The composition and hierarchies of the household of Heqanakht

by Mattias Karlsson

1. Introduction
The so-called Heqanakht papyri were discovered by the Egyptian Expedition of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art during its 1922-23 season of excavation, in the remains of the ancient city of
Thebes. More precisely, they were, curiously enough, discovered in the tomb of a man unspoken
of in the papyri and called Meseh. This tomb was cut into the eastern wall of the entrance terrace
to the much larger tomb of a vizier named Ipi. The two tombs in question are situated in the Deir
el-Bahri area, i.e. in the western, necropolis part of Thebes. The papyri seem to have belonged to a
man named Heqanakht, and it has been suggested that his papyri were temporarily deposited in the
soon-to-be tomb of Meseh by Heqanakht’s scribe Sihathor, and that they were accidently interred
there when the funeral of Meseh eventually took place (Allen 2002: 127-133).
The papyri are from the late 11th or early 12th dynasty, i.e. from the end of the First
Intermediate Period or the start of the Middle Kingdom. No kings are mentioned - only the
references to the regnal years 5 and 8 of some king (V:1, 37).1 The earliest interpreters of the
papyri dated them to the late 11th dynasty and the reign of Montuhotep III (Winlock, in Allen
2002: 243-255, James 1962: 2-3). Nowadays, scholars favour a dating to the early 12th dynasty
and the reigns of either Amenemhet I or Senwosret I (Goedicke 1984: 8-10, Allen 2002: 127-130).
Regarding the issue of the point of departure and destination of the correspondence, earlier
scholars assumed that Heqanakht, while serving as k3-priest to the vizier Ipi (James 1962: 43,
Allen 2002: 106-107), wrote his letters and accounts in a place not so far away to the south of the
home of his household. The latter locality was then situated somewhere a short distance to the
south of Thebes in a place referred to as “Sidder Grove” (nbsyt) (Winlock in Allen 2002: 243-255,
James 1962: 7-9). The recent study of Allen however strongly indicates (mainly using toponym
data as evidence) that Heqanakht stayed in Thebes while his household’s home in fact was situated
in the north, in the Fayum or Memphis region (Allen 2002: 121-125).
The papyri became widely available to Egyptologists first fourty years after their discovery,
in the groundbreaking publication of T. G. H. James (1962). A number of reviews on this
publication,2 lengthwise most importantly that by Baer (1963), told of the enthusiasm which this
new material had brought. Selected portions of the papyri have also frequently been translated in
text anthologies or otherwise.3 A major study on the Heqanakht papyri was conducted by H.
Goedicke (1984),4 and in recent years the impressive study (including text editioning and
discussion) by J. P. Allen (2002) has developed the research on the papyri further.
Turning to the contents of the papyri, the reasons why this collection of papyri have attracted
so much attention from scholars are probably the unique insights which they convey into the
economic and social fabric of a particular Egyptian household in a given moment of time. Texts
which speak as detailed as they do of household economy are not attested again until the New
Kingdom (Allen 2002: xv), and the personal tone which some of the letters in the papyri carries
has fascinated scholars and the public5 alike. The papyri contain five letters (I-IV and P´) and four
accounts (V-VII and P). The five documents made up by fragments (Fragments A-E) seem to have
been accounts. Letters I-II, the most famous of the papyri, contain addresses by Heqanakht to his
household, residing in Sidder Grove. They deal both with economic and social matters, and are
                                                                                                               
1
In my source referencing of this paper, I follow the conventions in Allen 2002.
2
De Cénival 1963, Derchain 1963, Helck 1964, Spaull 1963, Théodoridès 1966.
3
See e.g. Parkinson 1991, Wente 1990.
4
Reviewed in its turn by Quirke (1988).
5
For example, Agatha Christie based one of her books, “Death comes as the end”, on these letters.

  1  
primarily directed to two women named Ipi and Hetepet and, more prominently, to a man named
Merisu. The latter are being given detailed instructions regarding the management of Heqanakht’s
affairs. Notable features of these messages are Heqanakht’s repeated reference to the mistreatment
of his new wife, and the listing of a reduced ration/salary list for his household. Letter III consists
of an address by Heqanakht to a high official named Herunefer, residing somewhere near
Heracleopolis, and it deals with economic matters. Letter IV contains an address by a woman
named Sitnebsekhtu, residing in Thebes, to her mother of the same name, residing in the Abydos
area. Letter P´, written on the same papyrus as Account P, does not seem to belong to the
Heqanakht papyri in a strict sense, since it in fact consists of the erased text of Account P (Allen
2002: 13-14, 119). The preserved accounts lastly, deal with the economic affairs (involving
agriculture and linen production) of Heqanakht in Sidder Grove and in the Abydos area.
In this paper, I plan to discuss the social dimensions and groupings of the Heqanakht papyri
rather than the often discussed (e.g. Černý 1954, Baer 1963, Silver 1985) economical aspects of
the sources in question. As concluded by Allen (2002: 105), four different groups of people
emerge in the Heqanakht papyri, namely Heqanakht and his household, his neighbours and
debtors, the people in the Abydos area, and the persons mentioned in letter P´. A delimitation is
needed, and it seems only natural to focus on the firstly mentioned group, so differently
understood in the literature. The aim of this paper is to identify and discuss the composition and
hierarchies of the household of Heqanakht while critically analysing both the primary sources
themselves as well as previous scholarly interpretations on these two topics. Section 1 will give an
introduction, 2.1 will identify and delimit the household of Heqanakht, most notably by presenting
the ration/salary list of letter II which in a way identifies the household, 2.2 will give a critical
discussion which seeks to identify each member of the household in relation to one another, 3.1
will discuss and identify inner hierarchies (gender, class, age, other) of Heqanakht’s household in
particular and social hierarchies in ancient Egypt generally, and section 4 will provide a summary.

2. Household composition
In the first discussion section of this paper, I will address the topic of the composition of
Heqanakht’s household. By composition I mean first of all the social relations (father, wife,
relative, employee etc.) which each discussed household member had in relation to the others, but
also (whenever relevant and possible) the occupations of each member; something which may also
be telling of the household composition. The household is delimited by Heqanakht himself in his
ration/salary list which forms an important part of letter II. This list is presented and discussed in
subsection 2.1. Also, inclusion and exclusion of persons mentioned outside this list are motivated.
In the following subsection, 2.2, the social relations of each household member are, one after
another, identified and discussed, all in the light of the dual aspects referred to above.

2.1 Identifying and delimiting the household of Heqanakht

In letter II: 7-23, Heqanakht turns to all members of his “household” (pr), and presents reduced
monthly “rations/salaries” (‘qw) in the light of the hard economic strains which he claims to have
had on account of meager inundation levels. The numbers to the right are in “sacks” (ẖ3r) of grain.
As already stated, this list gives an image of how Heqanakht perceived his household composition.

7 Writing of the salary of the household6 (sš n ‘qw n pr):

8-9 Ipi and her maidservant (b3kt) 0.8
10-11 Hetepet and her maidservant (b3kt) 0.8
                                                                                                               
6
If not stated otherwise, I follow the translations in Allen 2002. All accompanying transcriptions are my own.

  2  
12-13 Heti’s son Nakht, with his dependents (ẖrw) 0.8
14 Merisu and his dependents (ẖrw) 0.8
15 Sihathor 0.8
16 Sinebniut 0.7
17 Anubis 0.4
18 Snefru 0.4
19 Si(t)inut 0.4
20 May’s daughter Hetepet 0.5
21 Nefret 0.3½
22 Sitwerut 0.2
23 Totalling to 7.9½

The list thus gives twelve individuals who are identified with their names as beneficaries, as well
as two maidservants, and at least four dependents, totalling 18. The latter group consisted of at
least two women and two children, judging from logical reasoning and the plural in ẖrw.
Right after the list, a note on the salary of one particular individual, Sinebniut, is added,
stating that the salary measured for Sinebniut should be at his disposal for his journey to a place
called Perhaa (II:5b-6). This note does not explain why this household member is listed as a
recipient of only 0.7 sack of full barley, but tells of pay in advance (Allen 2002: 146).
Leaving the view of the composition of the household which Heqanakht obviously had, I
might add the “housemaid” (b3kt nt pr) Senen which Heqanakht wanted to have dismissed from
the household (I:13), a woman named Iutenhab who is clearly referred to as another household
member (II:40), and perhaps also the “hairdresser” (nšwt) and “domestic” (prt) of Hetepet who are
referred to by Heqanakht as being hindered access to his isolated wife (II:39). Last but not least,
also Heqanakht himself should be added to the household in question…
The number of household members in total is then 23, or more (if Merisu and Nakht had
further dependents). In terms of gender/sex, seven full household members are men/boys, and a
further seven full household members are women/girls, while another seven are part household
members (2 maidservants, 2 wife dependents, a housemaid, a hairdresser, and a domestic), all
female. The sexes of the two children dependents of Merisu and Nakht can not be determined. The
less apparent aspects of age, class, and other possible distinctions will be discussed later.
It is difficult to see that any other individual mentioned in the Heqanakht papyri can be even
externally considered as a member of the named man’s household. A man with the name Ip(i) is
referred to in a Heqanakht oath in letter II in the context of Heqanakht complaining to Merisu
about the mistreatment of his wife (II:38-44). It is said that: “As this man lives for me - I speak
about Ip(i) - whoever shall make any affair of the wife on the battlefield, he is against me and I am
against him!” (‘nḫ n.i s3 pn ḏd.i r Ip ir.t.f sp nb ḥr pg3 n ḥbswt iw.f r.i iw.i r.f) (II:40-41). Allen
(2002: 45-46) plausibly suggest that the passage probably refers to the vizier Ipi whose k3-servant
Heqanakht presumably was, and in light of the apparent oath character of this passage as well as
the context which refers to Heqanakht’s household as the mistreaters of his wife, I believe that his
interpretation is correct. In earlier literature, it is standard to acknowledge the oath character of the
passage, but also to understand Ip(i) (or Merisu) as somebody from inside or outside who had
made sexual advances on Heqanakht’s new wife (James 1962: 33, 43, Baer 1963: 9, n. 65-66,
Wente 1990: 62, Parkinson 1991: 107), but this seems to me as an overly imaginative
interpretation.7 If so, the question then arises who this mysterious Ip(i) was? The sudden
mentioning of and the identity of Ip(i) can in my mind be satisfactorily explained by the oath
format and the subordinate role of Heqanakht in relation to the k3 he served. As noted by Allen
(2002: 106-107), not only deities and kings but also superiors are referred to in Old and Middle

                                                                                                               
7
I will return to this issue in section 3 when discussing gender/sex and social hierarchies.

  3  
Kingdom oaths. With the upkeeping of his/her “pious foundation” an influential individual in life
could be equally powerful in death, keeping his/her role as superior (Kemp 1983: 85-92).
Moreover, Ip(i) is not mentioned in the salary list, and if he would have been an outcast from it,
Heqanakht would surely have alluded to that, as he did concerning the housemaid Senen whom he
wanted Merisu to throw out of his house. It is also hard to conceive of the business relation Ipi Jr.
(see below) as somebody who suddenly is presented as a molester of Heqanakht’s wife. In sum,
Ip(i) probably refers to the vizier whose k3-servant Heqanakht was.
As for other “new” names in the Heqanakht letters, these are clearly referred to only as
business relations, namely Hau Jr. (I:8, II:vo.2), Herunefer (I:8, III), Ipi Jr.’s son Khentekhtai
(I:11, II:33), Neneksu (III:6), Ipi Jr. (III:7), Nehri’s son Ipi (III:7), and Desher (III:8). The people
in letter IV and P´ are clearly unrelated to Heqanakht’s household, since not any of the members
are mentioned in them.8 The former letter was probably written by the scribe who was preparing
for travelling downstream with the other letters (Allen 2002: 136), and the latter (erased) letter is
clearly a palimpsest (Allen 2002: 119). Turning to new names in the accounts, Account V clearly
lists debtors (V:37-54, vo.1-20), Account VI clearly mentions only business relations (in the
Abydos area), and Account P lists the debtors of a man named Neferabdu, in extension of
Heqanakht. Allen (2002: 118) convincingly argues that Neferabdu was the personal business
representative of Heqanakht in the Thinite nome. What is clear is that Neferabdu is referred to
only in business matters, and that he is not mentioned in the household list of letter II. If he too
would have been a family member, at least some social matters should have been addressed.

2.2 The individual household members and their internal social relations

After having identified and delimited the household of Heqanakht, it is now time to discuss the
household members and their internal social relations. The discussion will move from one member
to another. For each member, their attestations in the papyri, their respective occupations (if
determinable), and their relations to other household members will be up for discussion.

2.2.1 The head of the household: Heqanakht

Not surprisingly, Heqanakht is mentioned frequently in the papyri. He is mentioned twelve times,
and in the documents of Letters I-III, Account V, and Fragment A. He stands as the official sender
of all of these documents. As for the occupation(s) of this individual, he bears the titles of ḥm k3
“k3-servant” (e.g. I:vo.19) and b3k n pr-ḏt “worker of the funerary estate” (III:1). The latter title
supposedly carried the notion that the priestly role of k3-servant not only meant the execution of
rituals in the mortuary cult but also to the attending of administrative and agricultural duties in
relation to the endowments which followed in the contracts for k3-servantship, materialized as
“pious foundations”, private or official (Kemp 1983: 85-92, Allen 2002: 105). In all documents,
except in his address to the “delta overseer” Herunefer, Heqanakht comes across as somebody
who gives orders and instructions, and he was clearly the head of the household, proved e.g. by his
role as the one who established the levels and distribution of the household salaries.

2.2.2 The mother of Heqanakht: Ipi

The identification of Ipi, who heads the salary list, is pretty straightforward. When referred to, this
woman is greeted “a thousand times, a million times” (ḫ‘ n sp ḥḥ n sp) as “my/his mother”
(mwt.í/f) in Heqanakht’s letters (I:vo.15, II:1). No man mentioned as household member could

                                                                                                               
8
The name of the scribe Sihathor can be reconstructed (IV:3), but he is mentioned only as a messenger.

  4  
have been old enough to be her husband (see below), so it is likely that her husband and
Heqanakht’s father was already dead by the time of the composing of these letters.

2.2.3 The new wife of Heqanakht, a widow, and two maidservants: Hetepet, May’s daughter
Hetepet, Iutenhab, and Senen

The identity of Heqanakht’s wife (ḥbswt) has been debated frequently. It is fairly clear that the
name of this woman was Hetepet. She is referred to as a mistreated woman in letter II (II:38). The
problem is that there are two women (Hetepet and May’s daughter Hetepet) with this name in the
salary list. Both seems to get the same salary, i.e. c. 0.5 sack. The former Hetepet has a
maidservant and is mentioned on second place in the list, while the latter Hetepet lacks a
maidservant and comes toward the end of the list. Furthermore, a woman named Iutenhab appears
in the middle of a passage which refers to the bullied victim of Heqanakht’s household. This
Iutenhab is not mentioned in the salary list. In the relevant passage, Heqanakht speaks to Merisu:
“Now, before I came here, didn’t I tell you (all) ‘Don’t keep a friend of Hetepet from her, whether
her hairdresser or her domestic?’…Now, if you (Merisu) don’t want her, you’ll have to have
Iutenhab brought to me.” (nn grt iw.n.i is mi n3 ḏd.n.i n.ṯn r ḏd m šn‘ ḫnmst nt Ḥtpt ḥr.s m nšwt.s
m prt.s…n grt mr.k s(y) ḫr.k di.k in.tw n.i Iwtnḥb) (II:38-41). Most scholars have seen two
different women in this passage. At least in the case of Goedicke (1984: 15, 33), this has resulted
in the idea that the two women were Heqanakht’s simultaneously living wife and concubine
respectively, partly based on the alleged difference in status of the groups ḥmt (higher) and ḥbswt
(lower). Other scholars have left Hetepet unexplained, but conveyed the idea that Iutenhab was the
second and consecutive wife of Heqanakht (e.g. James 1962: 33, 42-43, Baer 1963: 8-9, n. 63,
Robins 1993: 61). Allen (2002: 108-110) however argues, based on a grammatical analysis as well
as the fact that nicknames are common in Egyptian onomasticon, that these names denote one and
the same person. To this discussion should be added the “housemaid” named Senen. She is
referred to as having harassed Heqanakht’s wife (I:vo.13-15).
Most likely, the name of Heqanakht’s wife is Hetepet. Although his wife’s name is not
mentioned in his complaint passage of letter I (vo.13-15), Hetepet is identified as the one being
mistreated in letter II (see above). In contrast to Allen though, I belive that it is the firstly
mentioned (in the salary list) Hetepet which was Heqanakht’s wife. This person’s high place in the
list as well as her having a maidservant are in line with her likely role as “mistress of the house”
(nbt pr).9 In analogy with court ranking, Ipi was the queen mother and Hetepet the queen, while
Heqanakht of course was the king (Robins 1993). This Hetepet is also specially greeted in
Heqanakht’s letters (I:vo.16, II:1-2). It makes sense that Heqanakht greeted his close-standing
wife, and not some distant aunt or older sister, the latter interpretation suggested by Allen (2002:
109). Also, as remarked by e.g. Allen (2002: 108) and Robins (1993: 61-62), the basis for seeing a
hierarchy between ḥmt and ḥbswt is poor, although there may be a difference in terms of
sequential order, with a ḥbswt as number two in line. The word ḥmt is actually used once, namely
when Heqanakht talks generally of how to treat a man’s wife but clearly referring to his ḥbswt
(II:43). This implies that there was no difference in rank. The question on who the direct object-
pronoun “her” (sy) refers to in each and every case in the relevant passage of letter II can never be
settled, despite Allen’s (2002: 108-109) attempts in that direction. It is self-evident that a perfect
understanding of these references requires implicit knowledge.
The question then arises who the second Hetepet was. Possibly she was the widow of a
deceased brother of Heqanakht. This would explain her low status in the list as well as her
patronym, indicating an outsider status. The amount of her salary (0.5 sack) shows that she was an
adult. As for Iutenhab, I can not agree with Allen on his nickname interpretation. To have one

                                                                                                               
9
On this title and role, see Robins 1993: 99-101.

  5  
name in official contexts and another name in private contexts is one thing, but to be referred to by
both names in a single, narrative text passage does not stand the test. It does not make any sense
for Heqanakht to switch between the two names in a single text passage. One may also have
expected that Iutenhab would have been used in the salary list as a way of differentiating between
the two Hetepets. I would therefore stick to the old interpretation of Hetepet and Iutenhab being
two separate individuals. But rather than seeing Iutenhab as a concubine, I would suggest that the
relevant name refers to the hairdresser or domestic (either one referred to as a “friend”, ḫnmst)
who is mentioned in the cited passage above. Iutenhab may perhaps be understood as a
replacement, on a trial period, of Senen as his wife’s maidservant. This insignificant position
explains why Merisu was given the chance to send Iutenhab to Heqanakht if the former did not
“want” (mr) her. In my mind, it seems highly unlikely to think that Merisu had been given an
opportunity by Heqanakht to throw the woman (i.e. Hetepet-the-wife) whom he disliked so much
(I:vo.15) out of the house. The standpoint of Heqanakht is clearly that his household needs to
respect his wife - end of story (II:44). The naming of “a simple maidservant” is nothing to be
surprised about, showed by the naming of Senen who was “just” a b3kt nt pr. As for Heqanakht’s
use of this Iutenhab, the latter would probably have been put to service as Heqanakht’s personal
servant. In addition, other texts preserved from ancient Egypt show that it was accepted practice
for household heads to have sexual relations with their female servants (Robins 1993: 65-66), then
giving some credit to the long expressed idea of Iutenhab as a mere concubine.

2.2.4 The employee of Heqanakht: Heti’s son Nakht, Sihathor, and Sinebniut

Heti’s son Nakht is quite frequently mentioned, both in the letters and in the accounts. In terms of
his occupation within the household, he is described as negotiating land leasing (I:3), collecting
grain debts (III:4), involved in distributing the montly salaries (II:29-32), and involved in the
managing of the household cattle (V:25-28). His status as (an important) employee, and as not a
natural part of the household, is made clear by his patronym, Heti’s son.
Sihathor is also mentioned quite frequently, and both in letters and accounts. Along with
Merisu and Sinebniut, Sihathor is referred to as the “farmers” (‘ḥwtíw) of Heqanakht in Account V
(V:12), but as demonstrated by Allen (2002: 111), this term does not imply a family relationship.
Sihathor was at least partly engaged in fieldwork (I:vo.6-7), but his major occupation however
seems to have been that of a scribe and messenger. Both letters refer to his role as the deliverer of
messages between Heqanakht and the latter’s home in Sidder Grove (I:vo.1-2, II:vo.1). His
position as household scribe can be proposed (Allen 2002: 81-84). It is of course possible that he
may have been a younger brother or son of Heqanakht, but the fact that this possible filial
relationship is unmentioned speaks for his status as merely an employee.
Sinebniut is frequently mentioned, in letters as well as in accounts. He is listed as one of
Heqanakht’s ‘ḥwtíw, and shares responsibility for taking care of the cattle (V:18-19), in land
leasing (I:3), and in collecting grain debts (III:4). His lower salary (0.7 sack of full barley), with
his receiving of payment in advance implying no favoured treatment, suggests an inferior position
and/or younger age. Again, it is of course possible that this individual may have been a younger
brother or son of Heqanakht, but the fact that this possible filial relationship is unmentioned in the
papyri is an argument for his status as merely an employee.

2.2.5 The elder offsprings of Heqanakht: Merisu, Anubis, Mer-Sneferu, and Sitinut

Merisu is a central figure in the Heqanakht papyri. Letters I-II are addressed to Heqanakht’s
household generally but to Merisu in particular. He is described as directing work (e.g. I:vo.13-
14), paying the monthly salaries (e.g. II:29-32), sending household members on missions (e.g.
II:40), and as taking care of Heqanakht’s property, the latter duty involving several different types

  6  
of manual and organisatory labour (e.g. I:vo.10-12, I:9-10). He is one of Heqanakht’s three
“farmers”. There are some indications that Merisu was not just another employee. Firstly, his role
as the deputy of Heqanakht (see below) corresponds well with the notion that main authority and
professions passed within the family of a household in ancient Egypt, according to a hereditary
system (Brewer and Teeter 1999: 82). Heqanakht’s words to Merisu that: “Have you been given
equal rights with me?” ((i)n iw.k di.t ḥn‘.i m psšy.i) (I:vo.17), indicates that a dividing of paternal
heritage is alluded to here (Allen 2002: 111), whether literally understood or not.10 More
importantly, Merisu’s destiny is intimately tied to Anubis and (Mer-)Sneferu in Heqanakht’s talk
of: “You die with them as you live with them.” (mt.k ḥn‘.sn ‘nḫ.k ḥn‘.sn) (I:vo.12). This wording
indicates a blood relationship between these three men or boys. As Merisu had dependents, he
must have been of a mature age at the time of the letters.11
The question then arises whether Merisu was a brother or son of Heqanakht. Earlier
literature tend to prefer the latter alternative, while Allen (2002: 111-112) proposes the former
alternative. Allen apparently bases his interpretation on the quoted passage on heritage dividing,
but Heqanakht’s choice of words here may equally well be understood as sarcastic, demonstrating
the absurdity in a son bossing over his father, his acting like an elder brother in relation to his
begetter. The togetherness of Merisu, Sneferu, and Anubis would arguably fit the best if they were
all Heqanakht’s sons. The reprimand to Merisu that: “This is not the year for a man to be lax about
his master, about his father, about his brother.” (n rnpt is n3 nt b3g in s ḥr nb.f ḥr it.f ḥr sn.f)
(I:14), can work as evidence in either way. However, the images of authority here may be
understood metaphorically, not referring to any individual in particular. The attempts of Allen
(2002: 115-116) to identify specific persons behind these three designations are forced. Although
this may be questionable as use of evidence, also some psychological factors tell of a father-son
relationship. The “bossy” tone of Heqanakht in his letters to Merisu would be more in line with a
father admonishing his hopeless son, and the strong dislike (msḏ) that Merisu apparently had for
Hetepet (I:vo.15) makes sense if the latter was his step-mother.
Anubis, mentioned in both letters, are tied together in a probable blood relationship with
Merisu and Sneferu. His salary of just 0.4 sack and his lack of dependents attest of his being of a
not mature age. Anubis takes precedence of Sneferu, something which may indicate seniority in
relation to the latter. Anubis is described as plowing fields together with Merisu, Sneferu, and
Sihathor (I:vo.6-7). Allen (2002: 114) suggests, based on his discussion on Merisu, that Anubis
may have been a younger brother of Heqanakht, but in light of the above understanding of Merisu,
it seems more likely to identify him as a second and younger son of Heqanakht.
Mer-Sneferu, a name attested in Letter II (II:35), is most likely the full name for Sneferu.
Such a shortening is often attested in Egyptian onomasticon (Allen 2002: 113), and the roles
which are brought up under the two names do not differ. His salary of just 0.4 sack and his lack of
dependents attest of his being of a not mature age. In Letter I, Heqanakht remarks to Merisu that
Sneferu “has grown up” (‘3.w) (I:vo.5). Anubis takes precedence of Sneferu, something which
may indicate the latter’s juniority in relation to the former. Sneferu seems to have been involved in
some plowing and in the caretaking of the cattle (I:vo.7, II:35-36). Heqanakht specially greet
Sneferu “a thousand times, a million times” in his letter I (I:vo.5-6), indicating a personal
attachment. More importantly, the latter is here referred to as “foremost of my (Heqanakht’s)
body” (ḫnt(y) ẖt.i), clearly indicating a father-son relationship. Favouritism can be detected in
Heqanakht’s instructions to Merisu that Sneferu can do whatever occupation in the household he
wants (e.g. II:35-37). Heqanakht also wants Sneferu to come to him in Thebes (I:vo.7-8).
Referring to Sneferu and Anubis, Heqanakht makes clear to Merisu that: “there is nothing more

                                                                                                               
10
Menu (1970) bases his article on the presupposition that it is really a matter of dividing a paternal estate here.
11
Egyptian men seems to have married at 16-20 years of age, while Egyptian women were married somewhat earlier,
i.e. right after having reached a child-bearing age (Brewer and Teeter 1999: 95).

  7  
(important) than either of them in that house with you.” (mk n prw.f m p3 pr ḥn‘.k) (I:vo.12-13).
Mer-Sneferu was clearly a (favourite) son of Heqanakht.
As for Sitinut, this person is mentioned only in the salary list, in which she comes after most
household members, but before May’s daughter Hetepet, Nefret, and Sitwerut. The size of her
salary, 0.4 sack of grain, indicates that she was in the same age as Anubis and Sneferu. In light of
my understanding of Merisu, it is less likely that she was a younger sister of Heqanakht than a
daughter of the same man. Her near adult age and her separation (through the name May’s
daughter Hetepet) from the other offsprings of Heqanakht (see below) in the salary list suggests
that she was the daughter of Heqanakht’s previous and divorced/deceased wife. As noted by Allen
(2002: 115), since servants are not named in the list, she was a full member of the household.

2.2.6 The daughters of Heqanakht and Hetepet: Nefret and Sitwerut

Nefret is mentioned in the penultimate place in the salary list. Her limited salary, 0.3½ sack of full
barley, indicates that she was a child or in her early teens. She is personally greeted by Heqanakht
(I:vo.16), implying a close personal relationship, probably as Heqanakht’s daughter. Her young
age and her separation (through the name May’s daughter Hetepet) from the other offsprings of
Heqanakht in the salary list suggests that she was the daughter of Heqanakht’s new wife, Hetepet.
Sitwerut is mentioned only in the salary list where she comes last and receives only 0,2 sack
of full barley. The latter indicates that she was still a child. Again, her young age and her
separation (through the name May’s daughter Hetepet) from the other offsprings of Heqanakht in
the salary list suggests that she was the daughter of Heqanakht’s new wife, Hetepet.

3. Household hierarchies
In this following and concluding discussion section of this paper, I will identify and discuss the
social hierarchies (in terms of age, class, gender, other) of Heqanakht’s household. The discussion
will be based both on the primary sources and on scholarly literature. Several factors will form the
basis for the below assessment of hierarchies, namely a household member’s order in the list,
his/her amount of allotments, his/her naming or anonymity, and his/her occupation(s).

3.1 Social hierarchies within the household and in ancient Egypt generally

3.1.1 Age hierarchies

As noted by Allen (2002: 115), age is a vital factor when understanding the order of the
individuals in the salary list. The idea that elderly people such as parents were respected and taken
care of in ancient Egyptian households is often expressed in the preserved primary sources
(Brewer and Teeter 1999: 95). The only clear examples of a withdrawal from this age principle of
ordering are the ordering of the two Hetepets. These exceptions can however easily be explained.
Hetepet-the-wife had to have a prominent position in the list due to her role as “mistress of the
house”, and Hetepet-the-widow can be expected to have had a not so prominent position due to
her coming from the outside. The circumstance that Anubis precedes the favourite son Sneferu,
and that the outsider Heti’s son Nakht precedes the eldest son Merisu tellingly attest to the age
principle. Those male individuals with dependents, i.e. Heti’s son Nakht and Merisu, and who
arguably are the older able-bodied men, come before the younger male individuals. The
circumstance that Ipi, who may have been in her 60’s, heads the list reinforces the principle. As
for the amount of their salaries, it is clear that the principle of age was vital also here, although a
warning for circular reasoning should always be at hand. It seems that mature individuals receive

  8  
c. 0.5 sack of full barley each, and that the individuals in their teens receive 0.4 each. Nefret and
Sitwerut, presumably only girls, receive only 0.3½ and 0.2 respectively. In other words, also the
amount aspect tells of the importance in age hierarchy. Concluding from the view that Merisu was
probably Heqanakht’s son, and the former thus around 20 years of age, Heqanakht should have
been c. 40-50 years old at the time of the composition of his letters. This comparatively high age
would have given him a natural source of authority in the household. Heqanakht actually refers to
his household members as “my children” (ẖrdw.i) in one letter passage (II:24-25). In conclusion,
age was an important factor in the hierarchical structure of Heqanakht’s household.

3.1.2 Class hierarchies

Class can not be as readily detected in the hierarchical structure of Heqanakht’s household. As
pointed out above, the salaries seem to have been determined primarily on the basis of age, thus on
the physical needs. The special skill which Sihathor had in his knowledge in writing did not earn
him a special treatment; he received 0.8 sack, just as Nakht and Merisu. A scribal class can in
other words not be referred to here, not in the same way as is possible in other contexts (Brewer
and Teeter 1999: 77-79). Besides, Sihathor was also involved in manual labour, and Heqanakht
seems to have written several of the documents of his papyri himself, namely Letter I-II, and
Account VII, Account P, and Fragment A (Allen 2002: 81-85), something which may make him
stand out in light of the few literates in ancient Egyptian society (Baines 1983).
However, a closer look at the papyri reveals that class was indeeed a component of the
hierarchical structure of Heqanakht’s household. In the beginning of letter I, Heqanakht refers to
(a later revised) grain allotment to Heti’s son Nakht of 1 sack, while the latter’s dependents
receive only 0.5 sack (I:15-16). In analogy with this, we can expect that e.g. the distribution of 0.8
sack to Hetepet and her maidservant, would have been subdivided at least into 0.5 versus 0.3. The
hairdresser and domestic of Hetepet are not even mentioned. There were thus clearly a distinction
between full and part household members, a distinction not exclusively based on blood lineage.
Another image of hierarchy, albeit crossing the household boundaries, is given by Heqanakht’s
very polite and respectful address to Herunefer, the delta overseer, in Letter III. The tone of this
letter stands in sharp contrast to the tone in the letters addressed to his household. It also attests to
the well-developed hierarchy of Middle Kingdom state and society, manifested e.g. in the remains
of the pyramid town of el-Lahun (Kemp 1983: 80-85, 1989: 109-180). The distinction between
rulers and the governed was marked in ancient Egypt (Brewer and Teeter 1999: 69-83), and there
are ample grounds to identify “upper and lower classes” in the sources (Robins 1993: 107-110).

3.1.3 Gender/sex hierarchies

At first glance, gender/sex does not seem to have been important in the hierarchical structure of
Heqanakht’s household. Two women, Ipi and Hetepet-the-wife, head the salary list, women (at
least those named) receive the same quantity of grain as men, and Heqanakht seems to only have
had one wife at a time, in contrast to an earlier interpretation (Goedicke 1984: 15, 33). Also, the
(older) woman named Sitnebsekhtu was apparently a free business woman, manufacturing woven
linen in her workshop in the Thinite nome, having Heqanakht as one customer (Allen 2002: 118).
Although this circumstance crosses household boundaries, it seems relevant to pick up on here.
The women of ancient Egypt seem to have had a comparatively high status (Robins 1993: 11-20).
Lastly, as argued by Allen (2002: 110), it is not likely that the above (see 2.1) quoted
references to the mistreatment of Hetepet, accompanied by the Ipi oath, talks of an atmosphere of
sexual harassment in the household - the latter imagery suggested by numerous scholars (see 2.1).
Both men and women, explicitly Merisu and Senen, are described as harassing, i.e. “doing bad
things to” (irt binw r), Hetepet in the same way (I:vo.13-15), the mistreaters are referred to by the

  9  
second person plural (e.g. I:vo.15), and the description of Merisu’s harassment is given by
Heqanakht’s words to Merisu: “How good it would be for you to stop!” (gr.k nfr st) (I:vo.17), the
relevant verb gr implying verbal abuses. Moreover, the key-words of pg3 (in the wording: “on the
wife’s battlefield”) and sḫrw (in the wording: “having his wife denounced to him”) do not carry
any sexual connotations and may be understood literally (Allen 2002: 110).
However, numerous factors indicate that gender/sex did indeed play a role in the household
hierarchy. The wives of Nakht and Merisu are not even mentioned, thus made “invisible”, a
number of women/girls form the end of the salary list, the young woman Sitinut comes after all
her brothers, and those women who have a prominent place in the list, i.e. Ipi and Hetepet-the-
wife, owe their elevated positions due to their close connection with Heqanakht. Furthermore,
Nakht and Hetepet-the-widow have patronyms and not matronyms (Allen 2002: 283-284), and all
the five part household members (maidservants, housemaids, hairdressers, and domestics), who
allegedly held a lower status, are all women. Moreover, only Heqanakht and Sihathor (both men)
appear as literate, only men are referred to as debtors and neighbours (III:6-8, V:37-54, VI), and
the business relations in the Abydos area are mostly men (VII, P). Only men are described as in
charge of important household matters, such as sending people on missions, negotiating land
lease, distribute work duties, and so on (see above). Although one may argue that it here only is a
matter of a non-hierachical, culturally-based division of roles between the sexes, it is difficult to
conceive of a true separation between the concepts of power and mode of occupation.

3.1.4 Other hierarchies

There are no indications that ethnicity seems to have applied or mattered in the household
hierarchies. No foreign ethnonyms are attested in relation to the household. It is possible to argue
that “meritocracy” served as a factor, in the light of the precedence of Nakht before Merisu, and of
the precedence of Sihathor, Sinebniut, and Anubis before Sneferu, but in light of the strong age
principle identified above, it is more likely that the age factor was the crucial one here.
One alternative basis for hierarchy that can be better substantiated is that of blood lineage.
The wording that the k3-servant Heqanakht speaks to Merisu and to Heti’s son Nakht
“subordinately” (ẖr-‘) (II:29), indicates a hierarchy based on flesh and blood, and so does the
statement that none are more important in the household than Merisu, Anubis, and Sneferu, all
sons of Heqanakht (I:vo.12-13). Moreover, the outsider Hetepet-the-widow is placed at the end of
the list. All individuals sharing blood relationship with Heqanakht seemingly were full household
members. It is clear from the primary sources preserved from ancient Egypt that family ties were
regarded as crucial in the Egyptian worldview (Brewer and Teeter 1999: 95). The meaning of
“household” takes on an almost sacral meaning in Heqanakht’s wondering how he can be in one
“community” (ṯt) with the mistreaters of his wife (II:43), the word for community being written by
an offering table (?). Heqanakht’s urging his household “to respect/honour” his wife (II:44),
carries a verb (ṯr) which is closer classified with the adoration determinative A30. Anyway, it
seems that also blood lineage was a basis for hierarchical relationships in Heqanakht’s household.

4. Summary
The letters and accounts of the Heqanakht papyri give a unique insight into the social and
economic conditions for a certain household in a given moment of Egyptian history. Heqanakht
was a mortuary priest working in Thebes but having his household in northern Egypt. The
preserved correspondence between these subjects deals with the economic and family affairs of
Heqanakht. Scholarly literature has often focused on the economic aspects conveyed by the
papyri. In this paper, I chose to centre on the social aspects of the papyri, with the aim of

  10  
identifying and discussing the composition and hierarchies of the household of Heqanakht while
critically analysing the primary sources as well as the related secondary literature.
After an introduction which aimed at putting the sources in question into context as well as
presenting the aim of the paper, the identifying and delimiting of the relevant household start in
2.1, taking as its point of departure the salary list in letter II which conveys Heqanakht’s view on
the composition of his household. A few more names could be added to this delimiting, using a
perspective less biased than that of Heqanakht. In subsection 2.2, the delimited c. 23 household
members are identified in terms of their social position (with respect to family relation and
occupation) within the household, with the ambition of using all the clues that the papyri can
provide. Heqanakht is identified as the head of the household, Ipi as his mother, Hetepet as his
(new) wife, Iutenhab as a “hairdresser” or “domestic”, and May’s daughter Hetepet as possibly a
widow of a deceased brother of Heqanakht. Iutenhab, often identified as Heqanakht’s “concubine”
(concurrent or consecutive), is regarded as the name of a passage-related servant on the basis that
it would be unlogical for Heqanakht to permit his deputy and her persecutor Merisu to throw her
out of the household. Heti’s son Nakht, Sihathor, and Sinebniut are suggested as employees, while
Merisu, Anubis, (Mer-)Sneferu, and Sitinut are identified as offsprings of Heqanakht with a
former wife. Nefret and Sitwerut are understood as Heqanakht’s daughters with Hetepet. Several
unnamed persons referred to as dependents and maidservants were also part of the household. The
man named Ipi, mentioned in an oath passage, is identified as the k3 whom Heqanakht served.
In subsection 3.1, the discussion on the hierarchies within Heqanakht’s household and social
hierarchies in ancient Egypt generally begins. Four different aspects are focused on when
evaluating hierarchies, namely order in the salary list, amount of salary, naming or anonymity, and
occupation. Age is considered as an important factor in the household hierarchy, mostly because
of the ordering of the salary list, starting with the eldest Ipi and ending with the youngest Sitwerut.
Hetepet is due to her status as mistress of the house placed on second place. Class is also
recognized as of importance, although to a lesser extent. The anonymity and low salaries of the
unnamed servants form the basis for a discussion on class here. Gender/sex is identified as almost
as important as age in the determining of hierarchies. In this context, the circumstance that most
women are grouped at the end of the salary list, and the fact that all the servants are female, are
centered on here. Ipi and Hetepet are understood as owing their elevated status due to Heqanakht,
i.e. a man. Ethnicity and meritocracy are identified as carrying non or little weight, but blood
relationship is recognized as a vital factor in establishing inner hierarchy, having bearing on the
discussion on “full” and “part” household members, focused on in my discussion on class.

  11  
5. List of references
Allen, J.P.
- 2002. The Heqanakht Papyri. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Baer, K.
- 1963. Review of James 1962 (see below). Pp. 1-19 in JAOS 83.
Baines, J.
- 1983. Literacy and Ancient Egyptian Society. Pp. 572-99 in Man NS 18.
Brewer D. J. and E. Teeter
- 1999. Egypt and the Egyptians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Cénival, J.-L.
- 1963. Review of James 1962 (see below). Pp. 138-43 in RdE 15.
Černý, J.
- 1954. Prices and Wages in Egypt in the Ramessid Period. Pp. 903-21 in JWH 1.
Derchain, P.
- 1963. Review of James 1962 (see below). Pp. 154-56 in BiOr 20.
Goedicke, H.
- 1984. Studies in the Hekanakhte Papers. Baltimore, MD: Halgo.
Helck, W.
- 1964. Review of James 1962 (see below). Pp. 29-33 in OLZ 59.
James, T. G. H.
- 1962. The Hekanakht Papers and Other Early Middle Kingdom Documents. New York: The
Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Kemp, B. J.
- 1983. Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period c. 2686-1552 BC. Pp.
71-182 in B. G. Trigger et al. (eds.), Ancient Egypt: A Social History. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
- 1989. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London and New York: Routledge.
Menu, B.
- 1970. La gestion du ‘patrimoine’ foncier d´Hekanakhte. Pp. 111-29 in RdE 22.
Parkinson, R.
- 1991. Voices from Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Middle Kingdom Writings. London: British
Museum Press.
Quirke, S.
- 1988. Review of Goedicke 1984 (see above). Pp. 97-102 in DE 12.
Robins, G.
- 1993. Women in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press.
Silver, M.
- 1985. Economic Structures of the Ancient Near East. London: Croom Helm.
Spaull, C.H.S.
- 1963. Review of James 1962 (see above). Pp. 184-86 in JEA 49.
Théodoridès, A.
- 1966. Review of James 1962 (see above). Pp. 295-302 in CdE 41.
Wente, E.F.
- 1990. Letters from Ancient Egypt (Writings from the ancient world 1). Atlanta, GA: Scholars
Press.

  12