is identical with theowner of the Khozam false door. As the Dar-nells observe, that other ruler was presumablyone of the Intef nomarchs of Thebes, who per-haps planned to make use of a track descendingfrom the central route in the neighborhood ofNaqada to outflank ¯AnsY at Khozam127.

An overseer of Upper Egypt named ¯AnsYõYywleft three graffiti in the Wadi Hammamat (75–77), where he is identified as Ys }³w, hw\ }³w, Yw\õ{|s, ]w\õ«�ýsû, uhw n|s\, Yh\õwA µh|n, Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w }n. The identity of the ¯AnsY of Khozamand ¯AnsYõYyw of the graffiti seems likely to thepresent writer. Darnell accepts the identificationof the Khozam ruler ¯AnsY (74) with the like-named individual of the Gebel Qarn el-Gir graf-fito (78), but rejects the identification of thesetwo persons with the ¯AnsYõYyw of the Ham-mamat graffiti128. He is not alone in the rejectionof the Khozam ruler with the last129, although

124 Coptite Nome, 42–43.125 See J. C. Darnel l and D. Darnel l , Theban

Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert,vol. 1 (OIP 119; Chicago, 2002), 30–37, pls. 7c, 19–25.

126 Although the beginning of the text is damaged,¯AnsY’s titulary appears to have been given as �Ys }³w~,hw\ �}³w~, Yw\õ{|s, Yh\õwA µh|n.

127 See Darnel l , Theban Desert Road Survey 1,fig. 1a.

128 Ibid., 34.129 See Kees , Provinzialverwaltung, 110. As

Darnel l , Theban Desert Road Survey 1, 34, n. 136,observes, Kanawati both considers the identification as

Mostafa thinks the identification tenable130.Darnell points out that the Khozam ¯AnsY doesnot have the title “god’s father”, but he couldwell have acquired the high ranking honorificafter his false door was carved.

A red granite offering slab in the Cairo Mu-seum belongs to an Yw\õ{|s, «As\õ|; Yh\õwA µh|n owY(73). The style and proportions of the «s{-signand the two basins of the offering slab are veryclose to those of an offering slab from Khozamthat Fischer thinks belongs with the false doorof the overseer of Upper Egypt, ¯AnsY (74) fromthe same site131. owY is thus liable to be a closecontemporary of ¯AnsY’s. Unfortunately, theoffering slab is without provenance, and littlemore can be said about owY.

In “Dendera in the Third Millennium B. C.”,Fischer published the false door of the triplenomarch and Yh\õwA µh|n ýhA|û |�õY«n (55), whogoverned the Thinite and Denderite nomes to-gether with the intervening province of U. E.7132. Fischer inferred from the precedence givento the Thinite emblem in |�õY«n’s titulary thatU. E. 8 was not a secondary acquisition, but wasthe territory that the nomarch originally occu-pied before he went to Dendera, where his falsedoor was found in 1905133. The possibility thathe was overseer of Upper Egypt at Abydos isreinforced by the fact that the name |�õY«n is nototherwise known at Dendera, although it occurs

“likely” (Governmental Reforms, 117–118; Akhmim 1,167–169) and “uncertain” (ibid., 286–287). H. G.Fischer , “A New Sixth Dynasty Inscription fromNaqada”, in C. Berger , G. Clerc , and N. Grimal(eds.), Hommages à Jean Leclant, Vol. 1 (BdÉ 106/1,Cairo, 1994), 188, n. 27, does not reject the identifica-tion of the Khozam ¯AnsY with the ruler of the Ham-mamat graffito, as Darnel l , Theban Desert RoadSurvey 1, 34, n. 136, seems to imply. He only disagreeswith Mostafa’s dating of the Khozam ¯AnsY to DynastyVIII.

130 ASAE 71 (1987), 169–184.131 Coptite Nome, 49, no. 15, pl. 14, right. See now,

A. Moret , rev. and ed, by Dia Abou-Ghazi , Denk-mäler des Alten Reiches III, fasc. 1, Cairo CatalogueGeneral (Cairo, 1980), 25, with figure and plate.

132 Fischer , Dendera, pp. 195ff., esp. pp. 203–205,fig. 40, pl. 24. For this and what follows, see Brovar-sk i , Naga-ed-Deir in the First Intermediate Period,Appendix D (forthcoming).

133 Ibid., 202.


at about the same period in the cemeteries atAbydos and Thinis134. Thus, |�õY«n may havebeen a native Thinite.

The structure of the false door of |�õY«n issomewhat more conspicuously late than that ofthe high official }õ|}�õ»{\/ }Y at Dendera,although it follows the same basic pattern, thedistinctive feature being the extension of thecrossbar so that it bisects the entire stele135. Thefalse doors of }Y and |�õY«n and the monu-ments of the |�õY«n Group at Dendera combinetraditional features with certain details sugges-tive of the Heracleopolitan Period136. In a carefuland reasoned study, Fischer dates }Y to theHeracleopolitan Period137. Fischer finds, in addi-tion, a number of palaeographic indicationswhich link the monuments of the |�õY«n Groupwith the false door of the Coptite nomarch®uw

138 and the stele of the Theban nomarch N}õYs'� (CG 20009)139. He concludes that |�õY«n musthave had his false door inscribed before N}õYs'� |Aadopted the title “great overlord of UpperEgypt” and imposed his authority on Denderatogether with, in all probability, all the nomessouth of it140. In other words, |�õY«n in all like-lihood belonged to the third generation ofDyn. IX. According to Fischer, |�õY«n’s move toDendera may have been motivated by his desire,as effective overseer of Upper Egypt, to keep

134 Fischer , Dendera, 202 and n. 802. Fischer’s ref-erences are to CG 1609 and the Devonshire stele of½�s\ (H. W. Mül ler , “Die Totendenksteine des Mitt-leren Reiches, ihre Genesis, ihre Darstellungen undihre Komposition”, MDAIK 4 (1933), 187, fig. 11;G. B. Deakin , “Two Egyptian Stelae in the Devon-shire Collection”, Transactions of the Hunter Archaeo-logical Society 10 (1971), 63–65, 67; M. Lichtheim,Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Mid-dle Kingdom (OBO 84; Freiburg and Göttingen, 1988),no. 26). No examples earlier than the one under discus-sion are given. One of Ankhtify’s daughters was named|�õY«n (J. Vandier , Mocalla (BdÉ 18 Cairo, 1950), 259),but she could have been named after the triplenomarch.

135 Fischer , Dendera, pp. 86, 196.136 Ibid., 85–91, 196–214, for the |�õY«n Group, see

ibid., p. 185, n. 88.137 Fischer , Dendera, 85–91.138 CG 1442: Fischer , Coptite Nome, no. 13.139 Fischer , Dendera, 199–201.140 Ibid., 129 and n. 571; 203.

closer surveillance over the discord that hadbeen brewing in southern Upper Egypt since theend of the Eighth Dynasty141.

|�õY«n is seemingly not the only Heracleopoli-tan Period overseer of Upper Egypt whoclaimed Abydos as his seat. Although the title“[over]seer of Upper Egypt” is incompletelypreserved on one fragment of an anonymousfalse door found by Petrie beneath the Eigh-teenth Dynasty temple of Osiris at Abydos, it isalmost certainly to be restored. For a variety ofreasons, the false door, which belonged toNN, born of N� (82), probably belongs to thelast/fourth generation of Dyn. IX142.

Thus, it is likely that overseers of UpperEgypt had their seats at Abydos in the earlyHeracleopolitan Period, and it is to this periodthat Ankhtify and his predecessor Cs{, who con-ferred with the “council of the overseer of Up-per Egypt who is in the Thinite nome”143, are tobe assigned. The nature of Ankhtify’s relationswith the Thinite nome are not readily apparent.He perhaps caused the council to come to con-sult under duress since, in a preceeding sentence,he says: “If I set (sail) to the Thinite nomeagainst him who knows not his own self, I findit (with) lookouts upon the walls”144. It seemsfair to conclude that the ramparts were mannedagainst him and his army. On another occasion,however, he nourished the Thinite nome withhis Upper Egyptian grain145. It is impossible toknow, but interesting to speculate, whether aperceived threat from Ankhtify caused |�õY«n toremove himself northwards to the Denderitenome. He may thus have been the unnamed“overseer of Upper Egypt” whose council Ankh-tify forced(?) to visit Moalla.

Edel thought he saw the sedge(?)-sign follow-ing Yh\õwA and proceeding the personal name�NY~õhõ«s{ (47) on a painted pillar in the tomb ofthe “overseer of foreign lands” and “overseer ofthe phyles of Upper Egypt”, NYõÞhA/�sõjA at

141 Ibid., 202.142 Brovarsk i , Naga-ed-Deir in the First Inter-

mediate Period, Chapter 10 (forthcoming).143 Vandier , Mocalla, II, d, 1.144 Ibid., II, b, 3-II, g, 1.145 Ibid., IV, 15.


Aswan. The title is twice given without query,but is hardly visible in the published figures andplate. NYõÞhA/�sõjA was a contemporary of Ankh-tify of Moalla146, which would seemingly place�NY~õhõ«s{ in the third generation of Dyn. IX.

Once again, the connections of Ankhtify withU. E. nome 1 is not entirely clear. He assertsthat he nourished the nomes of Hierakonpolisand Edfu as well as Elephantine and KomOmbo in U. E. 1147. He also puts forward theclaim that he functioned as “mouth of the army”(wA hµ|) from Elephantine right up to Armantand Nnõuns in the Theban nome (U. E. 4)148. Thiswould have left little room for freedom of actionfor �NY~õhõ«s{ and NYõÞhA/�sõjA, unless they wereallied with Ankhtify.

On the talus slope above and to the west oftomb T 104 at El-Qasr wa Es-Saiyad was founda large slab of relief that shows the �«As\õ|~,�shs\õ�Ys\, uhw n|s\, «yA «ns, Yh\õwA ;µh|n� ØAÛA\(79) seated together with his wife. The stone wasin a very eroded state and the sedge(?)-signbadly damaged, but evidently seen by Säve-Söderbergh. The date of the relief is based onone palaeographic detail. This is the «[s-jar in theinvocation offering formula set at an angle withdrops of water pouring from its mouth. Thisfeature appears at Dendera in Dyn. IX149.

The forms of the pottery found in the tombof the ;Yw\õ{|s�, Yh\õwA µh|n hA| ?}Yõ|}�n (63)point to a date in the Heracleopolitan Period orearly Middle Kingdom150. ?}n was additionallyYh\õwA «hnõ}³w and uhA }n and as such was incharge of the clergy of the local temple of Min.

Owner of a modest rock-cut tomb at DeirRifeh in Middle Egypt is the Yw\õ{|s, «As\õ|, �shs\õ�Ys\, uhw n|s\, Yh\õwA µh|n hA| ?}hõ}�w (64). Par-

146 See Brovarsk i , Naga-ed-Deir in the First In-termediate Period, Appendix D (forthcoming).

147 Vandier , Mocalla, V, b, 1.148 Ibid., VI, a, 4–5. On Nnõuns, see F. Gomaa, Die

Besiedlung Ägyptens während des Mittleren Reiches I:Oberägypten und das Fayyum (TAVO, Reihe B, no.66/1; Wiesbaden, 1986), 126–127.

149 Fischer , Dendera, 196–197.150 Cf. N. Kanawat i , The Rock Tombs of El-

Hawawish, vol. 4, (Sydney, 1983), figs. 26–27, to thechart on page 123 of S. Se id lmayer , “The First In-termediate Period (c. 2160–2055 BC)”, in I. Shaw (ed.),The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2000).

allels in the phraseology of his autobiographyargue for a date in late Dyn. X/XI151. ?}hõ}�wcombined the offices of “great overlord of theHypselite nome” and “overseer of priests ofKhnum, lord of Shashetep”.

Possibly contemporary with ?}hõ}�w is theYh\õwA }Yns, sA\s\ ³As\ [A�, Yh\õwA µh|n ½«wY I (60)at Bersheh. Four of ½«wY’s predecessors in Dyns.VIII and IX, N«A (48), =nn (62), =nn uA Ø«ns\õ}�s (80), and Ø«ns\õ}�s uA Ø«ns\õ}�s (81) hadbeen overseers of Upper Egypt before him. Asfar as we know their successors as nomarchs ofthe Hare nome and chief priests of Thoth, lordof Hermopolis, that is, |«Aõ}�s I and his sonsØ«ns\õ}�s and |«Aõ}�s II, were not overseers ofUpper Egypt, although |«Aõ}�s I was a vizier.Clearly the Hare nome with its alabaster quarriesand the temple of Thoth was a rich and impor-tant province, which explains the prominence ofits governors. ½«wY I himself in all likelihoodserved the Heracleopolitan house and fought onits side against Mentuhotep II152. Ultimately, hemust have arrived at a modus vivendi with the vic-torious Thebans, for his son ¥A\ also served asvizier153.

Middle Kingdom

In one of four inscriptions he left in the WadiHammamat (no. 113) commemorating a num-ber of wonders that took place in year 2 of King½�õsAn\õ·| Mentuhotep IV, the vizier Nh}õhõ«As(84) has the title Yh\õwA µh|n hYõy�'�, “overseerof Upper Egypt in its entirety” as well. It iscommonplace idea today that Nh}õhõ«As, whoappears as a powerful and authoritative figure,indeed “overseer of everything in this entireland”, according to inscription No. 110, a few

151 See E. Brovarsk i , “Ahanakht of Bersheh andthe Hare Nome in the First Intermediate Period”, inW. K. Simpson and W. M. Davis , Studies in AncientEgypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in honor ofDows Dunham on the occasion of his 90th birthday,June 1, 1980 (Boston, 1981), 27, n. 120.

152 Brovarsk i , in Egyptian Culture and Society 1,31–85; idem, in From Illahun to Djeme, 25–30.

153 R. Anthes , Die Felseninschriften von Hatnub(UGAÄ 9; Leipzig, 1928), Gr. 24.


years later usurped the throne of Egypt and, asKing �«s{õY�õ·| Amenemhat I, founded theTwelfth Dynasty154.

In an article entitled “The Stela of Amun-wosre, Governor of Upper Egypt in the reign ofAmmenemes I or II”, Simpson made the impor-tant observation that the office of Yh\õwA µh|nsurvived the First Intermediate Period155. Previ-ously, Helck had maintained the opposite pointof view and believed that the office disappearedforever in the First Intermediate Period, theSouth being henceforth in the Middle Kingdomadministered by a chamberlain (Yh\õwA |õ]}ns\)of the Head of the South and the North by achamberlain of the Delta156. Later, on the basisof an earlier photograph which revealed that thecartouche in the lunette of the stele of Nh}õnuwcould only be read as that of Amenemhat III,Simpson revised his thesis157. He suggested in-stead that the office of Yh\õwA µh|n may havebeen reinstated as part of the administrativereforms attendant upon the curbing of thenomarchs under Senusert III instead of being acontinuation of the office in the latter part ofthe Eleventh Dynasty and the beginning of theTwelfth Dynasty.

There is evidence for the existence of the of-fice of overseer of Upper Egypt at the beginningof the Twelfth Dynasty, as Simpson was aware.Ø�ýAû'YõC|{\ of Asyut (89) is Yh\õwA µh|n hYõy�'�,and is shown bowing before the Horus nameand cartouches of Senusert I on the east wall ofthe great hall of his tomb158. On his brokenstatue from Kerma, he is not “overseer of Up-per Egypt”, but rather «w\õs{ |A } wu\, “greatoverlord of the Southland”159.

154 W. C. Hayes , The Cambridge Ancient History,vol. 1, pt. 2A (Cambridge, 1980), 493.

155 W. K. Simpson, “The Stela of Amun-wosre,Governor of Upper Egypt in the Reign of AmmenemesI or II”, JEA 51 (1965), 63–68.

156 W. Helck , Zur Verwaltung des mittleren undneuen Reichs (Leiden and Cologne, 1958), 10–11.

157 W. K. Simpson, “Provenance and date of thestela of Amun-wosre (JEA 51, 63–68)”, JEA 52 (1966),174.

158 F. Ll. Gr i f f i th , The Inscriptions of Siût and DêrRîfeh (London, 1889), pl. 4.

159 B. Porter and R. L. B. Moss , assisted by E. W.Burney , Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyp-

On his stele in Leiden 6 (V.5) the Chief Stew-ard ={wõjAõ·| (87) bears the title “overseer ofUpper Egypt”. On CG 20531, he is Yh\õwA jAs }�s}s }uns and Yh\õwA |õ]}ns\. The stele, which wasfound at Abydos, bears the cartouches of Amen-emhat II. By the time the Leiden stele wascarved ={wõjAõ·| was promoted to Yh\õwA {wõnwh sA wõÛw'�, «w\õs{ |A } sA wõÛw'�, Yh\õwA µh|n, Yh\õwAoAõh«n. It is unclear how much time intervenedbetween the cutting of the first stele and thesecond. It is conceivable that ={wõjAõ·| went onto serve Senusert II as “great steward”.

There is little doubt that the owners ofthe two steles are identical160. The mother of={wõjAõ·| on the Cairo stele is called N}Yõ�Ûh\sand, while the owner of the Leiden stele is “bornof N}Y”, the mother is elsewhere on the samestele called �Ûh\s. The father of ={wõjAõ·| onCG 20531 is ¯An, and he is certainly identicalwith the father of ={wõjAõ·| on the Leiden stelethough this latter ¯An has the epithet “theYounger”161.

The next Yh\õwA µh|n may have been Ø«ns\õ«s{ (90), nomarch of the Hare nome and highpriest of Thoth, lord of Hermopolis, whosefamous rock-cut tomb at Bersheh forms such anattraction today. An inscription on the right-hand jamb of the portico of his tomb assertsthat he was a uhw n|s\ under Senusert III. Per-haps, he served in office through much of thelatter sovereign’s reign.

The presence of three “overseers of UpperEgypt” in the reigns of Senusert I, Amenem-hat II, and Senusert III suggests that there wasindeed a continuation of that office from theFirst Intermediate Period and the Eleventh Dy-nasty to the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty.

tian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, vol. 7(Oxford, 1952), 177.

160 D. Franke, Personendaten aus dem MittlerenReich (20.–16. Jahrhundert v. Chr.), Dossiers 1–796(ÄA 41; Wiesbaden, 1984), 284, Doss. 457; W. Gra-je tzk i , Die höchsten Beamten der ägyptischen Zen-tralverwaltung zur Zeit des Mittleren Reiches (Achet,Schriften zur Ägyptologie, A 2; Berlin, 2000), 83–84(III.7).

161 Simpson, Terrace of the Great God, 18, pl. 35(ANOC 23.3). In fact, ={wõjAõ·| with the title Yh\õwA {wis known from a third stele, Musée Guimet 11324.


There are three other Yh\õwA µh|n known fromthe later Twelfth Dynasty, although it is difficultto assign them to a particular reign.

On his coffin from Deir Rifeh, ½�sõ|}� (86) is�«w\õs{ |A~ } XI, Yh\õwA µh|n hYõy�'�' Accordingto Harco Willems, coffins all of whose sides aredecorated with serekh-facades, as is ½�sõ|}�’s,date from the time span between the last yearsof Amenemhat II and the early reign of Senu-sert III. However, he also observes of the com-parably decorated stone sarcophagi found atQau el-Kebir, one is probably as late as the reignof Amenemhat III, while CG 28108 dates fromthe Second Intemediate Period162. Lapp actuallyassigns the coffin of ½�sõ|}� to Dyn. XII/XIII163. The style of ½�sõ|}�’s statues, the squatform of one, the elongated arms and hands ofanother, the downturned mouth of the firstpoint to a date for them late in the Twelfth Dy-nasty164.

Grajetzki identifies the overseer of Upperand Lower Egypt, �AõAus (88) known from steleBM 561, with the chief steward of the samename, who is depicted on stele Leiden No. 10(V 71)165. He reconstructs the latter’s career asfollows: he was head of a department (Yh\õwA|õ]}ns\) under Senusert II or even a little earlier;�AõAus then rose to chief steward (Yh\õwA {wõnw);under Senusert III he was promoted to treasurer(Yh\õwA �shs\n)166. Gratjetzki likewise ascertainsthe overseer of Upper and Lower Egypt, �AõAus

162 H. Wil lems, Chests of Life, (MVEOL 25; Lei-den, 1988), 161–164 (Type VI). The coffins of ½�sõ|}�and his brother ?}hõ}�s (infra) differ from these coffinsonly in doubling the number of text columns.

163 G. Lapp, Typologie der Särge und Sargkammernvon der 6. bis 13. Dynastie, Studien zur Archälogie undGeschichte Altägyptens, vol. 7 (Heidelberg, 1993), 292(Rif1).

164 W. M. F. Petr ie , Gizeh and Rifeh (BSAE/ERA13; London, 1907), pl. X.E. Cf. e.g., Brussels E. 5687:R. Engelbach and B. Gunn, Harageh (BSAE/ERA20; London, 1923), pls. 1, 18; J. Vandier , Manueld’archéologie égyptienne, Vol. 3 (Paris, 1958), 255, 267[late Dyn. XII]; E. Delange , Catalogue des statueségyptiennes du Moyen Empire 2060–1560 avant J.-C.(Paris, 1987), 69–71 (Amenemhat III).

165 Simpson, Terrace of the Great God, pl. 60(ANOC 41).

166 Grajetzk i , Höchste Beamte, 51.

to be the same as the vizier �AõAus167, known fromhis Dahshur tomb and four fine relief panels inCairo168. Simpson thinks it “would be difficult toargue for this hypothesis on the basis of thedifference in titles”, however169. The differenceof opinion is important, since the Dahshur re-liefs on stylistic and iconographic grounds ap-parently date no later than Senusert III. Frankedates the Leiden and London steles no closerthan the middle to end of the Twelfth Dy-nasty170.

The owner of a stele in the Egyptian Mu-seum, Cairo, is known from his basilophoricname, ½n�jAnw|õu}� (85), to have held that of-fice no earlier than the reign of Amenemhat II171.In actual fact, the spelling of Ø�n in Osiris’sepithet “lord of Busiris” with the twofoldwriting of the Û�-sign is an indication that hisstele dates probably to the reign of Amene-mat III, although it could be somewhat later indate172.

The odds are thus that the title “overseer ofUpper Egypt” remained in effect till the end ofthe Twelfth Dynasty at least.

Appendix: Akhmim

In his latest discussion of the material pertainingto Akhmim in the Old Kingdom, Naguib Kanawatiproposes the following succession of nomarchs andhigh priests of Min from that site.

The earliest of the nomarchs is ½mns �µw of tombG 95 who served in office under Teti to early

167 Ibid., 50–51.168 W. K. Simpson, “Lepsius Pyramid LV at

Dahshur: the Mastaba of Si-ese, Vizier of AmenemhatII”, in J. Ba ines , T. G. H. James , A. Leahy, andA. F. Shore , (eds.), Pyramid Studies and Other Essayspresented to I. E. S. Edwards (London, 1988), 57–60.

169 Ibid., 59.170 Franke, Personendaten, 311 (Doss. 511).171 Ahmad el-Sawi , “Die Stele des ½n�õjAnõw|õu}�,

genannt Nnõu}�, und der �}�õw}'u”, GM 92 (1986),87–89.

172 Cf. C. J. C. Bennett , “Growth of the Co»õ�Nõ½�® Formula in the Middle Kingdom”, JEA 27 (1941),78 (pp. 77–82), and see especially E. A. W. Budge ,Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in theBritish Museum, part 2 (London, 1912), pls. 3, 19, 30.


Pepy I173. He was both «s{õ|A } u{As and Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w. ½mns �µw was succeeded in the early part of thereign of Pepy I by his son Þ{uõ{nõ }n, who isentitled «w\õs{ |A } u{As and �Yh\õwA~ «hnõ}³w in hisfather’s tomb174. Kanawati suggests G 97 was hisburial place175. According to Kanawati, Þ{uõ{nõ }nwas succeeded in his turn by his son NwY,176 whose“tombe en four” was discovered by Jéquier at SouthSaqqara177. The latter’s son, named �Þ{uõ{n~õ }nafter his grandfather, is known from a fragmentaryrelief, Florence 7584, which records his titles of Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w and «w\õs{ } =}hs

178. He served in officeunder Merenre, to be followed in office by his sonthe «w\õs{ |A } }n and Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w ¥AýYûõ«{/¯sYof tomb M 8, who served kings Pepy I, Merenre,Pepy II, as is attested by his autobiographicalinscription179. The latter had a son, the «w\õs{ |A }=}hs, ?}Yõ|}�n, who was buried in tomb H 15180.?}Yõ|}�n’s son, the nomarch and overseer ofpriests ¥Aõ«{/¯sYõYyw (H 26), and grandson, Þ{uõ{nõ }n/?}Yõ|}�n (H 24), who bore the same titles ashis father, both were in office in the latter part of thereign of Pepy II181.

Kanawati’s reconstruction of events is untenablefor a variety of reasons. To begin with, it is difficultto see how ½mns �µw could be as early as Pepy I, sinceboth he and his wife have boxes under their chairs.This is a phenomenon that first appears underPepy II182, so ½mns �µw must be as late. So too musthis son ýÞ{uõ{nõ }nû/?}Yõ|}�n. There is no evi-dence that NwY was a son of this ?}Yõ|}�n. The designof NwY’s burial chamber shows that he belonged to theend of Dyn. VI (after the death of Pepy II) or toDyn. VII183. As “great overlord of the Panopolitenome”, NwY was a contemporary of the Thinite no-marchs Ô�Y and =nõ�An, the only other late OldKingdom nomarchs interred in the Memphite Ceme-teries.184 Kanawati assigns the two Thinite nomarchs,

173 N. Kanawat i , The Rock Tombs of El-Hawawish, vol. 8 (Sydney, 1988), 7–13, pls. 1–2, figs.1–4.

174 Ibid., fig. 3(a).175 Akhmim, 91.176 Ibid.177 G. Jéquier , Deux Pyramides du Moyen Empire

(Cairo, 1933), 39–43, figs. 29–32.178 N. Kanawat i , The Rock Tombs of El-Hawa-

wish, vol. 6 (Sydney, 1986), fig. 9; idem, Akhmim,91–94.

179 McFar lane , GM 100 (1987), 63–72; Kanawa-t i , Akhmim, 97–102.

180 Kanawat i , Akhmim, 102–106.181 Ibid., 106, 127.182 See above, p. 99.183 See Brovarsk i , in Des Néferkarê aux Montou-

hotep, 48–49.184 Ibid.

mistakenly in my opinion185 and those of otherscholars186, to the reigns of Merenre and early PepyI187. Once again, there is no evidence that �Þ{uõ{n~õ }n of Florence 7584 was a son of NwY188. The formaldesignation of late Old Kingdom nomarchs normallybegins with «w\õs{ |A }, but NwY, like =nõ�An, writes «w\s{ |A, omitting the genitival }. Conversely, �Þ{uõ{n~õ }n writes «w\õs{ }, omitting the customary |A. Thisusage likewise is highly exceptional, but a secondoccurrence can be quoted on a late Old Kingdomstele from Abydos whose owner, a certain ØAsY, is«w\õs{ } áAs, “overlord of the Bat nome (U. E. 7)”189.The variations are slight but significant and it isreasonable to infer that the nomarchs concernedwere contemporaneous and belonged to the end ofthe Sixth Dynasty and Dyn. VII190. All other no-machs from this time forward at Akhmim write «w\õs{ |A } =}hs.

According to his autobiography ¥AýYûõ«{/¯sY (M 8)was appointed [A� |Ûõhw by Pepy I and was promotedto uhw and Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w by the same sovereign.Merenre conferred the office of uhA }n on ¯sY

191.He became a nomarch at the end of Merenre’s reignor early in that of Pepy II192. His date is a securelinchpin for the chronology of the nomarchs andoverseers of priests at Akhmim in the later OldKingdom. Kanawati believes that ¯sY’s son ?}Yõ|}�n,who appears on the part of his father’s architrave inChicago (FM 31700) with the title Yh\õwA «hnõ}³w,is the same as the ?}Yõ|}�n of tomb H 15 at El-Hawawish. However, the forms of the pottery found

185 E. Brovarsk i , “Akhmim in the Old Kingdomand the First Intermediate Period”, in P. Posener-Kr iéger (ed.), Mélanges Gamal eddin Mokhtar, vol. 1(BdÉ 97/1; Cairo, 1985), 131–132; idem, “The In-scribed Material of the First Intermediate Period fromNaga-ed-Dêr”, 125–139.

186 Fischer , JAOS 74 (1954); idem, Dendera, 20,n. 88; Mart in-Pardey , Provinzialverwaltung, 208ff;F. Gomaa, Ägypten während der Ersten Zwischenzeit(TAVO 27; Wiesbaden, 1980), 75.

187 Akhmim, 84–89.188 Kanawat i , ibid., 17, n. 20, believes that he can

see traces of the sign for Min in front of the owner’sface. He may be right; see the photographs in S. Bos-t icco , Museo archeologico di Fienze: Le stele egizianedall’Antico al Nouvo Regno (Rome, 1959), pl. 4; Ka-nawat i , El-Hawawish 7, pl. 10(b).

189 Berlin: 7765: Fischer , JARCE 1 (1962), 16–17,fig. 4, pl. 3. Like Ô�Y of the Thinite nome, Kanawat i ,Akhmim, 92–94, places ØAs\ under Merenre. But thedisplacement of the offerings in {w }'� �wn in Berlin7765 suggests that the stele belongs to Dyns. VI–VIII;see Brovarsk i , JNES 32 (1973), 464, fig. 4.

190 Brovarsk i , in Mélanges Mokhtar 1, 131.191 McFar lane , GM 100 (1987), 63–70.192 Kanawat i , Akhmim, 99.


in the tomb of the ;Yw\õ{|s�, Yh\õwA Þh|n hA| andYh\õwA «hnõ}³w ?}Yõ|}�n point to a date in theHeracleopolitan Period or early Middle Kingdom,not the reign of Pepy II193. The same is true of itspalaeography and epigraphy194, although Kanawatidenies this195.

Kanawati makes ¥Aõ«{/¯sYõYyw of tomb H 26 theson of ?}Yõ|}�n of FM 31900 and tomb H 15,although we have just seen that the latter at least isimpossible. The next two nomarchs according toKanawati’s reconstruction are ¥Aý'Yûõ«{/¯sYõYyw oftomb H 26 and his son Þ{uõ{nõ }n/?}Yõ|}�n ofH 24. The latter actually “made” or “decorated” thetomb for his father196, although the verb is in a lacunaso it is uncertain if the ?}Yõ|}�n was completelyresponsible for his father’s burial place or merely itsdecoration197. As we have already seen, Kanawatidates both nomarchs to late Pepy II198.

As previously noted, the autobiography of¯sY/¥Aý'Yûõ«{ serves as the linchpin for thechronology of the later Old Kingdom at El-Hawawish. ¯sY/¥Aý'Yûõ«{ may have died in the earlypart of the reign of Pepy II, perhaps years 1–20, adate suggested on stylistic grounds by YvonneHarpur199. He may or may not have been succeededby his son ?}Yõ|}�n, known from FM 31700, whoseown sepulcher lies unidentified. Next in order ispresumably ½mns �µw, whose tomb Harpur thinks wasdecorated at some point in the period extending

193 Cf. Kanawat i , El-Hawawish 4, figs. 26–27, tothe chart on page 123 in Seid lmayer , in The OxfordHistory of Ancient Egypt.

194 Brovarsk i , Melanges Mokhtar 1, 135. In par-ticular the arrangement of «s{õ�Yõ}uns is frequentlyfound in the coffins from Akhmim, which are dated bythe present writer (ibid., 128–129, 137–138) and D.Magee , “An Early Middle Kingdom Coffin fromAkhmîm in the Ashmolean Museum (No. 19111477)”,JSSEA 13 (1983), 241–248, to Dyn. XI, possibly as lateas Mentuhotep II. Kanawat i , Akhmim, 97–98 con-tinues to believe that one of these coffins, CG 20004,which belongs to a nomarch and overseer of priests ¯sY,belongs to ¥Aý'Yûõ«{/¯sY of tomb M 8 at El-Hawawish.This ignores considerable palaeographic and epigraphicevidence to the contrary; see Brovarsk i , in MélangesMokhtar 1, 128–129. For the coffin, see Kanawat i ,El-Hawawish 3, pls. 5–8, figs. 15–17.

195 Akhmim, 104, pace Brovarsk i , in MélangesMokhtar 1, 135.

196 Urk. 1, 265, 4–5; Kanawat i , El-Hawawish 1,fig. 19a.

197 Kanawat i , Akhmim, p. 127.198 Because of the box under his chair (Kanawat i ,

El-Hawawish 2, fig. 24), Þ{uõ{nõ }n/?}võ|}�n must beat least as Pepy II (supra).

199 Harpur , Decoration, 281, suggests years 1–34of Pepy II.

between years 35–85 of the same sovereign200. If½mns �µw died around 50, his son Þ{uõ{nõ }n (G 97)could have served in office sometime between years55–85 of Pepy II, to be followed by NwY who, as wehave seen, was buried at South Saqqara and probablybelonged to the end of Dyn. VI or to Dyn. VII, asdid the �Þ{uõ{n~õ }n known from Florence 7584. Itis unclear which of the two nomarchs preceded theother. The late Memphite period lasted some 40 orso years201. If ¥Aý'Yûõ«{/¯sYõYyw (H 26) served in officefor a normal twenty to twenty-five years202, his sonÞ{uõ{nõ }n/?}Yõ|}�n (H 24) could have survivedinto the late Old Kingdom or even the earlyHeracleopolitan Period (Dyn. IX).

In keeping with my reconstruction of events,there would have been five to six nomarchs andoverseers of priests who served in office at Akhmimbefore ¥Aý'Yûõ«{/¯sYõYyw and his son203. This wouldindicate a minimum of 100/120 years or alternatively125/150 years from the beginning of the reign ofPepy II. If the nomarchs ¯sY/¥Aý'Yûõ«{, ?}Yõ|}�n,½mns �µw, and Þ{uõ{nõ }n, all served during the 90plus years of Pepy II, the tenure in office of NwY and�Þ{uõ{n~õ }n (Florence 7584) would fall in Dyns.VI–VIII. ¥AýYûõ«{/¯sYõYyw (H 26) would then belongto the end of Dyn. VIII, and his son Þ{uõ{nõ }n/?}Yõ|}�n (H 24) would have served in office inthe first generation of Dyn. IX.

The palaeography and epigraphy of Þ{uõ{nõ }n/?}Yõ|}�n’s tomb are compatible with a date inthe Heracleopolitan Period204. A further argument infavor of a relatively late date for the tomb is thepresence of nÛAs-eyes on two false doors in the tombon the crossbar above the niche205, a position which

200 Ibid., 281.201 See K. Baer , “Egyptian Chronology” (Chicago,

1976), 1–2; Brovarsk i , “Naga-ed-Dêr Inscriptions”,43–54; Baud, in Ancient Egyptian Chronology, 156–158, assigns Dyn. VIII one generation but omits Dyn.VII entirely.

202 Twenty to twenty-five years is below the averageof twenty-six years established by M. B. Rowton, “TheDate of Hammurabi”, JNES 17 (1958), 100–101, forthe throne tenure of seven generations of ancient orien-tal rulers. On the question of generation averages, seemore recently M. Bierbr ier , The Late New Kingdomin Egypt (Warminster: Arus & Phillips, 1975), xiii–xvi,and D. Henige , “Generation-counting and late NewKingdom chronology”, JEA 67 (1981), 182–184.Henige takes Bierbrier to task for arguing that any fig-ure above twenty-five years is empirically unlikely.

203 Since no sepulcher is known for him, it is not ab-solutely certain that ¥Aý'Yûõ«{/¯sY’s son ?}Yõ|}�n suc-ceeded his father; see Kanawat i , Akhmim, 128.

204 See Brovarsk i , in Mélanges Mokhtar 1, 135.205 Kanawat i , El-Hawawish 2, pls. 4, 23.


is otherwise first known on Saqqara false doorstowards the end of the Tenth Dynasty206.

The above reconstruction accords well with thesituation in the Thinite nome, where three nomarchsserved in office in the reign of Pepy II and two otherofficials who combined the offices of nomarch andoverseer of priests followed them at the end ofDyn. VI and in Dyn. VII (Ô�Y and =nõ�An)207. Intheir turn, they were succeeded by a sixth governorwith both these titles and a seventh who may havebeen overseer of priests as well as nomarch208. AtDendera three nomarchs again held office during thereign of Pepy II with a fourth succeeding at the endof Dyn. VI (after the death of Pepy II) to befollowed by at least two nomarchs who combine thetitles “great overlord” and “overseer of priests” inDyns. VII–VIII209.

Previously, the present writer argued that ¥AýYûõ«{/¯sYõYyw belonged to the Heracleopolitan Period onaccount of the addition of the epithet õYyw to hisname210. Fischer had pointed out that the addition ofõYyw to personal names as a posthumous distinctionis one of several features which appear rarely – ifever – before the Heracleopolitan Period in UpperEgypt211. However, we now know that the epithet

206 Fischer , Coptite Nome, 40 and n. 20. See nowBrovarsk i , in Archaism and Innovation, 372, 393,405. (pp. 359–423).

207 Brovarsk i , “Naga-ed-Dêr Inscriptions”, 123–125, Chart 1.

208 Ibid., 266–287, 305–310, 381–386, Chart 1.209 See Fischer , Dendera, 187.210 N. Kanawat i , The Rock Tombs of El-

Hawawish, vol. 1 (Sydney, 1980), figs. 7, 9, 16, etc.211 Ibid., 75, n. 313.

õYyw was added to the name of the vizier ÞhAY in theoriginal decoration of his chapel at Kom el-Kuffarat the end of Dyn. VIII212. So the epithet is notincompatable with the assignment of ¥AýYûõ«{/¯sYõYywto the end of Dyn. VIII.

Dossiers will follow in the next issue.

Summary

Some 85 overseers of Upper Egypt are known inthe period extending from the Old Kingdomthrough the Middle Kingdom. The present articleprovides an inventory of the holders of the title,discusses the dating of the individuals concerned,and the significance of the titles in these differenteras.

Keywords

First Intermediate Period – Middle Kingdom – nomeadministration – Old Kingdom – overseer of UpperEgypt

212 Brovarsk i , “Naga-ed-Dêr Inscriptions”, 511–512.

TAFEL XV

False door of Overseer of Upper Egypt cbk-Htp, Louvre C 28/N 182. Courtesy of the Musée du Louvre,Departement des Antiquités Égyptiennes (zu Brovarski, Overseers of Upper Egypt, Part 1).

TAFEL XVI

Dagger blade inscribed for the Overseer of Upper Egypt ÊdÏ, MMA 29.2.8. Courtesy of theMetropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Egyptian Art (zu Brovarski, Overseers of Upper Egypt, Part 1).

Overseers of Upper Egypt in the Old to Middle Kingdoms, Part 1

Documents

Transcript of Overseers of Upper Egypt in the Old to Middle Kingdoms, Part 1