Nelson-Hurst - Who Causes His Name to Live-libre

8/12/2019 Nelson-Hurst - Who Causes His Name to Live-libre

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nelson-hurst-who-causes-his-name-to-live-libre 1/19

13

‘…who causes his name to live’the vivification formula through the Second

Intermediate Period

M. G. Nelson-Hurst University of Pennsylvania

David P. Silverman has made significant contributions to a wide variety of subjects inEgyptology. In his teaching, he has placed particular emphasis on the importance of ana-

lyzing formulaic expressions and their chronological changes, and on the interplay between artand writing, including the position of text on individual objects. Thus, it is my hope that thefollowing analysis of the sanx rn.f formula, its textual position, and its changes over time willbe seen as a fitting tribute.1

sanx rn.f The phrase sanx rn.f ‘who causes his name to live’ makes its earliest appearance in texts

from the First Intermediate Period, although it does not occur in significant numbers until theMiddle Kingdom. Its usage increases even further during the New Kingdom, only to decreasedramatically after this period.2 This article examines the 174 known examples of the sanx rn.f formula from the earliest through the Second Intermediate Period.3

In her book on building, dedication, and consecration inscriptions, Silke Grallert dedi-

cates three pages of commentary and a table of examples to jn PN sanx rn.f , its usage, andits grammatical form. She calls the phrase the vivification formula (Belebungsformel ) andgroups it under the heading of dedication inscriptions (Stiftungsinschriften), noting that itsuse as a label and its syntax are the same as those of the dedication formula (Stiftungsformel ).Like the dedication formula ( jn PN jrj n.f ), the syntax of the sanx rn.f formula is that of jn (sometimes omitted), followed by a filiation and/or personal name, an active participle, and(in the case of sanx) rn.f/s/sn as the direct object of the participle.4 As Grallert notes, the sanx

rn.f phrase appears most often on stelae from chapels and sanctuaries, such as the so-calledcenotaphs at Abydos, where the owners of stelae could take part in the divine procession thatwas celebrated there.5 However, the use of the formula was neither restricted to Abydos norto the medium of stelae. It also occurs on statues, shabtis, tomb walls, an offering table, and



14

N e l s o n - H u r s t

even on a private obelisk, from multiple locations during the Middle Kingdom and SecondIntermediate Period.

The vivification formula is structured in such a way as to emphasize the actor, or benefactor,whose name or family relationship is mentioned at the beginning of the phrase, usually after jn,

but sometimes in initial position. The translation of this formula as an emphatic sentence alsoemphasizes the actor (‘It is his son who causes his name to live, so-and-so’).6 The emphasis onthe benefactor (Stifter ) in this formula is similar to the emphasis placed on the king in the royalconsecration formula (königlichen Weiheformel ).7

Despite the fact that the literal translation of the vivification formula is easily discerned, themanner of action that is understood as the means of vivifying a name remains open for debate.Grallert states that the type of action and duration of that action remain unclear, with it possiblybeing a one-time ritual or verbal act, a perpetual act carried out indefinitely by means of thetext, or the actual dedication of the object.8 Although Grallert does not commit to a particularaction being related to causing one’s name to live, the concept appears to fit best in the realm

of funerary cult practices. One’s name was considered part of one’s being, just as was the body,the ka , and so forth, and was closely associated with one’s personality and lasting reputation.9 Possessing and using one’s name was essential for the afterlife,10 and, therefore, perpetuatinga person’s name helped assure that person’s continued existence in the afterlife. In referenceto the fame one might achieve as a learned scribe, the New Kingdom text on pChester BeattyIV, verso has another view on the importance of one’s name, and extols the advantages of hav-ing one’s name spoken aloud. It compares the perpetuation of one’s name through writingswith the crumbling and buried monuments of times gone by, which have been forgotten andneglected.11 One section states, ‘surely useful in the graveyard is a name in people’s mouth!’,12 emphasizing, though for a different purpose, the importance of a person’s name being said aloudfor continual life after death.

Keeping in mind Grallert’s various possibilities, we turn to the question of what type ofaction one carries out in order to cause a person’s name to live. In the case of the dedicationnote (Stiftungsvermerk ), jr.n PN (+ additions), Grallert asserts that the text’s position indicatesits referent (what the actor did or made). For example, if the notation is next to a man who’sshown praising a god, then this label indicates that praising is what the actor is doing, whereasa notation at the bottom of a stela, separated from the main scene, would indicate that thenamed individual actually commissioned and dedicated that stela to the beneficiary.13 AlthoughGrallert does not apply this model to the vivification formula, it is a valuable form of analysisto keep in mind when examining the placement and usage of sanx rn.f .

The vivification formula appears most often on stelae, largely in the same two locations as

the dedication note, next to an individual performing an action or at the bottom of the stela,separated from the rest of the inscriptions. In addition, on many examples, the actor does notappear at all and is only mentioned in the sanx rn.f sentence,14 while other stelae depict thebenefactor, but he or she is not shown carrying out any discernable action. However, the mostcommon position of sanx rn.f up to the Second Intermediate Period is that directly followingthe Htp dj nsw formula. In most of these cases, there is no separation and the text flows unin-terrupted from the Htp dj nsw formula to sanx rn.f , implying that the sanx rn.f formula mightbe referring back to the Htp dj nsw and indicating who is saying the offering prayer or makingphysical offerings. In addition to the many examples in this position, several scenes show thebenefactor in a position of offering or recitation,15 usually just below the Htp dj nsw, with the

sanx rn.f formula written above or around the actor as a sort of label. In some instances, the



Fig. 1: CG 20516





17

‘ … w h o c a u s e s h i s n a m e t o l i v e ’

actor is also explicitly labeled as saying or making a Htp dj nsw, for example, Dd.f n kA jt.f Htp dj

nsw on CG 20516 (figs.1 and 2) and jrt Htp dj nsw on CG 20059.In cases where the vivification formula is written next to or around an individual shown fac-

ing the owner with one arm outstretched in a pose of offering or recitation, the actor sometimespossesses the title of lector priest (Xrj-Hb) and wears the customary sash of that office,16 and onrare occasion an actor without the title of lector priest is shown wearing the sash. There are alsoexamples of the benefactor standing in a similar pose, holding out a food offering, though these aresignificantly less common. As mentioned above, sometimes the named actors in the vivificationformula do not appear to be carrying out any particular action for the owner of the stela, but ratherare shown simply standing or sitting in various locations on the stela, though this is only in veryfew instances. In addition, there are cases where the sanx rn.f formula appears to stand on its own,not only in the bottom position that Grallert discusses, but also down the side or middle of a stelascene or along the top of the stela, without an accompanying depiction of the benefactor.

Similar to Grallert’s model for the dedication note, it seems probable that the uses of the sanxrn.f formula following immediately after the Htp dj nsw, labeling a person who is also said to bemaking a Htp dj nsw, or labeling a person shown in a position of verbal recitation is meant toindicate that the action of the individual is one of reciting the offering formula for the owner.108 out of 141 stelae display the sanx rn.f formula in one of these Htp dj nsw-related positions,and 16 of 33 other objects (statues, statuettes, shabtis, offering tables, obelisks, coffins, and tombwalls) contain a vivification formula directly following the Htp dj nsw. The majority of othertext positions can also be interpreted as relating to actions that center around the funerary cultof the monument owner (offering goods, dedicating the monument, etc.).

Strengthening the argument for causing one’s name to live being related to speech are twounique uses of sanx rn.f - in Coffin Texts Spell 38 and on stela BM 562. CT 38 consists of

a dialog between father and son in which the son is attempting to convince his father that hemeans him no harm or disturbance in the afterlife and that he has carried out his duties, actingproperly as a son. In one part of the son’s argument, he lists things he has done for his father:‘bringing up your orphans, strengthening your gate, perpetuating your name ( sanx rn.k ) uponearth in the mouths of the living, and setting up your door and your tomb at your stairway’.17 The mention of the father’s name in the mouth of the living is strikingly similar to the line inpChester Beatty, mentioned above, about the benefit in the necropolis of having one’s name inpeople’s mouths. The inscription on BM 562 shows the importance of speaking one’s name ina different manner, by expressing the owner’s desire for officials who pass by to speak and causehis name to live: ‘May the nobles who shall pass by speak, may they give me spirithood (Ax),

that I may live by the breath people give; reviving my name ( sanx.sn rn.j) makes them gods ina potent hereafter, and the ba is content when they make it remembered’.18

Actors With the majority of the vivification formula’s uses relating to the maintenance of one’s

funerary cult, it would stand to reason that the benefactor would be someone with an expectedrole in this maintenance, in particular either a funerary priest or a son (or other heir) of themonument owner.19 Examples of a son as benefactor abound, with just over thirty-five percentof all examples through the Second Intermediate Period featuring a son as the benefactor. Itis not surprising that some of these examples also name the son as an heir. For example, stelaBrooklyn 54.66,20 which says immediately after the Htp dj nsw formula for jntf and his wife: jn



18


sA.f mry.f jwa.f jr Hzzt.f ra nb jntf ms n snttx sanx rn.f jr mnw.f … ‘It is his beloved son and heirwho does what he favors every day, Inyotef, born of Senettekh, who causes his name to live,who makes his monuments…’ .21 On this one stela we get confirmation on multiple points

discussed above; it is a man’s son and heir who causes his name to live (perhaps by reciting theHtp dj nsw, which this sentence follows) and who builds monuments for him. In our corpus, sixexamples of the actor being called an heir exist, primarily on stelae from the late Eleventh andearly Twelfth Dynasties. However, one example is from the reign of Amenemhat III on a statuefrom the Heqaib sanctuary at Elephantine (Aswan 1115), and a possible Thirteenth Dynastyexample exists on a statue from Karnak (the transcription is uncertain), which was dedicated tothe father of the vizier Ankhu (CG 42034).

In addition to the use of the word jwa ‘heir’ on Brooklyn 54.66, the son is also called mry.f ‘his beloved,’ which is associated with the role of the heir as well. Modeled on the relationshipof Osiris and Horus, the heir and funerary priest of his father is often labeled mry.f or given

the title of sem priest,22

rather than being referred to as the eldest son.23

While there are noexamples of a benefactor being labeled as a sem priest or Hm-kA, funerary priest, in our examplesof sanx rn.f , several actors are called mr(y).f/s/sn ‘his/her/their beloved,’ emphasizing their rolein the funerary cult of the beneficiary. Nineteen sons are labeled as such, representing morethan ten percent of all actors in our corpus. The role of the son as his father’s funerary priesthad an underlying economic interest, serving to solidify the line of succession and the per-petuation of the household from one generation to another. The ‘father and son are mutuallydependent on each other’ because the son takes care of the funeral and continued mortuary cultof his father, and in return he receives his inheritance.24 Documents from later periods alsoindicate that it was the heir’s duty to take care of the funerary cult of his (or her) predecessor.25 Similarly, J. P. Allen interprets the positioning of Pyramid Text Spell 247, which says jr.n n.k sA.k

Hrw ‘Your son Horus has acted for you,’ in pyramid antechambers as referring to the funeraryrites carried out in PT spells in the connected sarcophagus chambers. These rites would havebeen carried out for the king by his son or an officiant, playing the role of Horus acting for hisfather, Osiris.26

Although none of the actors in our corpus is labeled as a sem priest, many are shown withthe title of lector priest (Xrj-Hb). The fact that the benefactors are perpetuating the funerarycult and taking on the role of an heir, even though many are called lector priests rather thansem priests, argues in favor of the sanx rn.f formula being related to reciting funerary or offer-ing texts, such as the Htp dj nsw, because it was the role of the lector (or literate) priest to readaloud the appropriate formulae during funerary rituals, while the sem priests carried out other

(non-recitation) rituals.27 Having discussed the connection between the benefactors and the traditional role of theheir in ancient Egypt, the topic of who exactly acted as benefactors remains to be examined. Asalready mentioned, we often find sons in such a position. The second most common relativesamong actors are brothers, making up approximately twenty-nine percent of the examples inour corpus. Less frequently, we have examples of sisters, daughters, and individuals with nostated filiation (possibly colleagues or relatives without relationship labels); extended familymembers are even less common. Five percent of the examples have damage rendering themillegible where the relationship is located in the text, and, therefore, cannot be included in thediscussion of actors and their relationships with the monument owners.

In a small number of cases (four), the owner of (or main figure on) the monument is said



19


to cause names to live. These examples state that the owner causes their names (rnw.sn) to live,presumably referring to the multiple family members represented on the same object, with oneexception: Ashmolean E 3921,29 on which the actor is depicted and mentioned multiple timesin different scenes as causing, in each case, the name of a different relative to live. Because ofthe generalized nature of these examples where the owner causes ‘their’ names to live, ratherthan an individual with a specific relationship, they also will not be included in the discussionof benefactors’ relationships.

Wider Patterns and Correlations with Social and Historical ChangesIf one examines the remaining monuments by time period, a general pattern emerges.

Among the Eleventh and early Twelfth Dynasty examples, sons predominate as actors, compris-ing seventy-five percent of examples from this time (fig. 3).30 Grandsons, brothers, and oneowner acting for himself make up the remaining few examples from this period. When exam-ined as a whole, the Twelfth Dynasty also features sons as the most common actors, but theyconstitute only sixty-two percent; and, while all other relatives appear only in small numbers,there is a wider variety of possible relatives, which now includes daughters, wives, and thosewithout a specified relationship (fig. 4). Moving into the late Twelfth and early ThirteenthDynasties, we find little has changed with the sons, who still claim fifty-two percent of examples.

Fig. 3: Distribution of Actors, Eleventh-Early Twelfth Dynasties (N=20)



20


However, the percentage of brothers as benefactors moves up to twenty-six, having comprisedeleven percent or less in previous periods (fig. 5).

The trend of moving away from sons and increasingly toward brothers continues into theThirteenth Dynasty (fig. 6). If we examine instances from the whole of that dynasty, we findthat now brothers outnumber sons, making up forty-two percent of actors, while sons constituteonly thirty percent. At the same time, we find a slight increase in sisters, daughters, and thosewithout specified relationships as actors during this dynasty. However, it is during the SecondIntermediate Period, that is, the late Thirteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties (the period from

which these objects originate may include other dynasties as well, depending on the chronol-ogy to which one subscribes), that we see this trend come to its zenith. During this time, sonshave almost been eliminated from the picture, making up only six percent of examples, whilebrothers decrease slightly to thirty-four percent (fig. 7). At the same time as these male relativesdecrease, sisters obtain substantial recognition as benefactors, constituting seventeen percent ofexamples, while the remainder consists of those without a specified relationship and colleagues(seventeen percent), extended family members (a small number of grandsons, great nephews,and cousins), and one case of a father causing the name of his daughter to live. An interestingdevelopment during these dynasties is the appearance of people labeled Xrd(t) as actors in the

sanx rn.f formula. While Xrd is generally interpreted to mean ‘child’,31 Franke has argued thatits usage changes in the Thirteenth Dynasty to that of indicating a subordinate person in the

Fig. 4: Distribution of Actors, Twelfth Dynasty (N=44).



21


administration.32 Therefore, the appearance of this category of actor should be interpreted as anincrease in work colleagues and other individuals without a family relationship.

The change over time in preference from children to siblings and the shift to a much greaternumber of female actors raises the questions of why such a dramatic shift away from the tradi-tionally ideal heir to other relatives occurred, and what significance the shift holds. The answersto these questions likely lie in the social and historical changes that took place between the timeof the Eleventh Dynasty and that of the Seventeenth Dynasty.

Our first chronological division, the Eleventh to early Twelfth Dynasty is marked histori-cally as a time of reunification, followed by a change in royal family and the eventual move to

a new capital city. It was also a time when great emphasis was placed on one’s family historyin office or at a particular location, alongside the necessary acknowledgement of royal preroga-tive, most famously exemplified in the tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan.33 However, atthe same time, there was a greater emphasis on children, rather than parents of the owner, intomb scenes and texts because the children would connect their parents to the future and thesons were responsible for the funerary cult.34 In other words, the father-to-son model of suc-cession is emphasized on private monuments of this time, but specifically in the direction ofthe would-be successor, with less attention paid to the predecessors. It is from this same timethat most of our examples on which benefactors are referred to as heirs originate. The highernumber of explicit mentions of heirs in the early Middle Kingdom texts might reflect a desire toshore up the line of succession in a somewhat turbulent time of changing royal families. Since

Fig. 5: Distribution of Actors, Late Twelfth-Early irteenth Dynasties (N=27).



22


many of the objects in our corpus originate from the offering chapels at North Abydos, it mayalso be significant that there was a restriction on who was permitted to erect monuments in

this area, which then loosened in the mid-to-late Twelfth Dynasty, so much so that boundarystelae were erected around the processional way during the Thirteenth Dynasty to prevent thechapel area from encroaching on this sacred land.35 This loosening of decorum in the chapelarea of Abydos, as well as at the Heqaib sanctuary at Elephantine, where several of our sanx rn.f examples also originate, corresponds to a greater shift in the material culture and socio-politicalstructure in Egypt in the mid-to-late Twelfth Dynasty.36 Changes also took place in burial prac-tices, including body position37 and which items were included with the body of the deceased,38 and in the structure and complexity of the administration and its increasingly detailed titles aswell.39 Simultaneously, we start to see a shift in the preferred actors in sanx rn.f texts, with aslight movement away from sons and towards brothers.

With the Thirteenth Dynasty, we see the first strong movement from sons to brothers andother relatives in the sanx rn.f formula (figs. 8 and 9). This change does not correspond to anydiscernible change in the administrative structure of the country.40 However, the period fromthe end of the Twelfth Dynasty through the Seventeenth Dynasty does feature an increase in theuse of kinship terminology and representations of family members on private monuments, suchas stelae. In addition to the increased use of kinship terms, more complex, compound relation-ships, indicating extended family relationships, appear more often.41 Whether these changesreflect an amplified significance placed on the extended family or only an increase in specificityof terms (extended family thus being represented before without clearly defined relationships),the increased variety of family members represented certainly indicates the existence of greatersocial and religious changes at this time.42

Fig. 6: Distribution of Actors, irteenth Dynasty (N=50).



23


The change that sets the Thirteenth Dynasty apart most clearly from the Twelfth is in royalsuccession practices. While the Twelfth Dynasty is marked by a strong father-to-son successionpattern in the kingship, the Thirteenth Dynasty succession remains debatable and somewhatmysterious, with only one or two clear cases of father-to-son succession.43 In a few cases, wehave examples of multiple brothers holding the office of king, one after another.44 However, themajority of Thirteenth Dynasty kings have no apparent relationship with each other.

Several theories about how kings were selected and why they appear in most cases to beunrelated to one another have been suggested. For many years, the idea of the vizier holding the

real power in the country and the king being only a figurehead had popular support. 45 Morerecently, Quirke has suggested that the approach of searching for what went awry during theThirteenth Dynasty, as Egyptologists have often done, is a useless practice because a strong lineof kings with a father-to-son succession for seven generations, such as the Twelfth Dynasty, islikely the exception, rather than the rule.46 In addition, he posits the idea of ‘circulating suc-cession’ being used at the royal court at least some of the time during the Thirteenth Dynasty.47 In the circulating succession model, powerful families at court would have the opportunity tohave a family member installed as king, essentially taking turns with which family filled theroyal office, though not necessarily in any regular order. In this scheme, successive kings fromdifferent families could be considered colleagues, since they came from somewhat equal socialstatus and likely held high offices at court before becoming kings, and perhaps were often at an

Fig. 7: Distribution of Actors, Second Intermediate Period (N=35).



24


advanced age by the time they were chosen as king.48 C. Bennett has suggested that part ofthe Thirteenth and most of the Seventeenth Dynasties followed a fratrilineal method of succes-sion, that is brother-to-brother, uncle-to-nephew, and cousin-to-cousin succession, rather thana patrilineal one.49 In this type of system, the family, including women, likely played a centralrole in deciding who would be the next king.50

While the exact nature of succession within the Thirteenth Dynasty remains unknown,several apparent features of the dynasty parallel the choices of actors in sanx rn.f phrases. Themost obvious of these parallels is the move away from a father-son model and the appearance ofsuccession from one brother to another, mirroring the decrease in sons and increase in brothersas benefactors in our corpus. In addition, the large number of kings without a known family

relationship among them reminds one of the increase in the number of actors without a speci-fied relationship in our examples. The lack of specificity leaves open the possibility of the actorsbeing colleagues of the monument owner.

The late Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties continued in a similar manner, with anincreased emphasis on siblings and female relatives (fig. 10). This pattern is again similar tothat of the royal family at the time. If Bennett is correct in applying a fratrilineal model to theSeventeenth and part of the Thirteenth Dynasties, it would parallel the situation in private texts,such as the sanx rn.f formula, where brothers, sisters, and other female relatives predominateduring this period. During the Seventeenth Dynasty, there appears to be a greater role playedby women in the royal family, including the well known case of Ahhotep acting as regent for

Ahmose at the turn of the dynasty. This increasingly visible role of women in the royal familycould be due in part to a fratrilineal succession model, where the most prestigious women of thefamily might have had substantial input in choosing kings’ successors or might have been thefamily link between one king and another. Another possible reason for the increased empha-sis on women is the need during war or other unstable time periods to have trustworthy andcompetent adults at home to tend to one’s affairs (whether royal or private) while the men areaway at battle. Leaving a young and inexperienced son or other male relative in charge wouldbe impractical and possibly disastrous. Warfare could also lead to an actual shortage of men inthe population, leaving few qualified to fill such roles.

In addition to paralleling each other in prominence of particular family relationships, theareas of royal family and sanx rn.f actors overlap explicitly on a statue of Ahmose in the Louvre.

Fig. 8: Comparison of Sons, Brothers, and Sisters as Actors over Time.



25


On it are five separate sanx rn.f sentences, three of which feature female relatives as the benefac-tors. These three women are his sister, ‘the king’s eldest daughter, Ahmose,’ his sister, ‘the king’sdaughter, Ahmose-sheri,’ and ‘the king’s eldest daughter, she-that-cleaves-unto-the-fair-(white)-crown, Ah-hotep.’ The other two of the five sanx rn.f phrases feature ‘the perfect god, son ofRe Tao’.51

While this study does not cover the New Kingdom and later in depth, a brief survey of sanx

rn.f from these later periods shows a shift back to emphasizing sons during the New Kingdomand later. Brothers and female relatives still appear, but significantly less often than in the lateMiddle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, especially after the Eighteenth Dynasty.This change perhaps parallels the return to a primarily patrilineal system of succession, whilethe persistence of some variety in actors of the Eighteenth Dynasty, particularly female actors,

might reflect the continued emphasis on royal women and the somewhat flexible order of suc-cession (for example, Amenhotep I to Thutmose I and the succession of kings at the end of thedynasty).

Summary and ConclusionsThe act of causing one’s name to live is most strongly associated with speech, in particu-

lar speaking one’s name aloud and reciting offering prayers such as the Htp dj nsw formula.Vivifying a name, an essential component of a person both before and after death, was part offunerary cult practices, for which the heir was responsible. In exchange for carrying out funeraryrites, the heir inherited from his or her predecessor the means with which to sustain the cult.52

The relationship between beneficiary and benefactor strongly resembles the relationshipbetween an office holder and his successor at a high level in society, especially at the very highestlevel, the kingship itself. Whether the contemporary model of kingship influenced those lowerdown or whether both kingship and officialdom were simultaneously affected by the same socio-political changes cannot be known for certain. However, it is clear that, over time, the changesin patterns of choice of sanx rn.f actor and in choice of royal successor mirror each other.

The shift from sons to brothers and men without a specified relationship both in the bene-factors and in the royal succession may indicate a similar change in the practices of transferringoffices in other levels of the administration. A change such as this one would also indicate adramatic shift in the role of the heir and in who played this role, since passing on one’s physi-cal property as well as one’s office (and the property that was attached to that office) was the

Fig. 9: Comparison of Children and Siblings as Actors over Time.



26


main way of providing the heir with the resources to maintain one’s funerary cult. Whetheror not inheritance or office transfer practices shifted emphasis from sons to other relatives orcolleagues, the shift in actors within the sanx rn.f formula clearly indicates a change in funerarycult maintenance. During the Thirteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties, the son was no longer themost important person for assuring one’s funerary cult was maintained and name perpetuated.This is no insignificant change, since ‘the social position of the son on earth was dependant onhis care for his dead father’.53 A move away from sons being responsible for their fathers’ funer-ary cults would indicate fundamental changes in both religious concepts and social relations.

Since funerary cults were generally not maintained beyond one generation after a person’sdeath,54 the shift in actors is perhaps a reaction to this reality. The selection of brothers, sisters,

and colleagues as benefactors may indicate a new preference for someone other than the sonto be the maintainer of the funerary cult, likely in return for an endowment or inheritance ofsome kind, which might then be passed down to the next generation for continuing to maintainthe funerary cult (as is exemplified in the introduction to the contracts in the earlier tomb ofDjefahapi at Asyut).55 The methods through which Thirteenth Dynasty kings legitimized theirreigns may have made having such flexibility in transferring offices and choosing heirs sociallyacceptable. Since the kings were no longer using the social ideal of father-to-son successionto legitimize their positions, the legitimizing focus shifted to ceremonies and festivals, titulary,royal regalia, and the concept of divine birth and prophecy.56 Regardless of the precise reasonsfor the change in the sanx rn.f formula, we know that it reflects the greater social and religious

changes that took place during the late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period,which are also evidenced by the changes in burial practices, access to sacred space, administra-tive structure, and royal succession.

Notes1 An earlier version of this paper was presented in June 2008 at the American Research Center in Egypt’s offices in

Cairo, as part of their Wednesday night lecture series. I would like to thank Josef W. Wegner, Antonio J. Morales,

Jane A. Hill, and Joshua A. Roberson for their feedback and encouragement on this project. In particular, discus-

sions with Jane A. Hill and Antonio J. Morales on the implications of the changes illuminated in this paper and the

possible reasons behind them were invaluable. I would also like to thank Dawn McCormack, who was kind enough

to allow me to see her dissertation shortly after it was finished, which added greatly to the understanding of the

Fig. 10: Comparison of Male and Female Actors over Time.



27


historical context for this study. For allowing me access to many stelae in the Egyptian Museum on which the sanx

rn.f phrase appears, I would like to thank the Permanent Committee of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, as well

as Dr. Wafaa el Sadik and Mme. Salwa Ahmed Abdel Rahaman of the Egyptian Museum. For providing photographs

valuable to my research, I would also like to thank Céline Rebière-Plé of the Musée du Louvre.

2 S. Grallert, Bauen -- Stiften -- Weihen: Ägyptische Bau- und Restaurierungsinschriften von den Anfängen bis zur 30.Dynastie (Berlin, 2001), 98.

3 Note that Grallert lists 78 examples (Grallert, Bauen -- Stiften -- Weihen, 100-106) and Hannig lists 177 examples of

sanx rn.f (R. Hannig, Ägyptische Wörterbuch II (Mainz am Rhein, 2006), 2108-2110). However, of Hannig’s entries,

two of the examples are not the sanx rn.f formula and a third is a duplicate of another entry. Before going to press,

I identified three additional examples of the vivification formula, which are not included in this article. ese three

objects do not cause a significant change in the numbers presented here, but will be included in a future publica-

tion.

4 Grallert, Bauen -- Stiften -- Weihen, 93, 98; J. P. Allen, Middle Egyptian: an introduction to the language and culture of

hieroglyphs (Cambridge, 2000), 23.13, the participial statement; figs. 1 & 2.

5 Grallert, Bauen -- Stiften -- Weihen, 98.6 is is the typical translation found in publications of the objects in our corpus, indicating the interpretation of sanx

being an active, imperfective participle. However, it has been pointed out by J. A. Roberson in personal communica-

tion that the participle sanx may also be interpreted as a perfective participle, in its future usage, i.e., ‘It is his son

who will cause his name to live.’ e interpretation of the participle, whether perfective or imperfective, as indicating

the future would be most fitting on monuments which were erected by the owner while he still lived (that is, before

there was a need to cause his name to live, when the vivifying act was anticipated to take place in the future). See

also, Allen, Middle Egyptian, 23.10.

7 Grallert, Bauen -- Stiften -- Weihen, 100.

8 Ibid., 100.

9 A. Erman and H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache (Berlin, 1971), 425ff.

10 P. Vernus, ‘Name,’ Lexikon der Ägyptologie , IV (Wiesbaden, 1982), 321-322.11 A. H. Gardiner, Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum (London, 1935), 38-39.

12 M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: a Book of Readings (Berkeley, 1976), 177.

13 Grallert, Bauen -- Stiften -- Weihen, 80-81.

14 A few examples are: Florence 7581, on which the formula runs along the top of the stela (S. Bosticco, Museo Ar-

cheologico di Firenze (Roma, 1959), pl. 51), Heidelberg 560, on which the formula appears along the bottom of the

stela (E. Feucht, Vom Nil zum Neckar: Kunstschätze Ägyptens aus pharaonischer und koptischer Zeit an der Universität

Heidelberg (Berlin and Heidelberg, 1986), 89), and statue Louvre E15682 (D. Redford, ‘Textual Sources for the

Hyksos Period,’ in E. Oren, (ed.), e Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1997),

13).

15 B. Dominicus, Gesten und Gebärden in Darstellungen des Alten und Mittleren Reiches (Heidelberg, 1994) 77-93,especially illustration 17.

16 W. Helck, ‘Priestertracht,’ Lexikon der Ägyptologie , IV (Wiesbaden, 1982), 1105, n. 2; E. Otto, ‘Cheriheb,’ Lexikon

der Ägyptologie , I (Wiesbaden, 1975), 940; fig. 2.

17 R. O. Faulkner, e Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts (Warminster, 1973), 30-31; A. de Buck, e Egyptian Coffin Texts

(Chicago, 1935), 163; H. Willems, ‘e Social and Ritual Context of a Mortuary Liturgy of the Middle Kingdom

(CT Spells 30-41),’ in H. Willems, (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture , Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 103

(Leuven, 2001); H. Willems, Les Textes des Sarcophages et la Démocratie (Paris, 2008), 196-201.

18 M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom (Freiburg, Schweiz; Göttingen,

1988), 108; ANOC 5.3, pl.12.

19 J. Assmann, ‘Totenkult, Totenglauben,’ Lexikon der Ägyptologie , VI (Wiesbaden, 1986), 662.



28


20 T. G. H. James, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn, 1974), 34.

21 D. Spanel, ‘Palaeographic and Epigraphic Distinctions between Texts of the So-called First Intermediate Period and

the Early Twelfth Dynasty,’ in P. Der Manuelian and R. E. Freed (eds.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson,

II (Boston, 1996), 773-774.

22 Assmann, ‘Totenkult, Totenglauben,’ 662; Willems, Les Textes des Sarcophages , 197-198.23 W. Helck, ‘Sohn,’ Lexikon der Ägyptologie , V (Wiesbaden, 1984), 1054; T. Mrsich, Untersuchungen zur Hausurkunde

des Alten Reiches (Berlin, 1968), §159.

24 Willems, ‘e Social and Ritual Context,’ 369.

25 Assmann, ‘Totenkult, Totenglauben,’ 662, n. 20.

26 J. P. Allen, ‘Reading a Pyramid,’ in C. Berger, G. l. Clerc and N. Grimal (eds.), Hommages à Jean Leclant , I (Cairo,

1994), 18.

27 E. Otto, ‘Cheriheb,’ Lexikon der Ägyptologie , I (Wiesbaden, 1975), 940.

28 See again, Dominicus, Gesten und Gebärden, 77-93; P. Der Manuelian, ‘Presenting the Scroll: Papyrus Documents

in Tomb Scenes of the Old Kingdom,’ in P. Der Manuelian (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, II

(Boston, 1996).29 A. N. Dakin, ‘e Stela of the Sculptor Sire’ at Oxford,’ Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 24 (1938), pl. XII; J.

Garstang, Tombs of the ird Egyptian Dynasty at Reqâqnah and Bêt Khallâf (Westminster, 1904), pl. XXXIII, D1.

30 Total numbers in a particular chart may vary slightly from the actual number of objects included in the particular

time period because they represent the number of actors, and individual objects occasionally have more than one

sanx rn.f sentence and more than one actor named.

31 Erman and Grapow, Wörterbuch, 397-398.

32 D. Franke, Altägyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mittleren Reich (Hamburg, 1983), 304-8; see also, W.

Grajetzki, Two Treasurers of the Late Middle Kingdom (Oxford, 2001), 74-6.

33 A. B. Lloyd, ‘e Great Inscription of Khnumhotpe II at Beni Hasan,’ in A.B. Lloyd, (ed.), Studies in Pharaonic

Religion and Society in honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths (London, 1992), 22; P. Newberry and F.L. Griffith, Beni Hasan I

(London, 1893-1900), vol. 1, 56-66.34 J. Lustig, Ideologies of social relations in Middle Kingdom Egypt: gender, kinship, ancestors (Ph.D. diss., Temple Uni-

versity, 1993), 252, 260; Willems, ‘e Social and Ritual Context,’ 369.

35 A. Leahy, A Protective Measure at Abydos in the irteenth Dynasty. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989),

41-60.

36 J. Bourriau, ‘Patterns of Change in Burial Customs During the Egyptian Middle Kingdom,’ in S. Quirke (ed.),

Middle Kingdom Studies (New Malden, 1991), 15.

37 J. Bourriau, ‘Change of Body Position in Egyptian Burials from the Mid XIIth Dynasty until the early XVIIIth

Dynasty,’ in H. Willems (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms (Leuven,

2001), 1-2, 7-14.

38 Bourriau, ‘Patterns of Change,’ 13-15.39 S. Quirke, ‘e Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom,’ Revue d’Égyptologie 37 (1986), 124; O. Berlev, Ob-

shchestvennye otnosheniëiìa v Egipte çepokhi Srednego ëtìsarstva: soët sialnyæi sloæi ‘ëtìsarskikh òhmww’. ‘Nauka’

(Moscow, 1978), 45.

40 S. Quirke, e Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom: e Hieratic Documents (London, 1990), 2-3;

S. Quirke, ‘Royal power in the 13th Dynasty,’ in S. Quirke, Middle Kingdom Studies (New Malden, 1991), 136; D.

Landua-McCormack, Dynasty XIII Kingship in Ancient Egypt: A Study of Political Power and Administration through

an Investigation of the Royal Tombs of the Late Middle Kingdom (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2008), 97,

458-69.

41 D. Franke, Altägyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mittleren Reich (Hamburg, 1983), 175.

42 Ibid., 176; 176, n. 1.





30


Jakob Polotsky (East Gloucester, MA, 1981), 361-77.

S. Bosticco, Museo Archeologico di Firenze . Istituto poligrafico dello Stato (Roma, 1959).

J. Bourriau, ‘Patterns of Change in Burial Customs During the Egyptian Middle Kingdom,’ in S. Quirke, (ed.) Middle

Kingdom Studies ( New Malden, 1991), 3-10.

J. Bourriau, ‘Change of Body Position in Egyptian Burials from the Mid XIIth Dynasty until the early XVIIIthDynasty,’ in H. Willems (ed.). Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms ,

Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 103. (Leuven, 2001), 1-20.

A. N. Dakin, ‘The Stela of the Sculptor Sire’ at Oxford,’ JEA 24 (1938), 190-197.

A. de Buck, The Egyptian Coffin Texts (Chicago, 1935).

P. Der Manuelian, ‘Presenting the Scroll: Papyrus Documents in Tomb Scenes of the Old Kingdom,’ in P. Der

Manuelian, (ed.) Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson (Boston, 1996), 560-588.

B. Dominicus, Gesten und Gebärden in Darstellungen des Alten und Mittleren Reiches . (Heidelberg, 1994)

A. Erman and H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache (Berlin, 1971).

R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts (Warminster, 1973).

E. Feucht, Vom Nil zum Neckar: Kunstschätze Ägyptens aus pharaonischer und koptischer Zeit an der Universität Heidelberg (Berlin, Heidelberg, 1986).

D. Franke, Altägyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mittleren Reich (Hamburg, 1983).

A. H. Gardiner, ‘The Tomb of Hepzefa, Nomarch of Siut,’ JEA 5 (1918), 79-98.

A. H. Gardiner, Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum (London, 1935).

J. Garstang, Tombs of the Third Egyptian Dynasty at Reqâqnah and Bêt Khallâf (Westminster, 1904).

W. Grajetzki, Two Treasurers of the Late Middle Kingdom (Oxford, 2001).

S. Grallert, Bauen -- Stiften -- Weihen: Ägyptische Bau- und Restaurierungsinschriften von den Anfängen bis zur 30. Dynastie

(Berlin, 2001).

R. Hannig, Ägyptische Wörterbuch II (Mainz am Rhein, 2006).

W. C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn, 1955).

W. Helck, ‘Priestertracht,’ LÄ IV, 1105. W. Helck, ‘Sohn,’ LÄ V , 1054.

T. G. H. James, Corpus of Hierglyphic Inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn, 1974).

D. Landua-McCormack, Dynasty XIII Kingship in Ancient Egypt: A Study of Political Power and Administration through

an Investigation of the Royal Tombs of the Late Middle Kingdom (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania,

2008).

A. Leahy, ‘A Protective Measure at Abydos in the Thirteenth Dynasty,’ JEA 75 (1989), 41-60.

M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: a Book of Readings (Berkeley, 1976),

M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom (Göttingen, 1988).

A. B. Lloyd, ‘The Great Inscription of Khnumhotpe II at Beni Hasan,’ in A.B.Lloyd, (ed.) Studies in Pharaonic Religion

and Society in honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths (London, 1982), 21-36. J. Lustig, Ideologies of social relations in Middle Kingdom Egypt: gender, kinship, ancestors. (Ph.D. diss., Temple University,

1993).

T. Mrsich, Untersuchungen zur Hausurkunde des Alten Reiches (Berlin, 1968).

P. E. Newberry and F. L. Griffith, Beni Hasan (London, 1893-1900).

E. Otto, ‘Cheriheb,’ LÄ I, 940-943.

S. Quirke, ‘The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom,’ Rd’É 37 (1987), 107-130.

S. Quirke, The Administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom: The Hieratic Documents (London, 1990)

S. Quirke, ‘Royal power in the 13th Dynasty,’in S. Quirke (ed.) Middle Kingdom Studies (New Malden, 1991), 123-

139.

D. B. Redford, ‘Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period,’ in E.D. Oren, (ed.) The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological



31


Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1997), 1-44.

K. S. B. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800-1550 B.C. (Copenhagen,

1997).

D. B. Spanel, ‘Palaeographic and Epigraphic Distinctions between Texts of the So-called First Intermediate Period

and the Early Twelfth Dynasty,’ in P. Der Manuelianand R. E. Freed (eds.) Studies in Honor of William KellySimpson, II: (Boston, 1996), 765-786.

P. Vernus, ‘Name,’ LÄ IV, 320-326.

H. Willems, ‘The Social and Ritual Context of a Mortuary Liturgy of the Middle Kingdom (CT Spells 30-41),’ in H.

Willems, (ed.) Social Aspects of Funerary Culture , Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 103 (Leuven, 2001), 253-

372.

H. Willems, Les Textes des Sarcophages et la Démocratie (Paris, 2008).