Nubia From The New Kingdom To The End o

Ancient Egyptian Administration
Edited by
Juan Carlos Moreno García
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2013
© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

CONTENTS
The Study of Ancient Egyptian Administration ........................... 1

The Organisation of a Nascent State: Egypt until the

Beginning of the 4th Dynasty ..................................................... 19
Eva-Maria Engel
The Central Administration of the Resources in the

Old Kingdom: Departments, Treasuries, Granaries and
Work Centers ................................................................................. 41
Hratch Papazian
The Territorial Administration of the Kingdom in the

3rd Millennium .............................................................................. 85
Kings, Viziers, and Courtiers: Executive Power in the Third

Millennium B.C. ............................................................................ 153
Miroslav Bárta
The Administration of the Royal Funerary Complexes .............. 177

Hana Vymazalová
Balat, a Frontier Town and Its Archive ......................................... 197

Laure Pantalacci
Setting a State Anew: The Central Administration from

the End of the Old Kingdom to the End of the
Middle Kingdom ........................................................................... 215
Wolfram Grajetzki
The Royal Command (wd̠-nsw): A Basic Deed of

Executive Power ........................................................................... 259
Pascal Vernus

viii contents
Nomarchs and Local Potentates: The Provincial Administration

in the Middle Kingdom ................................................................ 341
Harco Willems
The Organisation of the Pharaonic Army (Old to

New Kingdom) .............................................................................. 393
Anthony Spalinger
Categorisation, Classification, and Social Reality: Administrative

Control and Interaction with the Population .......................... 479
Katalin Anna Kóthay
Crisis and Restructuring of the State: From the Second

Intermediate Period to the Advent of the Ramesses .............. 521
JJ Shirley
The Rising Power of the House of Amun in the New

Kingdom ......................................................................................... 607
Ben Haring
Coping with the Army: The Military and the State in the
New Kingdom ................................................................................ 639
Andrea M. Gnirs
The Administration of Institutional Agriculture in the

New Kingdom ................................................................................ 719
Sally L.D. Katary
A Bureaucratic Challenge? Archaeology and Administration

in a Desert Environment (Second Millennium B.C.E.) .......... 785
John Coleman Darnell
The Ramesside State .......................................................................... 831

Pierre Grandet
Administration of the Deserts and Oases: First

Millennium B.C.E. ......................................................................... 901
David Klotz

contents ix
From Conquered to Conqueror: The Organization of Nubia

in the New Kingdom and the Kushite Administration
of Egypt ........................................................................................... 911
Robert Morkot
The Saite Period: The Emergence of a Mediterranean Power ...... 965

Damien Agut-Labordère
The ‘Other’ Administration: Patronage, Factions, and

Informal Networks of Power in Ancient Egypt ....................... 1029
Index .................................................................................................... 1067

Kings and Queens ......................................................................... 1067
Divinities ......................................................................................... 1070
Individuals ...................................................................................... 1071
Toponyms ....................................................................................... 1078
Egyptian Words and Selected Titles .......................................... 1085
Thematic Index .............................................................................. 1090

FROM CONQUERED TO CONQUEROR:
THE ORGANIZATION OF NUBIA IN THE NEW KINGDOM
AND THE KUSHITE ADMINISTRATION OF EGYPT
Robert Morkot
Terminology: Nubia is used throughout in the conventional way as a

general geographical term for the Nile Valley from the First to Fourth
Cataracts.
Nubia under Egyptian Rule during the New Kingdom:

The Evidence
Although a huge number of monuments document those who worked

in the administration of Wawat and Kush under New Kingdom rule,
relatively few are of a type that informs us about the workings of the
system. This means that much has to be reconstructed or inferred from
titles, parallels with Egypt, and broader assumptions about “Nubia”
and the way it functioned.
A large and immensely important prosopographical literature forms
the foundation for any study of the Egyptian ruling class within Egypt
and Nubia; but prosopography, whether of an office,1 of a single reign
or a whole period;2 or related to a single monument,3 or an archaeo-
logical site,4 although fundamental to any understanding of the subject,
1
G.A. Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia” JEA 6 (1920), 28–55, 73–88; H. Gauthier,
“Les ‘Fils royaux de Kouch’ et le personnel administratif de l’Ethiopie”, RT 39 (1921),
179–238; B. Schmitz, Untersuchungen zum titel S¡-njswt “Königssohn” (Bonn, 1976);
M. Vallogia, Recherche sur les «messagers» (wpwtyw) dans les sources égyptiennes pro-
fanes (Génève, 1976); J. Pomorska, Les flabellifères à la droite du roi en Égypte ancienne
(Warsaw, 1988).
2
W. Helck, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs (Leiden, Cologne,
1958); P. Der Manuelian, Studies in the reign of Amenophis II (HÄB 26; Hildesheim
1987); B.M. Bryan, The Reign of Thutmose IV (Baltimore, London, 1991).
3
E.g. L. Habachi, “The graffiti and work of the Viceroys of Kush in the region of
Aswan” Kush 5 (1957), 13–36; the literature relating to the prosopography of the New
Kingdom administration of Nubia is vast and for practical reasons references in the
following discussion have been severely limited.
4
G. Steindorff, Aniba II (Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte- Mission archéologique
de Nubie, 1929–1934; Glückstadt, Hamburg, 1937); H.S. Smith, H.S., The Fortress of

912 robert morkot
has until recently taken precedence over more generalised analytical

studies. For Nubian Studies specifically, despite the distinguished work
of Habachi and others, a full prosopography of the Nubian admin-
istration still awaits publication,5 and Reisner’s (1920) study of the
Viceroys remains the only published survey of these most important
officials.6
A small number of monuments do give us some greater insights
into the ordering and working of the administration. By far the most
important is the tomb of the Viceroy Amenhotep-Huy at Thebes
(TT40), published by Davies and Gardiner.7 This shows the appoint-
ment of Huy as Viceroy, followed by his journey to Nubia where he
is received by the chief officials. We also see him involved in various
duties attended by named subordinates. Although there are tombs of
other officials of the administration at Thebes, these have not been
published.8 The chapel of Setau at Qasr Ibrim depicts the Viceroy with
officials of the administration, giving some indication of key places
and positions.9 Very few administrative documents survive: some
economic texts indicate connections between the administration and
Egypt, and the Nauri Decree details the functioning of one specific
institution.
The Political Geography of New Kingdom Nubia
The general literature up until 2000 reflected the large amounts of

archaeological activity throughout the Nile Valley south of Aswan as far
as the Fourth Cataract, most of it concentrated between the First and
Second Cataracts. The process of Egyptian expansion and domination
Buhen II. The Inscriptions (London, 1976); A. Gasse, V. Rondot, Les inscriptions de
Séhel (MIFAO 126; Cairo, 2007).
5
I. Müller’s doctoral dissertation (Berlin-GDR 1979), Die Verwaltung der nubischen
Provinz im Neuen Reich, remains unpublished, as does M. Dewachter’s Répertoire des
monuments des vice-rois de Kouch (de la Reconquête ahmoside à la morte de Ramsès II)
(Paris, Sorbonne, Mai 1978) and the present writer’s own corpus.
6
Complete lists have been published by Schmitz, Untersuchungen and by Habachi
in LÄ III, 630–640, the fundamental works of Habachi have discussed various periods.
7
N. de Garis Davies, A.H. Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, Viceroy of Nubia in the
reign of Tutʿankhamūn (No.40) (London, 1926).
8
TT156 Pennesuttawy: L. Habachi, “The owner of tomb n° 282”, JEA 54 (1968),
107–13; TT 282 Anhurnakhte: Id., ibid., 107sq.; TT289 Setau; TT383 Merymose;
TTD1 Nehi, Qurnet Murai seen by early travellers, PM I.2 461.
9
R.A. Caminos, The Shrines and rock-inscriptions of Ibrim (London, 1968).

from conquered to conqueror 913
can be charted through inscriptional and archaeological material,

much of it known for a long time. Whilst there is a general agreement
on the military expansion that brought about Egyptian domination of
the region, there is more division on the way in which the conquered
territories were controlled, the degree of absorption within a ‘colonial’
system, and the geographical extent of Egyptian rule.
The generally accepted view by the late 1970s characterized the
Egyptian expansion into and control of Nubia thus:10
• In the late 17th and early 18th dynasties the Egyptian campaigns
against Kush saw the reconquest of Lower Nubia and reoccupation
of Buhen, followed by a move south of the Third Cataract, and the
founding of a new fortress on the island of Sai. The position of King’s
Son was created to oversee the new territory. Thutmose I (probably)
destroyed Kerma, although it was immediately renewed. Thutmose I
also established a border on the Nile at Hagar el-Merwa. There were
further rebellions and Egyptian military actions during the reigns of
Thutmose II and Hatshepsut. Thutmose III completed the conquest
of Kush along the river as far as Gebel Barkal and the Fourth Cata-
ract, and also renewed Thutmose I’s border at Hagar el-Merwa.
• The whole of Upper Nubia from the Second to the Fourth Cataracts
then became the administrative province of “Kush”, ruled by the
Viceroy (King’s Son) and his deputy the ἰdnw. Egypt exploited the
whole of Nubia and the regions beyond through systems of “tax”
and “tribute”.
• There was perhaps “colonial” settlement with, possibly, Egyptian set-
tlers. The main centres were Mi‘am (Aniba), Sehetep-netjeru (Faras)
and Aksha in Lower Nubia, and Soleb, Sedeinga, Sesebi, Kawa and
perhaps “Napata” (some writers even proposed that “Napata” was
the viceregal capital) in Upper Nubia.
10
W.Y. Adams, Nubia: Corridor to Africa (London, 1977); Id., “The First Colo-
nial Empire: Egypt in Nubia 3200–1200 B.C.”, Comparative Studies in Society and
History 26 (1984), 36–71; B.G. Trigger, Nubia under the pharaohs (London, 1976);
J. Vercoutter, “La XVIIIe dynastie à Sai et en haute-Nubie” CRIPEL 1 (1972), 9–38;
see also Ch. Bonnet, Kerma, royaume de Nubie. Exposition organisée au Musée d’art
et d’histoire, Génève 14 juin–25 novembre 1990 (Génève, 1990); S. Säve-Söderbergh,
L. Troy, 1991, New Kingdom Pharaonic sites. The finds and the sites (SJE 5:2; Copen-
hagen, Oslo, Stockholm and Helsinki, 1991), 1–13.

914 robert morkot
• Agricultural decline set-in during the 18th dynasty and by the end
of the 20th (in some accounts the 18th) there was little agricultural
production.
Some—but not all—of these assumptions were challenged by Kemp,

O’Connor, and Frandsen in influential papers.11 In the late 1980s
and early 1990s a number of major publications of material from the
UNESCO campaign added considerable detail to that already known,
but also offered some challenges to the conventional interpretation.
From the 1980s onwards there has been considerably more survey and
excavation south of the Third Cataract: Egyptian temples have been
identified at Dokki in the northern part of Kerma, and a strong inter-
action with Egypt is now revealed in the material from Tumbos; the
survey of the Dongola Reach, however, has not found New Kingdom
Egyptian material.
A Different Model for New Kingdom Wawat and Kush
The present writer presented a model for “Nubia” under Egyptian

control during the New Kingdom arguing that the rise of the Kush-
ite kingdom should be viewed as a post-imperial, and to an extent
post-colonial, phenomenon.12 This model was not enthusiastically
11
P.J. Frandsen, “Egyptian imperialism”, in: Power and Propaganda. A Symposium
on ancient empires, M.T. Larsen, ed. (Mesopotamia 7; Copenhagen, 1979), 167–190;
B.J. Kemp, “Imperialism and empire in New Kingdom Egypt (c. 1575–1087 BC)” in:
Imperialism in the ancient world, P.D.A. Garnsey, C.R. Whittaker, eds. (Cambridge,
1978), 7–57; D. O’Connor, “The toponyms of Nubia and of contiguous regions in the
New Kingdom”, Cambridge History of Africa I: From the earliest times to c. 500 BC
(Cambridge, 1982), 925–940; Id., “New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period
c. 1552–664 B.C.”, in B.G. Trigger, B.J. Kemp, D. O’Connor and A.B. Lloyd, Ancient
Egypt, a Social History. Cambridge, 1983).
12
Original outline in R.G. Morkot, “Studies in New Kingdom Nubia 1. Politics,
economics and ideology: Egyptian imperialism in Nubia”, Wepwawet 3 (1987), 29–49;
Id., “Nubia in the New Kingdom: the limits of Egyptian control”, in: Egypt and Africa,
W.V. Davies, ed. (London, 1991), 294–301; also in: Centuries of Darkness, P.J. James,
et al. (London, 1991); various papers presented at conferences: Geneva 1991=R. Morkot,
“The Nubian Dark Age”, in: Etudes Nubiennes II, Ch. Bonnet, ed. (Genève, 1994),
45–47; Berlin 1992=R. Morkot, “The origin of the ‘Napatan’ state. A contribution to
T. Kendall’s main paper”, Studien zum Antiken Sudan. Akten der 7. Internationalen
Tagung für meroitistische Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 1992 in Gosen/bei
Berlin (Meroitica 15; Wiesbaden, 1999), 139–148; Lille 1994=R. Morkot, “The Econ-
omy of New Kingdom Nubia”, in: Actes de la VIIIe Conférence Internationale des
Études Nubiennes (CRIPEL 17; Lille, 1995), 175–188; Id., “The Origin of the Kushite

accepted.13 Arguments against the model emphasised that there had

been little survey and excavation between the Third and Fourth cata-
racts, and that New Kingdom “sites” might yet be found there.
One particular factor that stimulated my reassessment of the Egyp-
tian frontier in Upper Nubia was the number and the nature of the
“temple towns” (Soleb, Sedeinga, Sesebi, and Amara West) north of
the Third Cataract balanced with the evidence from the region of the
Third to Fourth Cataracts. South of the Third Cataract, the presence of
Egyptian temples, artefacts, and inscriptions does not, in itself, mean
the full absorption and integration of the region into the territories
directly ruled by the Egyptian administration.
Some Egyptologists have argued that the temple towns reflect an
expansion—even programme of expansion—with new towns and
increasing population, perhaps including “colonial” Egyptians, during
the later 18th–20th dynasties. It is true that our archaeological knowl-
edge of the Third to Fourth Cataract region is less than that further
north, but the tombs at Soleb, and the inscribed material from Amara
West townsite, show that these were at different times the seats of the
ἰdnw—the Viceroy’s deputy. This is supported by the scenes in the
tomb of Tutankhamun’s Viceroy, Huy. From this evidence we can state
that the administrative centre for the province of Kush was Soleb dur-
ing the reigns of Amenhotep III and Tutankhamun, and Amara from
the reign of Ramesses II to the end of Egyptian rule in the late 20th
Dynasty. Although no inscribed material from Sesebi names officials,
the town may have been the key centre under Akhenaten. Sesebi was
officially reoccupied in the reign of Sety I, although probably ceased to
be the administrative centre as soon as Amara was completed. South
of the Third Cataract there is New Kingdom evidence from Kerma
and Kawa, but it is the nature of this material and that from Soleb and
Amara that suggests a model for Egyptian control radically different to
that generally assumed by earlier writers.
State: a response to the paper of László Török”, in: ibid., 229–242; Wenner-Gren
1997=R. Morkot, “Egypt and Nubia”, in: Empires. Perspectives from Archaeology and
History, S.E. Alcock, T.N. D’Altroy, K.D. Morrison, C.M. Sinopoli, eds. (Cambridge,
2001), Chapter 9, 227–251. Also R. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian rulers
(London, 2000).
13
S.T. Smith, Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian
Empire (London and New York, 2003), 94 supports the argument in detail but without
any reference to this writer.

916 robert morkot
Rather than full Egyptian administrative integration extending as

far as the Fourth Cataract, the evidence suggests that the administra-
tive border was at the Third Cataract, with the region between the
Third and Fourth Cataracts left largely in the control of local elites.
This would conform to the “colonial” model with an extension of the
direct rule found in Wawat to the new “province” of Kush under the
ἰdnw, and further south, local autonomy and the “elite emulation” and
imperial model argued by Higginbotham for western Asia would have
operated. The Egyptian officials directly involved would have been
the Overseers of the Southern Foreign Lands (some of the local weru,
the Viceroy, and the Chief of Bowmen of Kush), with the Royal Envoys
also playing a role.
This has repercussions in considering the administration and its
officials. I propose that the “Overseers of Southern Foreign Lands”
constituted a group of officials with responsibility for this area rather
than, as in the older interpretation, the title being nothing more mean-
ingful than a “poetic variant” on King’s Son of Kush. Some of the title
holders are members of the indigenous elite.
The model also has repercussions for understanding the economy:
how did the Egyptians control the production of this region? How did
they control cross-frontier traffic? I suggested that it may have been
advantageous to them to use the local elites of Upper Nubia to do the
work then paid as ἰnw and b¡kw with reciprocal gift-exchange, support
for regimes, and defence against cross-frontier attack. This use of local
power structures and control of peripheries has parallels elsewhere.14
To review the proposed model in more detail: Egypt defined its
southern frontiers by use of natural features, originally the First Cata-
ract, and later, with the Middle Kingdom occupation, the natural bar-
rier of the Second Cataract. The 18th-Dynasty expansion south of the
Second Cataract limited itself firstly at Tombos and the Third Cata-
ract, and ultimately in the locality of Karoy. Most writers have identi-
fied Karoy with the Fourth Cataract region.15 The texts in the tomb of
14
Discussed at length in R. Morkot, “The Economy of New Kingdom Nubia”, CRIPEL
17 (1995), 175–188, and Id. in: Empires, S.E. Alcock, T.N. D’Altroy, K.D. Morrison,
C.M. Sinopoli, eds.; cf. the model for the Asiatic empire discussed by C.R. Higgin-
botham, Egyptianization and Elite Emulation in Ramesside Palestine. Governance and
Accomodation on the Imperial Periphery (Leiden, 2000).
15
T. Säve-Söderbergh, Ägypten und Nubien (Lund, 1941), 156; Cl. Vandersleyen, Les
guerres d’Amosis fondateur de la XVIIIe dynastie (Monographies Reine Elisabeth; Brus-
sels, 1971), 65 n.6; K. Zibelius, Afrikanische Orts-und Völkernamen in hieroglyphischen

Huy16 tell us that, at his investiture as Viceroy, Huy was given control
of the regions ‘from Nekhen to Karoy’ and ‘from Nekhen to Nesut-
Tawy’. Generally, these have been understood as ‘poetic variants’, but
they may define two different spheres of authority: Nekhen to Nesut-
Tawy (Gebel Barkal) indicating riverine Nubia, and Nekhen to Karoy
the deserts and wadis as far as Kurgus.
The southernmost Egyptian fortress, called Sm¡ ḫ ¡swt, was estab-
lished at the Fourth Cataract by Thutmose III. After the campaign of
his 3rd year, Amenhotep II had an Asiatic prince hung from the walls
of the fortress which is now referred to in Egyptian texts as Napata.
Later New Kingdom references to the fortress are few, and no archaeo-
logical remains have yet been located.17
Although it has been proposed that Napata functioned as a vicere-
gal seat and the major administrative centre for Upper Nubia, there
is no evidence to support this, and indeed, the evidence indicates the
contrary. It has also been suggested that Napata served as both the
frontier fortress and major depot for the transfer of products from fur-
ther south,18 but the alternative model for the method of trade argued
here assumes that was more directly controlled by the Kushite elites.
In any case this would be a remarkably vulnerable location without a
major fortress.
Gebel Barkal certainly had religious importance due to its identifica-
tion with the ‘Throne of the Two Lands’ and dwelling place of Amun.
A sacred site in a remote place does not, however, predicate either a
large temple and town, or a major cult and pilgrimage centre.19 The
popularity, and hence wealth and importance, of centres such as the
Amun oracle at Siwa belong to a later phase of religious development.
A small temple (B 600) probably dates from the reign of Thutmose IV20
and the first larger temple, the eventual core of B 500, was begun by
und hieratischen Texten (TAVO Beiheft Reihe B/1. Wiesbaden, 1972), 162–163; Kemp,
“Imperialism and empire”, 29.
16
Davies and Gardiner, TheTomb of Huy, pl. VI.
17
A Ramesside (?) statue of an ἰdnw of Kush, found at Kawa, has a text referring
to Amun-Re Lord of Thrones of the Two Lands ḥ ry ἰb d̠w wʿb: M.F.L. Macadam, The
Temples of Kawa. I. The Inscriptions (London, 1949), 84 [inscr.XXII], pl. 36; Id., The
Temples of Kawa. II. History and archaeology of the site (London, 1955), pl. LXXII
[0895].
18
Säve-Söderbergh, Ägypten und Nubien, 155; Kemp, “Imperialism and empire”, 28.
19
Many quite sizeable and well-decorated temples can be found associated with
mining or quarrying sites e.g. Serabit el-Khadim, Timna, Wadi Mia.
20
Foundation deposit plaques: D. Dunham, The Barkal Temples (Boston, 1970), 63.

918 robert morkot
Horemheb using talatat blocks of a temple of Akhenaten, and com-

pleted by Sety I and Ramesses II.21 The removal of the sculptures from
Amenhotep III’s temple at Soleb to adorn the enlarged Amun temple
(B 500),22 surely indicates that there had been no monumental statuary
at Barkal to re-use.
It is significant that such documentary sources as the tomb of Huy
refer to Napata only as the limit of Viceregal authority, and to the offi-
cials of Kha-em-Maet (Soleb) and Sehetep-netjeru (Faras) as the lead-
ing towns of the regions. It should also be noted that no specifically
Napatan officials are recorded in any known surviving New Kingdom
source. Napata is not referred to in later New Kingdom sources, except
in relation to Gebel Barkal.23
It has generally been assumed that, with the border established at
the Fourth Cataract, the river valley northwards was all in control of
the viceregal administration, under colonial rule, and Egyptianised.24 The
more recent survey and archaeological work in the region between
the Third and Fourth cataracts has had significant results. Grzymski
carried out a detailed survey in the Letti Basin and found no Egyp-
tian or Egyptianising material that was dateable to the New Kingdom,
concluding that the area was occupied by a non-Egyptianised indig-
enous population.25 S.T. Smith has excavated at Tumbos and found
far more complex mixtures of indigenous and Egyptian material and
practices: both artefacts and burial positions suggested that there was
a—perhaps gendered—difference in contemporaneous burials from
the later 18th into 19th dynasties. Further south, a survey of the west
bank identified a very few graves of New Kingdom date which pro-
duced some small quantities of Egyptian imported pottery and local
21
The re-use of talatat noted by Reisner suggests that Horemheb may have begun
the work. The stela of Sety I must indicate construction was well advanced.
22
The inscription of Taharqo from Sanam Temple (F.Ll.Griffith, “Oxford excava-
tions in Nubia [Sanam]”, LAAA 9 [1922], 67–124, on pp. 102–103) seems to refer to
the removal of sculptures from Sai. A fragment of a throne of a seated statue carries a
recarved cartouche with the name of Piye (ibid., 87, pl. XIII.3, pl. XV.1).
23
Named for the first time as the D̠ w wʿb n Npwt in the Thoth chapel at Abu
Simbel. T. Kendall informs me that there are graffiti at Gebel Barkal, but these are
unpublished and no further details are available.
24
E.g., Adams, Nubia: Corridor to Africa, 243.
25
K. Grzymski, Archaeological Reconnaissance in Upper Nubia (Toronto, 1987); Id.,
“Canadian expedition to Nubia: The 1994 season at Hanbukol and in the Letti Basin”,
Kush 17 (1997), 236–243.

versions; Reinhold and Welsby also found no colonial sites.26 Recent

excavations at Dokki-Gel (north Kerma) have found a temple that can
be dated to the reign of Thutmose IV by the foundation deposits, and
perhaps has slightly earlier origins.
Whilst the new material from Tombos emphasises the complex cul-
tural interactions of the frontier region—and in the principal Kushite
centre of Kerma—it does not, I think, challenge the model I propose.
From earlier excavations, the most notable monument is the temple
of Tutankhamun at Kawa. Although the inscriptions identify the town
as Gem-Aten, no other Egyptian material has yet been found. It has
been assumed that another Egyptian temple, built by Amenhotep III
or Akhenaten lies beneath the later temple of Taharqo, but without
further excavation, it is not possible to confirm that, and to place the
Tutankhamun temple within a context. Even if, with presumed activ-
ity by Amenhotep III/Akhenaten, there was an Egyptian temple town,
this may have been a short-lived phase. The cemetery of Sanam has
produced some New Kingdom material. The present writer argued
that there may have been a cemetery of the local elite during the New
Kingdom, a view supported by Lohwasser’s reassessment of the mate-
rial.27 New Kingdom material has also been identified in the graves at
el-Kurru although the interpretations offered regard this as “pillage”
from earlier burials or later imitation of New Kingdom types.
Obviously, the geographical factors affected the Egyptian advance
into Nubia and its control. Ultimately the Bayuda, and the difficul-
ties of navigating the Nile between the Fourth and Fifth Cataracts,
presented a barrier across which the Egyptians might campaign, but
would have found integration very difficult.
The Ruling Elite: Background and Education

Although a few writers have characterised the New Kingdom elite as
an hereditary aristocracy, Egyptological literature generally has been
pervaded by the belief that it was possible to rise to the highest offices
although born into the humblest classes of society. This attitude, which
has been expressed in the publications of numerous inscriptions of
26
Smith, Wretched Kush, 89–94; J. Reinold, “S.F.D.A.S. Rapports préliminaire de la
campagne 1991–1992 dans la province du Nord”, Kush 16 (1993), 142–68; D. Welsby,
The Kingdom of Kush (London, 1996).
27
Morkot, Black Pharaohs, 138; A. Lohwasser, The Kushite Cemetery of Sanam. A
Non-royal Burial Ground of the Nubian Capital, c. 800–600 BC (London, 2010).

920 robert morkot
the highest officials of the New Kingdom is allied with an indiscrimi-

nate and undefined terminology. Even in recent works it is possible to
read that Akhenaten appointed “new men”, and that the founders of
the 19th Dynasty were “plebeian in origin”, despite the very definite
meanings of both terms in Roman politics and society, whence they
originate.
This situation derives both from the attitudes which have domi-
nated Egyptology and the difficulties imposed by the ancient material.
At the most general level it is difficult to assess the implications of
certain terms related to social status; and within the hierarchy there
is no clear understanding of the many ‘honorifics’ held by officials,
and whether they should be interpreted as “ranking titles”28 or merely
“decorations”.
A further contributory factor in Egyptological interpretation may
derive from the tendency of Western historiography to place great
emphasis on the growth of institutions and to play down the role of
hereditary elites. Greater emphasis on the elites, their relationship to
the king and to their own dependents, would dispute the concept of
institutional independence. Hopkins29 emphasised the importance of
the Roman nobility in palace politics, and the emperor’s limited capac-
ity to ensure execution of his orders: the power of high officials could,
for example, effect the failure of embassies to secure an audience. Dis-
cussions of palace politics in Egyptology have erred towards the Ori-
entalist, with emphasis on phenomena such as “Harem conspiracy” or
the influence of foreigners (usually seen as malign).
Power in Egypt was in the hands of the literate, and, equally, the
powerful controlled literacy. Didactic texts which laud the occupation
of a scribe above all others are documents which would have been read
only by those who were in fact scribes, or were training to become
scribes. Any study of the Egyptian elite must acknowledge that literacy
was the access to power, and that literacy was limited to perhaps as
little as 1% of the population.30
28
Some writers have interpreted the large number of titles as the stages of a cursus;
cf. Reisner, “Viceroys” and the publications of many Theban tombs.
29
K. Hopkins, “Rules of Evidence”, JRS 68 (1978), 178–186, esp. 181.
30
J. Baines, Ch.J. Eyre, “Four notes on literacy”, GM 61 (1983), 65–96 although
their conclusions are controversial; cf. comments of J.J. Janssen, “Literacy and let-
ters at Deir el-Medina”, in: Village voices. Proceedings of the symposium “Texts from
Deir el-Medina and their interpretation” Leiden, May 21–June 1, 1991, R.J. Demarée,

In the New Kingdom there are indications of a more structured and

professionalised hierarchy, with a tendency to specialise in one of the
institutions, but all had the same elite education with its emphasis on
writing. Whilst the elite doubtless kept the new art of chariotry as its
own preserve, literacy remained the basis of elite education. Indeed,
the narrative of the High Priest of Amun, Bakenkhons, suggests that
the ‘stable’ was a type of military academy where writing was learnt
alongside the equestrian arts.
The expansion of the Egyptian ‘empire’ in the early 18th Dynasty
must have led to a rapid expansion of the bureaucracy, and possibly
necessitated drawing in new members to the elite. At the same time,
the larger bureaucracy required to administer the foreign possessions
and the royal and temple domains must have magnified the impor-
tance of the highest officials. Symbols of prestige thus became impor-
tant to distinguish the ranks of bureaucrats: the social structure did
not change, but the elite grew.
The relationship of the king to the elite was emphasised through gift
of prestige goods, which, whilst being a transfer of ‘luxury’ commodities,
was part of a complex of mutual obligations. Although obviously sig-
nificant, the economic aspects of gift-exchange were not necessarily the
most important of the transaction. Prestige and status were also crucial
to the elite. The public presentation of gifts, as at Amarna, also empha-
sises the importance of the official to the crown vis à vis the other
officials—but also, of course, the reliance of the official upon the king.
This system is well documented for New Kingdom Nubia.
Whilst the Egyptian elite probably comprised an hereditary aris-
tocracy of a relatively small number of families, there must have been
input from the ‘lower’ strata, particularly in the period of the early-18th
Dynasty expansion, but the extent and nature of this is indeterminable.
Obviously, the most powerful officials were those closest to the
throne but they were also the most vulnerable. The importance of
the Royal Nurses and Tutors, and other palace officials, such as the
Royal Stewards is clear from the size and splendour of their tombs and
by their familial connections. A large number of the most important
officials were sons of women who bore the title hkrt nswt, clearly a
A. Egberts, eds. (Centre for Non-Western Studies Publications n° 13; Leiden, 1992),
81–94.

922 robert morkot
denominator of great significance.31 A number of Viceroys certainly

had a palace background and education, and some were related to hkrt
nswt, Royal Nurses, and other palace officials.
The Career Structure

It may be assumed that an official would not be appointed to a major
office without some years’ service elsewhere. Bierbrier32 cites the evi-
dence of the career of Bakenkhons as First Prophet of Amun who
achieved his first religious position after four years at school, and
11 years in the stable of Sety I. He then served four years as a minor
priest before being appointed a prophet, a position which he held for
12 years before becoming Third Prophet of Amun, and eventually ris-
ing to be Second and First Prophets. Bakenkhons was educated within
the temple of Amun, where his father was Second Prophet. The Viceroy
Setau, also of the reign of Ramesses II, was educated within the palace.
His first position was in the office of the vizier, from which (accord-
ing to his autobiographical text)33 he was appointed to be Steward of
Amun at Thebes, and Leader of the Festival, and then to be Viceroy.
The ἰdnw Amenemopet’s three-stage career likewise suggests a system
in which ability was important.34 However, the apparent restriction
of literacy to a small percentage of the population must indicate that
birth was the most significant factor in gaining access to education and
the bureaucracy. Even if patronage did play an important part, for very
obvious reasons patrons would have needed to ensure the competence
of their protégés.
We may safely generalise that an official was the son of an official,
whose own rank (‘major’ or ‘minor’ office holder) was only one factor
affecting the ultimate success of his children. A cursory examination
of families known over two or three generations shows that ‘major’
31
A. Brack, A., “Discussionsbeitrag zu dem Titel ḥ krt nswt”, SÄK 11 (1984), 183–186.
32
M.L. Bierbrier, “The length of the reign of Sethos I”, JEA 58 (1972), 303; K. Jansen-
Winkeln, “The career of the Egyptian High Priest Bakenkhons”, JNES 52 (1993),
221–225.
33
Cairo 41.395/41.397 (13476–77): W. Helck, “Die grosse Stele des Vizekönigs
St¡w aus Wadi es-Sabua”, SÄK 3 (1975), 85–112; K. Kitchen, “The great biographi-
cal stela of Setau, Viceroy of Nubia”, in: Miscellanea in honorem Josephi Vergote,
P. Naster, H. de Meulenaere, J. Quaegebeur, eds. (OLP 6–7; Leuven, 1975–76), 295–302;
E.F. Wente, “A new look at the Viceroy Setau’s autobiographical inscription”, in:
Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar II (BdE XCVII/2; Cairo, 1985), 347–359.
34
Urk IV 1935 (725).

officeholders (e.g. high priesthoods, overseer titles, vizier, stewards

etc.) may have a large number of relatives who are only ‘minor’ office-
holders (e.g. scribal positions, lesser priestly titles).35
In the late 18th and 19th Dynasties, education, in one of the palace
or temple schools, was, apparently followed by a period in the royal
stables. Since Bakenkhons records only 4 years at ‘School’ compared
with 11 years in the ‘Stables’, this was surely a place where educa-
tion was continued, but where chariotry was also learned. It is likely
that the chariotry corps was formed from the younger members of the
elite—those who had completed their education but had not yet been
appointed to their first offices. There is no clear evidence for any form
of ‘military service’ but this too seems probable: the titles ḥ ry ἰḥ w, ḥ ry
ssmwt and ‘charioteer of his majesty’ are common at this time, and
might apply to such young officials; the Viceroy Huy is accompanied
by four sons, some of whom use these titles.
There is no direct evidence for how this education and training sys-
tem worked in Nubia. Certainly sons of the ruling weru were taken
to the Egyptian court and educated there, but the slighter lower levels
were presumably educated within the Viceregal centres and schools
attached to temples. We consequently have no means of assessing
levels of literacy within Egyptianised Nubia. Nor can we determine
what proportion of the lower level of the Nubian administration came
from Egypt and how much from Nubia. The tomb of Pennut at Mi‘am
(Aniba) suggests that within Wawat the Egyptian system operated,
and (whatever the origins of this family) key families controlled the
important offices for several generations. The impact on the regions
at and beyond the border is even harder to assess, but is important in
post imperial/colonial developments.
The Development and Structure of the Viceregal Bureaucracy

The Egyptian expansion into Lower Nubia in the reigns of Kamose
and Ahmose was against territories which had been controlled by
the Kushite kingdom of Kerma throughout the Second Intermediate
Period. The Kushite rulers had installed Egyptian overseers in the for-
tresses of Buhen, and possibly in others, and there was an Egyptian or
Egypto-Kushite population in these centres. Nothing further is known
35
The well-documented family of Rekhmire, for example, held the vizierate for
three generations, but most of the family were “minor” office-holders.

924 robert morkot
of the local socio-political composition at this date, although it seems

probable that the princedoms which are attested later already existed,
perhaps as vassals of the Kerma chiefs. This system must have had its
own bureaucracy, and bilingual ‘scribes’: the communication between
the Kerma and Hyksos rulers, and with the Egyptians of the fortresses,
was presumably carried out in Egyptian. There is no evidence for any
indigenous language being written at this time. This, of course, raises
numerous unanswerable questions about the administration and
accounting of foreign trade in the Kerma period.36
The changing power configurations of the princedoms of Lower
Nubia during the late Old-Kingdom37 should serve as an indicator of
the dynamic nature of Nubian society, even though the supporting
documentary evidence is invariably absent. The continued existence
of a ‘chiefdom’ as a territorial unit does not, of course mean that the
chiefs were not replaced by others more amenable to the Egyptian
administration. Since Lower Nubia had a fairly substantial population
the imposition of some sort of civil administration at an early date was
clearly imperative, and there is a strong likelihood that a Viceroy, Tety,
was appointed by Kamose.38
The activities of the early 18th Dynasty pharaohs were initially
military, and centred upon the re-occupied or newly-constructed for-
tresses. The relationship between the Egyptian administration and the
indigenous population in Lower Nubia outside of the fortresses is,
during this period, elusive. There was doubtless an increasing involve-
ment, and by the co-reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, members
of the indigenous elite families were employed in the administration.
The reign of Amenhotep II or Thutmose IV saw the emergence of
36
For the Kerma kingdom see T. Säve-Söderbergh, “The Nubian kingdom of
the Second Intermediate Period”, Kush 4 (1956), 54–61; Vandersleyen, Les guerres
d’Amosis, 51–52; Ch. Bonnet, Kerma, royaume de Nubie (Genève, 1990). For the his-
tory of Buhen in the SIP: H.S. Smith, The Fortress of Buhen II. The Inscriptions (Lon-
don, 1976), 80–85, and for the officials see 73–76. For Middle Kingdom Egyptian
administration and the evidence for trade and diplomacy with Kerma see D. Valbelle,
“Les Institutions égyptiennes en Nubie au Moyen Empire d’après les empreintes de
sceaux”, in: Actes de la VIIIe Conférence Internationale des Études Nubiennes (CRIPEL,
Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et Egyptologie de Lille 17. I: Com-
munications principales; Lille, 1995), 149–166.
37
Discussed by D. O’Connor, “The locations of Yam and Kush and their historical
implications”, JARCE 23 (1986), 27–50 and “Early states along the Nubian Nile”, in:
Egypt and Africa, Davies, W.V., ed. (London, 1991) 145–165.
38
W.K. Simpson, Hekanefer and the dynastic material from Toshka and Arminna
(New Haven, Yale, 1963), 32sq.

the mature Viceregal bureaucracy, when the ἰdnw were defined as “of
Kush” and “of Wawat”, and a dual system was established for the two
parts of Nubia. This was almost certainly a conscious re-organisation
rather than simply a development.
The New Kingdom administration divided Nubia into two civil
regions, Wawat and Kush, with—it is proposed here—a frontier zone
under control of the militia and indigenous rulers. The cities were
governed by ḥ ¡ty-ʿ-mayors and the office of “Overseer of the towns
of Kush” is also documented. At about this time also the Viceregal
title became s¡ nsw n K¡š.39 Although the alteration of title has been
suggested to be a way of distinguishing a royal prince from the like-
name Viceroy, it is perhaps more likely that it reflects some change
within the Egyptian administration: at about the same time the highest
officials are grouped with the title t̠¡y ḫ w ḥ r wnmy nswt.40 No major
changes can be seen in the later phases of the Egyptian domination.
Although disputed by many writers, I would argue that the viceregal
bureaucracy was controlled very largely by Nubian families, whether
of indigenous, Egyptian, or mixed origin, with only the highest offi-
cials being appointed directly from Egypt.
In its reorganised form the Viceregal bureaucracy seems to have
deliberately paralleled Egypt’s dual administration. As in Egypt there
were several distinct, but interdependent, branches:
1. The civil administration, under the King’s Son of Kush (Viceroy),

ἰdnw and ḥ ¡ty-ʿ (Mayors) of towns.
2. The gold mines and foreign trade.
3. Agricultural production.
4. The religious foundations, controlled by the Overseers of Prophets
of all the gods of Ta-Sety.
5. The military, under the ḥ ry pd̠t n K¡š.
6. The Peripheries: the Overseers of Southern Foreign Lands ἰmy-r
ḫ ¡swt rsyt.
7. The indigenous princedoms of Wawat and Kush.
39
The first s¡ nsw n Kš was Amenhotep, who served Thutmose IV. Various reasons
have been suggested for the change in the title see e.g. Reisner, “Viceroys”, 32.
40
On this title see I. Pomorska, Les flabellifères à la droite du roi dans l’Égypte
ancienne (Warsaw, 1984).

926 robert morkot
The Officials of the Administration
1. The Civil Administration
The Viceroy—s¡ nsw n K¡š

Reisner published a list of Viceroys and their monuments, which has
been considerably expanded by the survey and excavation work in
Nubia, and the better publications of many inscriptions recorded by
early visitors. It is unlikely that many additions will be made to the list
of known New Kingdom Viceroys.41 There is now evidence that the
title continued in use throughout the Third Intermediate Period, but
probably with a more limited jurisdiction: this is discussed below.
The Viceroy was a royal official and he was directly responsible
to the king. Thus, although his duties in many ways paralleled those
of the Viziers, the title must imply that Wawat and Kush were con-
sidered to be part of the royal possessions. The earliest Viceroys were
designated simply s¡ nsw but from the time of Thutmose IV they were
specified as s¡ nsw n K¡š.
In his tomb, the Viceroy Huy is shown being appointed to office in
the presence of Tutankhamun.42 He is invested with the seal of office,
and the Treasurer announces his sphere of jurisdiction.43 Huy also
receives the rolled-up sash and the ḫ wἰ-fan, indicative of his elevation
to the rank of t̠¡y ḫ w ḥ r wnmy nswt. Although the act is not shown, and
the texts do not refer to it, the scenes reveal that during the investiture
Huy has also been decorated with the šbyw-collars and msktw-bracelets,
indicating his elevated status, and he has received floral bouquets. The
distribution of gifts to the officials of the administration is also noted
in the greeting of Huy by the ἰdnw on his arrival in Nubia: “you are
come loaded with the ḥ sw-rewards of the ḥ q¡-ruler”.44 The appoint-
ment to a new office was thus a time when an official would receive
largesse from the king which would then be passed on to the local offi-
cials. After his installation Huy proceeds to the temple with his family,
where he makes offerings, and then departs for Nubia on the Viceregal
ship. The accompanying texts45 make it certain that the ceremony has
41
Cf. Schmitz, Untersuchungen, 267–272 (list: 270–272); Habachi, LÄ III, 630–640.
42
Davies and Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, 10–13, pls. IV–VIII.
43
Davies and Gardiner 1926, The Tomb of Huy, p.11 n.2.
44
Davies, Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, 17, pls. XIII, XXXIX.6.
45
Davies, Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, pl. XI.

taken place in Thebes and the installation of an official of this rank in

the royal presence is to be expected. Huy is greeted on his arrival in
Nubia by the chief officials of the administration and of the principal
administrative centre of the reign, Sehetep-netjeru (Faras).46
Further light is shed on the events surrounding the accession of a
Viceroy by inscriptions of the reign of Siptah. Those of year 1, at Abu
Simbel,47 and at Buhen,48 mark the installation of Sety as Viceroy. Sety
was conducted on this first tour of duty by the royal envoy Neferhor,
who also brought ḥ sw-rewards for the ḥ ¡wtyw of Ta-Seti; doubtless
some form of accession largesse (bakhsheesh). A second group of texts
from Siptah’s reign probably records the installation of Hori as Vice-
roy, by Aipy son of Nayebo49 in year 6. It was in that year that Hori’s
son, the royal envoy Webekhusen left an ex voto in the South Temple
at Buhen.50 A graffito on Sehel,51 depicting both father and son, may
have been carved whilst travelling south to take up his appointment.
The appointment scenes in the tomb of Huy inform us that by the
late 18th Dynasty the Viceroy’s jurisdiction extended from Nekhen
(Hierakonpolis) to the region of the Fourth-Fifth Cataracts, specified as
Nesut-tawy (Gebel Barkal) and Karoy. This may, as O’Connor suggested,
have been to include the gold-mining regions of Upper Egypt under
Viceregal control. O’Connor dates this to the time of Amenhotep III
and the Viceroy Merymose, but as early as the reign of Thutmose III
the Viceroy Nehi may have controlled from Nekhen southwards.
The specific extent of control from Nekhen to Nesut-tawy, and from
Nekhen to Karoy, probably indicate control of the river, and of the
deserts and routes to the Berber-Shendi reach. The extent to which
the Viceroy had any authority in the valley towns of Upper Egypt, and
how that authority related to that of the Vizier, is undocumented.52
46
Davies, Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, pl. XIII–XV.
47
PM VII: 98 (9); Säve-Söderbergh, Ägypten und Nubien, 242 n.2, Rekhpahtef, who
is named in the Abu Simbel graffito, also left an inscription at Buhen, ST 3: R.A. Cami-
nos, The New-kingdom temples of Buhen (London, 1974), 19–20.
48
ST 6 W: Caminos, The New-kingdom temples of Buhen I, 26–27.
49
ST 35 E: Caminos, The New-kingdom temples of Buhen I, 75–76.
50
ST Col 14 E: Caminos, The New-kingdom temples of Buhen I, 42.
51
Gasse, Rondot, Séhel, 253 [SEH 403]; L. Habachi, “The graffiti and work of the
Viceroys of Kush in the region of Aswan”, Kush 5 (1957), 13–36, 34–35 [37].
52
O’Connor 1981, 259; Id. “The location of Irem”, JEA 73 (1987), 99–136, p.187;
see also comments of Säve-Söderbergh, Troy, New Kingdom Pharaonic sites, p. 4.

928 robert morkot
Many Egyptologists have regarded the Viceroys as primarily mili-

tary officials. Kadry,53 for example, commented that their responsibili-
ties “being mainly of military nature . . . left no room for civil officials
of the Theban families to occupy this office”. There are no texts which
specify the duties of the Viceroy, but these seem, contrary to Kadry
and others, to have been predominantly civil; particularly the collec-
tion of the revenues, and control of the gold production. They were
also responsible for the building of temples. Viceroys were not, after
the early 18th Dynasty, specifically military officials, although they are
sometimes recorded as leading campaigns; as part of an elite which
combined military and bureaucratic education, this is not in any way
contradictory. The militia appears to have been directly under the ḥ ry
pd̠t, and there may have been a division of authority for very practical
reasons.
Priestly titles were rarely held by Viceroys during the 18th Dynasty,
ἰt nt̠r mry nt̠r, being the most usual. A number of rock inscriptions in
Nubia name Ahmose Turo with the titles Temple Scribe, God’s Father,
Overseer of the Cattle, Mayor and First Prophet (sš ḥ wt nt̠r ἰt nt̠r ἰmy-r
ἰḥ w ḥ ¡ty-ʿ ḥ m nt̠r tpy). Gauthier and Habachi attributed these inscrip-
tions and titles to the Viceroy, but assumed that they belonged to the
period before his appointment, but were divided as to whether these
functions were performed in Egypt or Nubia. In the 19th and 20th
Dynasties more Viceroys held specific priesthoods, but even then it
was far from regular.54 As in Egypt, it was the High Priests of the
temples who deputised for the king. Doubtless the responsibilities of
the Viceroy in relation to the numerous temple-building works would
have required him to hold some form of priestly office.
Whether Viceroys were mostly resident in Egypt, as some have
suggested,55 or in Nubia, is unclear and doubtless changed over time.
The early Viceroys, who were predominantly military and active in
regaining control of Wawat and the Second Cataract, followed by a
push south, would have made Buhen their centre. Under Thutmose III,
Nehi was very active at Sai, and Smith suggested, on the basis of jar
53
A. Kadry, Officers and officials in the New Kingdom (Studia Aegyptiaca VIII;
Budapest, 1982), 10. Turo was t̠sw n Bhn, but later Viceroys used epithets such as qn
n ḥ m.f.
54
Wentawat was ḥ m nt̠r tpy n ’Imn-n-Rʿms.s and ḥ m nt̠r tpy n ’Imn-h̠nmt-W¡st
(usually equated with the Ramesseum, but possibly Amara West).
55
E.g. Säve-Söderbergh, Troy, New Kingdom Pharaonic sites, followed by Higgin-
botham, Egyptianization and Elite Emulation.

sealings, that he had made Buhen one of his bases. Viceroys of the later
New Kingdom, with a different agenda, were presumably in constant
progress throughout their domains, and must have regularly visited
the court to present the ἰnw and to report to the king. Amenhotep-
Huy 1 possessed a house at Thebes,56 and similarly, the presence of
the (unnamed) Viceroy at the head of the funeral procession of the
Vizier Ramose, indicates his importance amongst the Upper Egyptian
officials.57 Whether the Viceroy (probably Dhutmose) was actually
present at Ramose’s funeral is irrelevant: he and three other officials
form a group, followed by the “Companions” and “Chiefs of the City”.
The three officials are the First Royal Herald, the Overseer of the Trea-
sury and the Second Royal Herald, emphasising the Viceroy’s rank as
a royal official. Royal visits to Thebes to celebrate such major festi-
vals as the Opet, would have been a time when the Viceroy presented
the ἰnw, reported on affairs in Nubia, and received royal directives.
A relief in Luxor temple shows the presentation of ἰnw to Ramesses
II, the accompanying text stating that the ἰmy-r ḫ ¡swt rsyt mḥ yt were
responsible.58
The evidence for royal visits to Kush is limited to reports of military
activities, although they may have been more frequent. An accession
tour might be expected, although this was usually accompanied by
a display of military strength to quell the “rebellion” which is often
reported. Nubia probably lacked the city-specific festivals, such as
Opet, which were usually celebrated by the king in person and it is
likely that any royal religious visits related to the sed-festival. The Vice-
roy Paser 2 is stated to have been at the fortress of Senmet (the First
Cataract), and this doubtless served as a major base, as it had in the
Old Kingdom.
Family and Previous Careers of Viceroys

As is usual for elite families throughout the 18th Dynasty, informa-
tion about the families of Viceroys is extremely limited. There can be
little doubt, however, that they were invariably appointed from the
elite families, and probably those most closely connected with the
56
From the literal reading of the tomb scene Davies, Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, 26,
pl. XXIII (from Lepsius).
57
N. de G. Davies, The Tomb of Ramose (Oxford, 1941), pl. XXVII.
58
PM II 308 Higginbotham, Egyptianization and Elite Emulation, 38.

930 robert morkot
palace. Usersatjet was son of a s¡b and a hkrt nswt, Nenwenhirmentes,59

and himself bore the title h̠ rd n k¡p, indicating an upbringing in the
palace.60 In Shrine 11 at Silsila he is associated with a Royal Nurse and
with an Overseer of the King’s Apartments in Thebes.61 All of these
factors emphasise Usersatjet’s close connections with the palace from
his childhood onwards. The title s¡b doubtless indicates little more
than that his father was an official, and suggestions that this epithet
was given to men “of humble origins” can probably be discounted.
Usersatjet seems to have been a Royal Steward at some stage of his
career.62
Of other Viceroys with close palace connections, Amenhotep-Huy 1
was possibly related to the Steward of Queen Tiye at Amarna and may
have been a wpwty nsw prior to his appointment. The title appears
in his tomb, and he is shown presenting the ‘tribute’ of the northern
foreign lands. Huy’s mother is depicted among his extended family in
his tomb, as a woman with white hair. Her name, Wenhir, is attested
only once elsewhere, in the tomb of the Chief Steward of Queen Tiye
at Akhetaten, Huya. There she is clearly a close relative of Huya, but
the relationship is unstated. It is possible that the name is an abbrevia-
tion of one such as Nenwenhirmentes. Although the identification of
Huya’s relative with Huy’s mother is speculative, the palace associa-
tions accord with the likely background for a Viceroy.
Setau was educated within the palace and may have been related
to one of the most influential family groups of the reign of Ramesses
II, which also included the Viceroy Paser 2.63 Setau was appointed as
scribe to the Vizier in charge of tax and was then elevated to become
59
Silsila Shrine II: R.A. Caminos, T.G.H. James, Gebel es-Silsilah I. The Shrines (Lon-
don, 1963), 30–34, pl. 25; statue from Deir el-Medina: Urk. IV 1287–1289 (462).
60
Caminos, James, Gebel es-Silsilah I, 30–34.
61
The relationship between the various individuals represented in the Shrine is not
clear. The statues depicted Usersatjet and his mother, with the Overseer of the King’s
Apartments, Senynufe, and his wife Hatshepsut and the Great Nurse and Fosterer
of the King, Hentowe. Reliefs depicted the Prophet of Khnum, and High Priest of
Harwer and Sobek, and the son of the High Priest of Nekhbet. These titles relate to
Aswan (or, perhaps less likely, Esna?), el Kab and Kom Ombo, to the north and south
of Silsila. Without further information it is impossible to assess whether the presence
of these dignitaries indicates a powerful group of intermarried elite families or simply
the nearest shrines to Silsila.
62
On the stela from Buhen, BM EA 623: Urk. IV 1486–1487 (460), Usersatjet is
called ἰmy-r pr Mr-tm (Medum).
63
See Reisner, “Viceroys”, 41, 45–46; H. Gauthier, “Une fondation pieuse en Nubie”
ASAE 36 (1936), 49–71; KRI III 74–76; for their connection with the High Priests of

Steward of Amun. This, one of the key offices of the New Kingdom,
was usually the pinnacle of a career, and Setau had his tomb (TT289)
in Dra Abu el-Naga with most of his funerary equipment, made with
that title, and that of “Leader of the Festival”. Setau was, however,
elevated further. His numerous monuments are remarkably reticent
about family connections, apart from naming his wife, Mutnofret.
The name Setau may have a connection with el-Kab, and Mutnofret
was wrt h̠ nr of Nekhbet. The leading family of the town in the 20th
Dynasty was that of Setau, High Priest of Nekhbet, perhaps a descen-
dant or member of the same extended family.64 Further connections
may be indicated by the family monument of the Chief of the Mad-
joy, Amenemone. This includes Amenemone’s sister, who was married
to the Steward of Amun: the names of both are lost, but considering
the dating of the monument, Setau is certainly a strong candidate.
The extent of the Amenemone family’s power in Upper Egypt is well
documented, stretching from their family seat at Tjeny, with offices
and marriage connections in Akhmim, Abydos, Dendera, and Thebes.
There is a possibility that one of the sisters of Amenemone was a wife
of Ramesses II (perhaps Queen Isetnofret). If this was the case, it raises
the question whether the family’s power (and elevation of the father to
the rank of High Priest of Amun) was due to the marriage connection,
or whether the new royal family wished to ally itself with a powerful
Upper Egyptian family. Certainly Amenemone and Ramesses II were
close contemporaries and associates. Other members of this extended
family were the Viceroy Paser 2, who left few monuments in Nubia,
but is named on the family monument of Amenemone, and the ḥ ry
pd̠t n K¡š Pennesuttawy whose son Minnakht, and grandson Anhur-
nakht succeded him in the same office.65
Ahmose Turo, who served Amenhotep I and Thutmose I, was son
of Ahmose Sa-Tayit, who is also given the title of Viceroy on monu-
ments, although it is not clear that he actually held the office. Unusu-
ally, several monuments attest Ahmose Turo’s own grandsons and
great-grandson: these show that the family served in priestly offices
Anhur see B.M. Bryan, “The career and family of Minmose, high priest of Onuris”,
CdE LXI/121–122 (1986), 50–60.
64
An earlier Setau, of the reign of Amenhotep III, left a stela dedicated to Amun
and Nekhbet.
65
L. Habachi, “The owner of tomb 282 in the Theban necropolis”, JEA 54 (1968),
107–113.

932 robert morkot
at Thebes.66 A depiction of the Viceroy Turo in the Silsila shrine of

Rekhmire’s father the Vizier Amatju, suggests a possible connection
with another highly influential family.67 Ahmose Turo was Comman-
dant of Buhen before his appointment as Viceroy.
The Viceroys Huy 2 and Hori were appointed from the ranks of
the wpwty nsw.68 The Viceroy Nehi uses the title “First Royal Her-
ald”, but whether this indicates a position prior to his appointment is
unknown.
Our knowledge of wives of Viceroys is minimal and it is difficult
even to cite examples, much less to make generalizations. One of the
few known is Mutnofret, the wife of Setau.69 Mutnofret bore the title
wrt h̠ nr of Nekhbet, Chantress of Amun and wrt h̠ nr of Amun. The
last two titles derive from her husband’s office of Steward of Amun,
which he held before his appointment as Viceroy. Setau is not, so far,
recorded as possessing a priestly title associating him with Nekhbet,
although he did dedicate a chapel at el-Kab.70 Mutnofret’s position as
wrt h̠ nr of Nekhbet is not to be connected with her husband’s vicere-
gal funtion, and may reflect a family association with el Kab.71 Setau’s
tomb is at Thebes, but this, along with some of his burial equipment72
was made whilst he served in the city as Steward of Amun and Leader
of the Festival.
Much more difficult to interpret is the evidence relating to Tae-
mwadjsy, variously suggested to have been the wife of Amnhotep-
Huy 1, of the ḥ ry pd̠t n K¡š Khaemwaset or of the Viceroy Paser 1.73
66
L. Habachi, “The first two Viceroys of Kush and their family”, Kush 7 (1959),
45–62.
67
Caminos, James, Gebel es-Silsilah I, no 17.
68
Hori is attested in this capacity before his appointment as Viceroy.
69
L. Habachi, “Setau, the famous Viceroy of Ramses II and his career”, CHE 10
(1967), 51–68 discussed this woman and speculated that she was related to Ramesses II.
70
Ph. Derchain, El Kab I. Les monuments religieux à l’entrée de l’Ouady Hellal
(Brussels, 1971), pl. 28–30.
71
The name occurs at el-Kab, where a High Priest of Nekhbet was buried in the
reign of Ramesses III (on his family see M.L. Bierbrier, The Late New Kingdom in
Egypt [Warminster, 1975], 11–12, 17–18).
72
TT 289; some of the funerary equipment see L. Habachi, “Miscellanea on Vice-
roys of Kush and their assistants buried in Dra Abu el-Naga, south”, JARCE 13 (1976),
113–116, on pp. 113–114; the sarcophagus, BM EA 78 see M.L. Bierbrier, The British
Museum. Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae etc., Part 10 (London, 1982), 20,
pls. 42–43.
73
Davies, Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, 7; Macadam, The Temples of Kawa I, 4;
L. Bell, “Aspects of the cult of the deified Tutankhamun”, Mélanges Gamal Eddin
Mokhtar I (BdE XCVII/1; Cairo, 1985), 31–59, on p. 43 n 8.

Taemwadjsy carries the titles of wrt h̠ nr of Amun and wrt h̠ nr of Neb-

kheperure in Sehetep-netjeru. Although the evidence is equivocal, the
simplest reading would make her the wife of the Viceroy Huy 1 and
mother of the Viceroy Paser 1. She was perhaps also the mother of the
ḥ ry pd̠t Khaemwaset. If this is the correct interpretation, it would give
three generations of Viceroys-Huy 1, Paser 1, and Amenemopet—in
one family, along with a ḥ ry pd̠t, and perhaps also a Prophet of Neb-
kheprure in Sehetep-netjeru, Merymose.
Both Mutnofret and Taemwadjsy set up monuments in their own
right,74 and the importance of such women would seem to be con-
firmed by the occurrence of the otherwise extremely rare name Tae-
mwadjsy at Mi‘am in the early 19th Dynasty.75
Some relatives of Viceroys are known to have held offices in Nubia,
the clearest example being the three generations of ḥ ry pd̠t who
were cousins of the Viceroy Paser 2. Amongst the officials who greet
Amenhotep-Huy 1 on his arrival in Nubia is the Second Prophet of
Nb-h̠ prw-Rʿ in Sehetep-netjeru, Merymose.76 This priest is described
as “his brother” (sn.f ), and as Gardiner pointed out, this must refer to
Huy as the most significant person in the tomb and the scene. Gardiner
was cautious as to whether actual brotherhood was meant, but did
suggest that this man was named after the viceroy of Amenhotep III:
indeed it is possible that there was a family relationship between the
two Viceroys.77 Sons of Viceroys may have acted as deputies for their
fathers, or accompanied them in an official capacity: Amenemhab son
the Viceroy Sety, served as ἰdnw,78 although more usually sons held
their own offices such as wpwty nsw79 or bore chariotry titles, suggest-
ing that they were young officials with no specific job allocations.80
74
The offering bowl and blocks from a chapel at Faras, J. Karkowski, Faras V: The
Pharaonic Inscriptions (Warsaw, 1981), 130–136 [74–79], 89–90 [8], were dedicated by
Taemwadjsy. A stela from Sebua was dedicated by Mutnofret: L. Habachi, “Five stelae
from the temple of Amenophis III at el-Sebua now in the Aswan Museum”, Kush 8
(1960), 45–52, esp. 47–48 and 49, fig. 3.
75
Shabtis from tombs SA 37 and S 57 at Aniba, Steindorff, Aniba II, 78, 85. The
titles on these differ from those held by Huy’s wife.
76
Davies, Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, pl. XV.
77
However, we know nothing of the family of Amenhotep III’s Viceroy, despite a
large number of surviving monuments.
78
PM VII: 89; KRI IV 166[d].
79
E.g. Webekhusen son of Hori.
80
E.g. Amenemopet son of Paser 1.

934 robert morkot
A number of Viceroys81 and Chief of Bowmen of Kush82 were buried

at Thebes, but this does not necessarily indicate that it was their town
of origin. The concentration of 18th-dynasty tombs in the necropolises
of Thebes and Memphis has somewhat obscured the role of “lesser”
and “provincial” centres and the importance of the elite families within
them. The late New Kingdom furnishes more examples of such fami-
lies, most notably the Hori family which, serving from the reign of Sip-
tah into the 20th Dynasty, originated in Per-Bastet. There the family
tomb has been excavated,83 and an unusual group of rock inscriptions
at Nag Abidis84 apparently records the procession taking the body of
the elder Hori to his home-town for burial. The family’s association
with Per-Bastet and their devotion to its patron deity, are affirmed by
their inscriptions which include the city’s eponymous goddess. Priestly
titles of the family of Wentawat suggest that Asyut was their home
town.85 The Viceroys Messuy and Sety were both buried at Mi‘am
which, although not conclusive evidence, suggests that they may have
belonged to elite Nubian families:86 Sety’s son, Amenemhab, served as
idnw, an office which seems otherwise to belong to the Nubian elite.
Duties of Viceroys
It is clear that the duties and functions of the Viceroys changed
throughout the long span of the Egyptian domination. The earli-
est Viceroys were responsible for reasserting Egyptian control over
81
Seni, funerary cones, N. de G. Davies, M.F.L. Macadam, A Corpus of inscribed
funerary cones. Part 1. Plates (Oxford, 1957), 342–343. Nehi, sarcophagus, Berlin
17.895, pyramidion and shabtis. Merymose TT 383: PM I.2; Huy 1 TT 40: Davies,
Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy; Anhotep TT 300: PM I.2, 208; Habachi, “Miscellanea on
Viceroys”, 114. Setau TT 289: PM I.2, 369.
82
Anhurnakht TT 282 and Pennesuttawy TT 156: Habachi, “The owner of tomb
282”; Id., “Miscellanea on Viceroys”.
83
H. Gauthier, “Un Vice-roi d’Ethiopie enseveli à Bubastis”, ASAE 28 (1928), 129–
137; L. Habachi, Tell Basta (ASAE Cahier 22; Cairo, 1957), 100.
84
Z. Žaba, The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia, Czechoslovak Concession (Prague,
1974), 136–142 n° 101–115.
85
Three female relatives of the Viceroy were chantresses of Wepwawet, recorded
on stela BM EA 792: Bierbrier, Hieroglyphic Texts Part 10, 20–21[2].
86
Messuy tomb SA 36: Steindorff, Aniba II, 21, 58, pls. 7, 34, jamb, faience plaque;
note also shabti from cemetery 152 at Wadi es-Sebua: W.B. Emery, L.P. Kirwan, The
Excavations and Survey between Wadi es-Sebua and Adindan, 1929–1931 (Service des
Antiquités de l’Égypte. Mission archéologique de Nubie, 1929–1934; Cairo, 1935),
103–104; Sety tomb SA 34: Steindorff, Aniba II, 84, pl.32, 23 shabtis.

Wawat and refortifying Buhen, before establishing the new fortress

on Sai: their functions were therefore largely military. The evidence
from the early 18th Dynasty is not precise as to the activities, although
in Wawat there were significant temple constructions within the for-
tresses, at Amada, rock cut chapels at Ellesiya and Ibrim, and extensive
construction work at Mi‘am. Further south, the fortress of Sai was
the focus of activity, with a later rock-cut shrine at Gebel Dosha. The
fortress of Sm¡-ḫ ¡swt near Gebel Barkal was founded by Thutmose III,
and there is a possibility of some early-mid-18th Dynasty activity at
Sesebi and Amara.
Later Viceroys were occasionally involved in military activities:
Setau states that he captured Libyans in one of the oases of Wawat
who were put to work constructing the temple of Wadi es-Sebua. The
main function of the Viceroy that we have attested from the mid-18th
Dynasty onwards is the collection and presentation of the “tribute”
and the gold resources. One of the major scenes in the tomb of Huy
shows him receiving gold, weighed and recorded by named scribes.
A small number of additional documents shed light on the Vice-
roy’s activities. The Ostracon Gardiner 362 relating to preparations
for the Opet Festival records a letter of the village Scribe of Deir el
Medina, Ramose, to the Royal Scribe and Overseer of Cattle, Hatiay. It
records that the Viceroy Paser 2 is at the fortress of Senmet (the First
Cataract), and refers to things being sent for the Opet Festival and to
Nebseny, Mayor of Abu (Elephantine). This is significant in suggest-
ing that things were specifically sent to the village, another institution
directly associated with the palace, by the Viceroy for the celebration
of a key Theban festival. A Viceroy (perhaps also Paser 2) was named
on stela of the same scribe Ramose, from the village chapels at Deir
el-Medina.
Whilst it is dangerous to generalise for the entire period from one
piece of evidence, the Viceroy Huy clearly had a large personal staff.
He is depicted with his four sons; in addition, he has groups of rwd̠w
and sd̠mw-ʿš, who were presumably seconded to do specific duties as
and when required. The Viceroy’s personal secretaries are named in
several scenes and also attested on other monuments, as is the Scribe
of Gold. In addition there is evidence for the household officials com-
mensurate with his rank: sailors, charioteers and stablemasters. A
number of private monuments was dedicated to their superiors by
members of the Viceregal staff.

936 robert morkot
The administration maintained direct contact with the palace, its

principal agents probably being the wpwty nsw,87 from whose ranks
several Viceroys were drawn. A number of inscriptions of the reign
of Siptah is particularly illuminating as to the activities of the wpwty
nsw and their relationship to the Viceregal administration. The Vice-
roy Sety was conducted on his first tour of duty by the royal envoy
Neferhor, and in year 3 of the same reign a delegation, led by Pyiay,
arrived to receive the b¡kw of Kush.88 The Chancellor Bay accompa-
nied the progress,89 which may have been met by the Viceroy Sety at
Aswan.90 The dignitaries included Pyiay’s son, Amennakht,91 and the
royal envoy Hori, son of Kema (himself a later Viceroy).92
The ἰdnw
Originally designated simply ἰdnw or ἰdnw n s¡ nsw, these offices were
later specified geographically as ἰdnw n K¡š and ἰdnw n W¡w¡t: this
suggests a formalisation or restructuring of the system in the period
of Amenhotep II-Amenhotep III. Variant forms are: ἰdnw n Nb-T¡wy,
ἰdnw m T¡-Stἰ. The evidence from the cemeteries of Mi‘am in Lower
Nubia and Kha-em-Maet (Soleb), the tomb of Huy and the settlement
of Amara West in Upper Nubia show that, from the later 18th Dynasty
onwards these towns, with Sehetep-netjeru (Faras) were the residence
of the ἰdnw and principal administrative centres.93
The ἰdnw appear to have been drawn from the hierarchy within
Nubia and not appointed from Egypt. In outlining the career path, the
87
Vallogia, Recherche sur les “messagers”.
88
ST Col 7W: Caminos, The New-kingdom Temples of Buhen I, 29–30.
89
Buhen ST 32: Caminos, The New-kingdom Temples of Buhen I, 72; cf. Smith,
Buhen II. The inscriptions, 201.
90
Sehel inscription: De Morgan 1894: 86 (29); LD III 202b; Habachi, “Graffiti”,
33 [35]. Aswan-Shellal road inscription: J. de Morgan, Catalogue de monuments et
inscriptions de l’Égypte antique I: De la frontière de Nubie à Kom Ombos (Wien, 1894),
28[6]; LD III 202c; Habachi, “Graffiti”, 34 [36].
91
Who dedicated ST 11 E (Caminos, The New-kingdom Temples of Buhen I, 34)
on behalf of his father.
92
ST 11 S (Caminos, The New-kingdom Temples of Buhen I, 34–35) and probably
the ex voto ST 16 N (Id., ibid., 46–47) dated to this reign, but without year. The titles
indicate before Hori’s elevation to the rank of Viceroy.
93
Burials of ἰdnw are known from Aniba and Soleb. Door jambs with the name
of the ἰdnw n Kš Paser (temp Ramesses III) and the ἰdnw Sebakhau were found at
Amara: Fairman, JEA 34 (1948), 9, pls. V.1, VI.4, see now P. Spencer, Amara West I.
The Architectural Report (London, 1997), pls. 149–167.

best-attested holder of the office is Amenemopet, who worked entirely

within the Kushite administration: beginning as a “letter-writer” (per-
sonal secretary) to Merymose, he was advanced to be Comptroller of
Works for Dhutmose, and ended his career as ἰdnw of Kush under
Huy. Amenemopet left the record of his advancement at the temple
of Ellesiya near Mi‘am, and he may have belonged to the elite of that
town.94 His ultimate position saw him in control of Upper Nubia, and
it was in the administrative capital at Soleb that he was buried.95 Pen-
nut, ἰdnw of Wawat in the reign of Ramesses VI, was the son of an
earlier ἰdnw, although there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate
that he was descended from the Pennut who served as ἰdnw of Wawat
in the reign of Ay.96 Pennut’s relatives held a number of priestly and
scribal offices and certainly constituted the most important family in
Mi‘am in the 20th Dynasty. It is impossible to know whether the name
Pennut indicates a Theban origin for this family, although they were
certainly resident in Wawat for several generations.
The Mayors of Towns—ḥ ¡ty-ʿ

The ḥ ¡ty-ʿ-Mayors are attested by their own monuments and by the
scenes in the tomb of the Viceroy Amenhotep-Huy 1 and the chapel of
the Viceroy Setau at Qasr Ibrim. Huy is greeted on his arrival in Nubia
by the ḥ ¡ty-ʿ n Sḥ tp-nt̠rw (Faras) and the ḥ ¡ty-ʿ n Ḫ ʿ-m-M¡ʿt (Soleb),
the seats of the two idnw. The chapel of Setau depicts a group of May-
ors, but although their names are given, their towns are not named.
From other monuments we know the ḥ ¡ty-ʿ n Miam (Aniba), ḥ ¡ty-ʿ n
Bhn (Buhen), ḥ ¡ty-ʿ n Šʿt (Shaat, Sai) and ḥ ¡ty-ʿ n Gm-p¡-’Itn (Gem-
Aten, Kawa). The duties and responsibilities of these officials were
presumably the same as those of their equivalents in Egypt. Smith
observes that the characteristically Middle Kingdom office of Com-
mandant of Buhen (t̠sw n Bhn) was held by Ahmose Turo early in
the 18th Dynasty, but was (perhaps immediately) replaced by the civil
office of ḥ ¡ty-ʿ. At Buhen, the position of Mayor was sometimes held
by the First Prophet of Horus of Buhen.
94
PM VII: 91 (d-e); Reisner, “Viceroys”, 8sq.
95
M. Schiff Giorgini, Soleb. II. Les nécropoles (Firenze, 1971), 227 fig. 435, 234 fig.
451, 277 fig. 537.
96
PM VII: 76–77; Steindorff, Aniba II, 242–245.

938 robert morkot
The Treasury
A number of titles attest officials associated with the Treasury of the
administration, although nothing details its workings. The head was
variously styled ἰmy-r pr ḥ d̠, ἰmy-r pr ḥ d̠ m T¡-Stἰ, ἰmy-r pr ḥ d̠n nb t¡wy
m Mἰʿm, ἰmy-r pr ḥ d̠ n nb t¡wy m T¡-Stἰ. The civil servants attached
were the sš pr ḥ d̠ or sš pr ḥ d̠ n nb t¡wy m T¡-Stἰ.
The Civil Service

The bulk of the officials employed in the administration were civil
servants, generally terms “Scribes” sš, often with additional designa-
tions for their particular departments, such as treasury, cattle, or gold
counting. The scenes in the tomb of Huy show, as in Egypt, multiple
accounts being taken of the various activities. The family monuments,
such as the tomb of Pennut, also demonstrate that, as in Egypt, the
majority of titles held in even the most powerful families were “mod-
est” scribal positions.
2. The Gold Mines and Foreign Trade

Vercoutter discussed the gold production of Nubia in detail.97 The
gold production was under the direct control of the Viceroy. The titles
Overseer of Gold Lands of the Lord of the Two Lands, and Over-
seer of the Gold Lands of Amun, occur from the time of Merymose
(under Amenhotep III) to the 20th Dynasty, but are used by only a few
Viceroys and are even then infrequent on their monuments. This led
Reisner to suggest that these were just “poetical or boastful” versions
of “Overseer of the Southern Foreign Lands”.
Scenes in the tomb of Huy show the Viceroy overseeing the collec-
tion and weighing of gold which is brought by men and women in
small bags. The weighing and accounting is carried out by the Scribe of
Gold Hornefer, the ḥ ry ἰḥ w, Hati, and the Viceroy’s secretary, Kha.
At Tombos, the funerary cones in the large pyramid tomb of Sia-
mun designate him a “Scribe of Gold”.98 In this case, the scale of the
tomb and the additional titles, suggest that this man may have been
a local ruler.
97
J. Vercoutter, “The Gold of Kush”, Kush 7 (1959), 120–153.
98
Smith, Wretched Kush, 138–66, figs. 6.4–6.6, gives the titles as ‘Scribe of the
Treasury’ although there is no pr hieroglyph.

The Nauri Decree of Sety I lists gold washers as part of the temple
staff, along with “bargees, packers and foreign traders”. This is the only
reference to “foreign traders” in a Nubian context.99
3. Agricultural Production
It has generally been assumed that the Egyptian redistributive econ-
omy was introduced in Nubia under the Egyptian rule, with the tem-
ples as key institutions in storage and distribution.100 This would have
necessitated redistributing land partly, or completely, according to the
Egyptian system: whether this was done in one move early in the years
of the Egyptian occupation, or over a longer period of time is not
documented. Some confirmation of this is found in the texts in the
tomb of the ἰdnw Pennut at Mi‘am which give an indication of the
pattern of landholding in the 20th Dynasty. They reveal a system that
is very similar to that of Egypt, with institutions, individuals, and cult
images all owning small fields. Numerous titles refer to Overseers of
granaries or of cattle (sometimes specified as “of Amun”).
Lower Nubia could not have been a large-scale arable producer and
although the Kerma-Letti region is the most fertile region south of
Silsila, it may have been given over to cattle—and perhaps horse—pas-
turing rather than arable production. As early as the reign of Thutmose
III there are clear distinctions in the numbers of cattle sent to Egypt
annually: averaging around 100 head from Wawat, but 300 from Kush.
The Nauri Decree details the staff and animals attached to the local
estates of the king’s House of Millions of Years “Heart’s Ease in Aby-
dos”. These include bee-keepers, gardeners, vintners, fishermen, cattle,
asses, geese, hounds, dogs, and goats. In addition, as noted above, the
same temple had gold washers and foreign traders. Whilst some of the
agricultural products may have found their way to Abydos, some must
have been used locally as rations for the temple employees. A sub-
scene in the tomb of Amenhotep-Huy 1 shows domestic animals being
brought to the Viceroy with scribes recording the numbers: horses,
cattle, geese, goats and donkeys.101
99
The primary publication is F. Ll. Griffith, “The Abydos decree of Seti I at Nauri”,
JEA 13 (1927), 193–208.
100
Generally see Morkot, “The Economy of New Kingdom Nubia”.
101
Davies, Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, pl. VIII; on horse-breeding in Kush see
R.G. Morkot, “War and the Economy: the International ‘arms trade’ in the Late
Bronze Age and after”, in: Egyptian Stories. A British Egyptological Tribute to Alan

940 robert morkot
4. The Religious Foundations

Temple building began very soon after the Egyptians reoccupied
Buhen fort, additions being made in the reign of Ahmose. A temple
was constructed in the new fortress established on Sai in the reign of
Ahmose, and new temples and cults are one of the most obvious sur-
viving features of the Egyptian occupation. As with all other aspects of
the administration, the evidence for the priestly offices is patchy, and
generally richer from the later phases.
Allocation of land to the temples, and to statue-cults, is documented
by the texts in the tomb of Pennut at Mi‘am, and by the Nauri Decree
of Sety I. The Nauri Decree is the earliest source indicating a close
relationship of an Egyptian temple with Nubian land holdings. The
temples of Ramesses II at Wadi es-Sebua, Gerf Hussein, and ed-Derr
all indicate both a spiritual and perhaps economic tie to temples in
Egypt. The “Elephantine Decree”, probably of Ramesses III, seems to
be very similar to the Nauri Decree, but relates to land holding of the
temple of Khnum on Elephantine in Lower Nubia.102 This land may be
the origin of the Dodekaschoinos. Altogether, the evidence appears to
suggest a close attachment of land and temples in Nubia to temples in
Egypt during the later New Kingdom.
The temples were eventually controlled by the Overseers of Prophets
of all the gods of Ta-Sety. The more significant temples appear to have
had two “Prophets” and groups of lower ranking priests. The recorded
titles are from temple dedications and funerary monuments and the
priesthoods of many important sanctuaries remain undocumented.
At Buhen there is evidence for two prophets of Amun (ḥ m-nt̠r n
’Imn and ḥ m-ntr 2nw n ’Imn) in addition to the two Prophets of Horus
of Buhen (ḥ m-nt̠r n Ḥ r nb Bhn, ḥ m-nt̠r 2nw) and lesser ranks of wʿb-
priests, along with the Prophet of Isis (the Scorpion), the consort of
Horus at Buhen. Elite women played a role in the cults as wrt h̠ nr n
’Imn, wrt h̠ nr n ¡st, ḥ syt and šmʿyt. Similarly at Miʿam, there was a
ḥ m-nt̠r tpy n Ḥ r nb Mἰʿm, wʿb-priests as well as wrt h̠ nr, chantresses
and songstresses. A First Prophet of Horus of Baki (ḥ m-nt̠r tpy n Ḥ r
nb B¡kἰ) is also known.
B. Lloyd on the Occasion of his Retirement, T. Schneider, K. Szpakowska eds. (AOAT

347; Münster, 2007), 169–95.
102
Griffith, “The Abydos decree”, 207–08.

The royal cult is particularly well-attested for Tutankhamun in

his foundation at Faras. Among the officials who greet Amenhotep-
Huy 1 on his arrival are the First and Second Prophets (ḥ m-nt̠r tpy
n Nb-Ḫ prw-Rʿ ḥ ry ἰb Sḥ tp-nt̠rw, ḥ m-nt̠r 2nw) and several wʿb-priests.
The Second Prophet is stated to be Huy’s brother. Huy’s wife, Taemw-
adjsy, held the office of wrt h̠ nr n Nb-Ḫ prw-Rʿ ḥ ry ἰb Sḥ tp-nt̠rw.
Manufacturing would have been, as in Egypt, attached to some of
the key temples, and as Nubia lacked the palace complexes of Egypt,
these may have been the major production centres. The earliest work
in the temple at Buhen shows affinities with the construction carried
out under the Egyptian garrison. Even if, in the earlier years of Egyp-
tian rule, sculptors were brought from Egypt, local workshops must
have been set up, and sculptors (sʿnḫ ) are attested.
Before his elevation to the rank of ἰdnw, Amenemopet served as
Comptroller of Works for the Viceroy Dhutmose, and was presum-
ably responsible for overseeing the construction of the temple-town of
Sesebi, work at Soleb, and perhaps the “Aten” temples. The Overseer
of Craftsmen (ἰmy-r ḥ mwt) Roka is depicted in the chapel of Setau at
Ibrim, and thus ranks as one of the leading members of the Nubian
administration: his burial is known from Mi‘am.
5. The Military
The Chief of Bowmen of Kush—ḥ ry pd̠t n K¡š

Whilst the Troop Commander, or Chief of Bowmen of Kush, was
undoubtedly the head of the Nubian militia, it is unclear whether he
was subordinate to the Viceroy or directly to the pharaoh. Most Chiefs
of Bowmen were also Overseers of the Southern Foreign Lands—
the officials, it is argued below, who had jurisdiction in the Nubian
Marches. The importance of the office of Chief of Bowmen is empha-
sised by the use of the rank of t̠¡y ḫ w ḥ r wnmy nswt. The office is not
well-documented before the reign of Amenhotep III, and may have
been a creation of the re-structuring of the bureaucracy suggested to
have occurred around the time of Amenhotep II–Thutmose IV. This
may even have been the point when the office of Viceroy became more
of a civil than a military one.
Our knowledge of the Chief of Bowmen of Kush and their fami-
lies is scant, and it is difficult to make generalisations about titles that
they might have held. Khaemwaset, known from a dyad discovered

942 robert morkot
at Kawa, was holder of the office in the late 18th dynasty. As noted
above, he is accompanied by a woman who holds the office of wrt
h̠ nr of Amun and wrt h̠ nr n Nb-ḫ prw-Rʿ at Sehetep-netjeru, called
Taemwadjsy.103 Bell identified this Khaemwaset with the First Prophet
of Nebkheperure at Faras, Kha, depicted in the tomb of Huy,104 assum-
ing an hypochoristic form of the name. It seems unlikely that a Chief
of Bowmen would hold important priestly offices concurrent with his
military duties.105 Taemwadjsy is, perhaps more probably, to be identi-
fied as wife of the Viceroy Amenhotep-Huy 1, and possibly mother of
the Chief of Bowmen, Khaemwaset.106
Khaemwaset was certainly a relative of the Viceroys Huy 1, Paser 1
and Amenemopet, and in the reigns of Ramesses II a similar situation
occurred, when cousins of the Viceroy Paser 2 held the office for three
generations: Pennesuttawy, Minnakht, and Anhurnakht. A close con-
nection between one ḥ ry pd̠t and the palace is recorded in the “Harem
Conspiracy Papyrus”.107 The “great criminal Binemwaset (Bἰn-m-W¡st)
formerly Captain of Archers in Nubia” had received a letter from his
sister who was in the harem, telling him: “Incite the people to hostility!
And you come to begin hostility against your lord”. The true identity of
this ḥ ry pd̠t is unknown, unless he is the official who added the ex voto
to Buhen ST 15 beneath the band of cartouches of Ramesses III.108 The
Harem Conspiracy Papyrus emphasises the close connections between
the palace and the senior officials of the viceregal administration, and
the inherent dangers. Although such palace intrigues are well-attested
in other ancient Near Eastern monarchies, the Turin Papyrus is an
103
Macadam, The Temples of Kawa I, 3–4.
104
Davies, Gardiner, The Tomb of Huy, 18 and fig.3; Bell, “Aspects of the cult”,
43 n 8.
105
It should be noted that a similar juxtaposition of titles occurs on two statues
of a Chief of Bowmen and Overseer of the Northern Lands, also called Khaemwaset,
excavated at Tell Basta, and dating from the reign of Amenhotep III (Habachi, Tell
Basta). The texts name the official’s (presumed) wives as a Chantress of Bastet, and as
a Chantress of Sakhmet, Songstress of Bastet and wrt h̠ nr of Bastet. The implication is
that the two women bore important titles in Bubastis.
106
This is the most economical interpretation of the evidence, but, obviously, not
necessarily the correct one.
107
BAR IV 208–221: Breasted noted that the text reads literally “in Nubia” a ren-
dering “against the usual custom”.
108
Caminos, The New-kingdom Temples of Buhen, p. 43: t̠¡y ḫ w ḥ r wnmy nswt, ḥ ry
pd̠t n K¡š sš nsw ἰmy-r pr wr ἰmy r ἰpt št̠h ḥ m nt̠r hnr wr ’Imn Rc [?] Bekenset son of
Penwepwawet. Caminos observes that the text could have been carved before, or after,
the frieze of Ramesses III’s cartouches. The official is depicted in the act of adoration,
and the cartouches of a king would have filled the now destroyed area.

almost unique record from Egypt, and it remains impossible to judge

how unusual an event this was. The involvement of this senior mem-
ber of the Nubian militia in palace politics was due as much to his
personal as to his official connections, but indicates just how close the
family connections between these officials and the palace was.
Textual evidence does not detail the activities of the ḥ ry pd̠t, but he
was presumably responsible for maintaining security within the Nile
valley and patrolling the frontiers and deserts.
6. The Peripheries
The Overseers of Southern Foreign Lands—ἰmy-r ḫ ¡swt rsyt

The title was used in combination with s¡ nsw n K¡š from the early
Viceroys such as Ahmose Turo onwards. Higginbotham views the
Overseers of Southern Foreign Lands as subordinate to the Viceroy
and Overseer of Bowmen, but the title is usual for both of those offi-
cials as well as being held by others.109 In the case of the Viceroy it
has generally been regarded as little more than a poetic variant upon
s¡ nsw n K¡š. That it was, however, a more specific, and meaningful,
appellation is indicated by the other holders.
The title is not attested for any or the princes of Lower Nubia, but
only for officials who had some jurisdiction over Upper Nubia. There-
fore its connection with Nubia must have been specific. “Overseer of
Foreign Lands” and the variant “Overseer of Northern Foreign Lands”,
is a title held by officials at Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham, the westernmost
of the Libyan frontier fortresses, and at Beth Shean and Megiddo.110 The
most plausible explanation is that “Overseers of Foreign Lands” were
those officials responsible for the frontier zones: in Nubia these included
the Viceroy, as chief of the administration of Egyptian dominions in
Nubia, the Overseer of Bowmen, as chief of the militia, and, almost
certainly, various of the Upper Nubian princes as rulers of the Marches.
The text attached to the Luxor Temple scene of presentation of the
ἰnw of Nubia and Asia states that this was done by the ἰmy-r ḫ ¡swt
rsyt mḥ yt. Tomb scenes from Thebes and Amarna show a number
109
Egyptianization and Elite Emulation, 39–40.
110
L. Habachi, “The military posts of Ramesses II on the coastal road and the west-
ern part of the Delta”, BIFAO 80 (1980), 13–30, esp. 15. PM VII 376–380 Ramesses-
user-khepesh PM VII 380–381.

944 robert morkot
of officials with specific titles presenting tribute, which again suggests

that the title embraces a group.
7. The Indigenous Rulers

Older literature suggested that the administration comprised largely
Egyptian “colonials”, and, with the exception of the local princes,
indigenous elites were of little significance.111
The model argued here proposes that direct Egyptian control
extended only as far as the Third Cataract, and that the region to the
south may have been controlled by indigenous Kushite princes (weru).
A certain amount of textual evidence can be adduced in support of
this, and the settlement pattern in the Abri-Delgo reach is most easily
explained within this model. Further theoretical considerations make it
likely that the Egyptians would have established a buffer zone between
their ‘colonised’ territory and the actual frontier at Napata.
The parallelism of texts relating to Nubia and Asia demonstrates
clearly that the Egyptians did not view their relationship with the two
regions as essentially different: both were suppliers of both ἰnw and
b¡kw, both had wrw-rulers. Obviously the nature of the geography,
made direct control of parts of Nubia easier than western Asia, but
earlier assessments of Egyptian rule argued for different approaches
based on a more urbanised and hierarchical (and, implicitly, more
‘sophisticated’) society in western Asia.
The continued existence of powerful Kushite princedoms later than
the early 18th Dynasty is not accepted by all scholars, some of whom
believe the wrw to have been little more than village headmen of only
local and moderate importance. However, there is ample evidence
for Kushite chiefs in the early 18th Dynasty leading resistance to the
Egyptians, and any total disappearance of them, not paralleled in other
imperialist expansions, needs to be accounted for. A valuable compari-
son may be found by examining the role of elites and chiefs in more
generalised models of frontier expansion, in which one “weaker” peo-
ple retreats before a stronger culture. Here it can be seen that retreat
(physical) or resistance emphasise the power of local chiefs. Indeed, in
111
Frandsen, “Egyptian imperialism”, 169 commented that at “all levels of the
administration the majority of the officials seem to have been Egyptians”. Trigger,
Nubia under the pharaohs, 207 commentary to plate 50, on the contrary, suggests that
many “Egyptian” officials might actually have been indigenous.

societies which are loosely structured during peaceful times (e.g. due
to the agricultural capabilities of the land) a former village headman
may increase his power and become a chief because of a tightening in
the society’s structure. If they are recognised as representatives of the
communities by the invading power in order to impose the institu-
tions of that power, or to establish a framework for co-existence of
the two communities, the power of chieftains over their own people is
increased even further. The hereditary principle is also strengthened,
and a family of chiefs may have a vested interest in perpetuating the
subordination of the people as a whole. This situation is quite compat-
ible with tribal insurrections against the dominant people. Emergent
elites who control the economic wealth may come to rely on the con-
tinuance of “trade” to maintain their privileged positions within the
society. Instances where a stronger culture has come under the author-
ity of a greater military power, such as Asia Minor under Roman rule,
show quite clearly that certain practices of that controlling power will
be adopted by individuals or groups within the elite, as a strategy in
the constant struggles within the elite itself for prestige and status.112
Similarly, when Ife came into contact with Islam seeking “luxury”
commodities, the power and prestige of the local ruler who already
had a local network at his disposal was emphasised. Early New King-
dom Nubia, in which the invading power was both militarily and cul-
turally dominant, may thus have seen the affirmation of, or increase in,
the power of certain local princes for whom the adoption of Egyptian
manner and practices was a means of increasing their status within
their community through their links with the new rulers.
First Dynasty hostility towards the A-Group rulers of Qustul is now
seen as an attempt to gain ‘direct’ control of trade without middle-
men, but this could only be direct trade with Upper Nubia (probably
Kerma). New Kingdom actions initially destroyed Kerma’s power as
an aggressor, but must have aimed at control of trade under more
amenable rulers.
Egyptianisation of the indigenous elite in Wawat was rapid, as the
example of the princes of Th-ḫ t, buried at Debeira, illustrates.113 By
112
S. Price, S., Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cam-
bridge, 1984), 89–91.
113
Well-known from earlier publications by Säve-Söderbergh and widely discussed;
the fullest publication is now Säve-Söderbergh, Troy, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites,
190–204.

946 robert morkot
the co-reign of Thutmose III and Hatshepsut, they had adopted addi-
tional, Egyptian, names, and were employed within the Viceregal
administration, whilst retaining their Kushite titles. They were buried
in Egyptian-style tombs with grave goods and statuary manufactured
in the royal workshops (in Nubia, if not directly from Egypt). Junior
members of the family were also employed in the administration, one
being buried at Aswan.
Thutmose II took a Kushite prince as hostage and four sons of the
prince of Irem were sent to Egypt in year 34 of Thutmose III. The
msw wrw of Ḫ nt-ḥ n-nfr and of Kush continue to be referred to, or
depicted in texts and scenes until the reign of Tutankhamun.114 Whilst
this practice of sending elite children to the Egyptian court is usually
seen as a way by which the Egyptians were able to control the Kushite
(and indeed Asiatic) princes, it was probably also highly desired by the
elites themselves, as a means of distinguishing themselves, increasing
their status, and consolidating their political power.
The princedoms of Wawat are well-attested in the 18th Dynasty.115
From his detailed study of both the archaeology and the agricultural
potential of the region, Trigger argued that Wawat was divided into
three princedoms.116 One primary supporting piece of evidence is the
scene in the tomb of Tutankhamun’s Viceroy, Huy, in which three rul-
ers are shown prostrating themselves, with the caption wrw n W¡w¡t.
Beneath these three rulers of Wawat are six figures labelled as the wrw
n K¡š. Recent studies argue that the scene should not be read literally,
but as indicative of a plurality of states.
Trigger argued that each of the three chiefdoms in Wawat was
more or less equivalent to the major areas of settlement and agricul-
turally productive land. The northernmost, although not attested from
inscriptional material, would probably have had Baki-Kubban at its
centre (although Kalabsha appears always to have been a significant
location). No local rulers have been identified for this region, although
the Chief Steward of the Queen’s House, Nakhtmin, buried at Dehmit,
might be a candidate.117 The middle princedom, Mi‘am, was based on
Aniba, although the princes were buried a little to the south at Toshka.
114
Davies, Gardiner, Tomb of Huy, pls. XXVII and XXVIII.
115
See most recently Säve-Söderbergh, Troy, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, 207–209.
116
B.G. Trigger, History and settlement in Lower Nubia (Yale University Publica-
tions in Anthropology, 69; New Haven, 1965); Id., Nubia under the Pharaohs.
117
A. Fakhry, “The tomb of Nakht-min at Dehmit”, ASAE 35 (1935), 52–61.

The best-documented of these chiefs, Heqa-nefer, is attested by graffiti,

his tomb and funerary objects, and from the scene in the tomb of the
Viceroy Huy.118 The southernmost of the princedoms, Th-h̠ t, is repre-
sented by a family of chiefs, buried at Debeira and further attested by
statuary and inscriptions. A wr of Th-h̠ t is known from the reign of
Ramesses II,119 showing that these princedoms are not specifically an
early-colonial phenomenon. The geographical factors and archaeologi-
cal evidence support, to some extent, Trigger’s thesis for three states in
Wawat. Whether or not any or all of these states continued throughout
the New Kingdom is much less clear: the process of Egyptianisation
may have been such that they did disappear. It is possible that the rul-
ing families died out and were not replaced, or that they were totally
absorbed into the administration in either Egypt or in Nubia (perhaps
as ἰdnw). Even so, local rulers continue to be referred to as leaders of
rebellion within Egyptian controlled territory (as in the rebellion of
Wawat against Merneptah), or on the periphery and beyond.
The evidence from the southern region is, at present, far scantier.
The scene of the presentation of the Nubian tribute in the tomb of Huy
depicts six wrw of Kush, none identified by name or territory. Simi-
larly, an obscure passage in the inscription of Thutmose II, describes
the ‘rebellion’ at the king’s accession and how the sons of the ruler of
Kush had divided the land into five pieces.120 This was a temporary
development, but there were probably several different principalities in
Upper Nubia: their number, and extent, no doubt varying with internal
dynamics. It is difficult to identify such princes in the historical record,
and the limits of their individual rule are less easily defined than those
of Lower Nubia, since the region does not fall naturally into sepa-
rate agricultural zones. Nevertheless, some of these local rulers might
be identifiable amongst the Overseers of Southern Foreign Lands. To
speculate, once could propose that likely centres would be Tombos,
Kerma, Kawa, Nugdumbush in the Letti Basin, Korti and Sanam.
Egyptianisation of the Kushite elite in Wawat was rapid from the
reign of Thutmose I onwards, its effects appearing particularly clearly
during the co-reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III. The local princes
adopted Egyptian names; they and their relatives worked within the
118
Simpson, Heka-nefer, 2–18, 24–27.
119
Ipy: Säve-Söderbergh, Troy, New Kingdom Pharaonic Sites, 204.
120
Urk. IV 139, 4–6.

948 robert morkot
viceregal administration, and were buried in Egyptian-style tombs;

they received Egyptian funerary objects and their statues were the
product of the royal workshops in Nubia. The Aniba cemetery simi-
larly demonstrates the numbers and ranks of Nubians within the
administration.
In the reign of Thutmose III, four sons of the prince of Irem were
sent to Egypt along with the b¡kw of year 34. This may have been part
of the Egyptianisatian policy, although O’Connor121 argues that they
were prisoners of war from a campaign in the central Sudan.
Kushite princes were accorded high honours at the Egyptian court,
demonstrated by the burial of one such, Maiherpri, in KV 36.122 His
burial furniture carries only the titles h̠ rd n k¡p and t̠¡y ḫ w ḥ r wnmy
nswt; both exalted ranks, but not offices. That he was a Kushite (per-
haps Medja) is certain from his mummy and funerary papyrus. He
was probably a contemporary of Thutmose IV.123 It is quite likely that
some elite Nubians educated in Egypt joined the administration there
and never went back to their homeland.
Whilst it is self-evident that not all nobles with the title h̠ rd n k¡p
were sons of foreign rulers, the k¡p was where such msw wrw would
have been educated. Heqa-nefer carries the title h̠ rd n k¡p along with
such “honorifics” as “King’s Sandal-maker” and “Bearer of the folding
chair of the Lord of the two Lands”. Frandsen has already argued that
the Kushite youths were educated to be members of the ruling class
within Egypt as well as in Nubia, and he suggests that names com-
pounded with ḥ q¡, such as Heqa-nefer, were, in fact, such Kushites.124
It should be noted that others have regarded such ḥ q¡-names as more
generally indicative of foreigners, Asiatics as well as Kushites.125 There
121
O’Connor, “The location of Irem”, 109–110.
122
C.N. Reeves, Valley of the Kings. Decline of a Royal Necropolis (London, 1990),
140–147.
123
Reeves, ibid., 146 discussed the dating and the various interpretations of earlier
writers. Steindorff considered Maiherpri to have been a contemporary of Thutmose I,
Daressy of Hatshepsut and Quibell of Thutmose III, whilst Maspero suggested that he
was a son of Thutmose III and “a negro princess” although later he ascribed paternity
to Thutmose IV.
124
Frandsen, “Egyptian imperialism”, 169–170, 183 n.14.
125
E.g. Helck, Zur Verwaltung, 152. Paheqamen Benja is suggested to have been an
“Asiatic” see H. Guksch, Das Grab des Benja, gen. Paheqamen. Theben Nr 343 (AV 7;
Mainz-am-Rhein, 1978), 43–44. His parents were named ἰrtἰn-n¡ and t¡-rw-k¡k, sug-
gested by Guksch to be “hethitischen und hurritischen” or “subaraische” (Mitanni),
although equally possibly Kushite. Benja was a h̠ rd n k¡p, ἰmἰ-r k¡wt, ἰmἰ-r hm.t n.t nb
t¡wy, ἰmἰ-r sd̠¡w-tjw.

is no evidence to indicate whether Heqa-ro-neheh and Heqa-reshu

were of Kushite or Asiatic origin:126 these officials held significant
court offices and may have been related to Queen Mutemwiya.127
Using titles and names such as this, it might be possible to iden-
tify some of the princes of Upper Nubia. Dewachter128 discussed the
monuments of (Pa)-Heqa-em-sasen, attested by a statue discovered at
Gebel Barkal, a double inscription at Tombos, funerary cones and a
double-statue from Thebes. The statue and cones indicate that Heqa-
em-sasen had a tomb at Thebes, but his titles that he had authority in
Upper Nubia. He was r-pʿ ḥ ¡ty-ʿ and t̠¡y ḫ w ḥ r wnmy nswt, denoting
his high rank, and also mr rwyt “Director of the Antechamber” which
emphasises his relationship with the king (Amenhotep II). He was also
an “Overseer of Southern Foreign Lands”, a title which, allied with
the large inscription at Tombos, suggests he may have been a prince
from the Kerma-Kawa region. A second “Overseer of Southern For-
eign Lands”, Khay, may also have been a Kushite prince. Known from
a relief from the second court of Temple A at Kawa,129 dated to the
reign of Tutankhamun, Khay carried the additional titles h̠ rd n k¡p and
t̠¡y ḫ w ḥ r wnmy nswt, but no specific office. The burial of the Over-
seer of Foreign Lands Siamun, excavated by S.T. Smith at Tombos,130
serves as a model for the process of Egyptianisation: a pyramid tomb,
with Egyptian style burial and artefacts. It is uncertain whether this
is man was of Egyptian or Kushite origin. Siamun was also a “Scribe
of Gold”.
Apart from the princes given court titles, other members of the
Kushite elite were quite probably employed in Egypt itself, although
it is almost impossible to identify them. The common name Panehesy
can hardly be used as a criterion, especially as many so-named are
demonstrably Egyptian.131
126
TT 64 (Heqaroneheh) PM I.2, 128–129.
127
The issue of Egyptological attitudes in discussion of royal marriages with Kush-
ites is discussed in Morkot, Black Pharaohs, 87–88.
128
M. Dewachter, “Un fonctionnaire préposé aux marches méridionales à l’époque
d’Amenophis II: (Pa)-Hekaemsasen”, CRIPEL 4 (1976), 53–60.
129
Now Oxford, Ashmolean Museum. M. Gabolde suggested that this may actually
be the Viceroy Huy 1.
130
Smith, Wretched Kush, 136–166.
131
E. Lüddeckens, “Nḥ sj und Kš in ägyptischen Personennamen”. In: Ägypten und
Kush, E. Endesfelder et al., eds. (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Ori-
ents 13; Berlin-DDR, 1977), 283–291.

950 robert morkot
That the activities of the Kushite princes were not confined to the
Nile valley is demonstrated by the rock inscriptions of Heqa-nefer in
the Wadi Barramiya, some 88 kms east of Edfu132 and the inscriptions
on the road east of Buhen.133
The Elite of New Kingdom Nubia and the End

of the Administration
The elite of New Kingdom Nubia was part of the Egyptian system by
education, employment, and by culture. If the indigenous elites played
a significant role in the administration of the country, this raises
questions about what happened with the withdrawal of the Vicere-
gal system. It has often been assumed that members of the elite went
to Egypt, but how would they have been absorbed into the Egyptian
administration? The late New Kingdom was a time when the Egyp-
tian elite families were increasingly pressing their hereditary claims
to offices. How do elites respond to the end of imperial rule in which
they played a significant role?134
There was periodic opposition to Egyptian rule by indigenous
power-holders, primarily in Upper Nubia (the valley or the Berber-
Shendi Reach), but also, in the reign of Merneptah, apparently in
Lower Nubia too. The removal of Egyptian military power may have
led the local elites to re-assert their own positions.
The military expeditions recorded in Nubia after the reign of Thut-
mose III were directed against two different regions: the Eastern Des-
ert (the toponyms Ibhet and Ikaytja) and Irem. In the former, nomadic
tribes presented a constant threat to the gold-mining stations, and
perhaps also to the riverine settlements. The location of the second
region, Irem, has been the subject of some controversy, but is funda-
mentally important for our understanding of Egyptian activities in the
Nile Valley and Central Sudan.
As noted above, a number of places between the Third and Fourth
Cataracts could have served as centres of local princedoms: Tombos,
Kerma, Kawa, Nugdumbush/the Letti Basin, Korti and Sanam. Such
132
PM VII 325 (30).
133
In the Wadi Hamid, see M. Damiano-Appia, M., “Iscrizioni lungo le piste da
Kubban, Buhen e Kumma a Berenice Pancrisia”. Preprint of paper presented at the
7th International Conference for Meroitic Studies (Berlin, 1992), 4–6.
134
Cf. Morkot, Black Pharaohs, 133; Id., “Egypt and Nubia”, 243–246.

princes, like their northern counterparts, would have been raised at the
Egyptian court and would have acted as the intermediaries in the cross-
frontier trade and transfer of goods from the central Sudan. Egyptiani-
sation, however, need not have spread beyond the elite themselves, as
the earlier examples of Seyala, Qustul, and Kerma demonstrate.
The location of Irem has been much debated, most recently by
O’Connor135 whose new interpretation conflicts with the view, most
cogently argued by Priese, and which had gained wide acceptance, that
Irem was to be equated with the Old Kingdom Yam and Meroitic Arme/
Armi, both perhaps to be located in the vicinity of Kerma. Acceptance
of O’Connor’s theory would require a complete re-evaluation of Egyp-
tian military activity in the Third to Sixth Cataract region. O’Connor’s
preference is for a location somewhere in the Berber-Shendi Reach,
and he makes a strong argument in favour of this. O’Connor empha-
sises that the location of the toponym is of crucial importance to our
understanding of Egyptian control of Upper Nubia. If Irem is to be
identified with part of riverine Nubia, the Egyptian control of that
region is found to be considerably less secure than had usually been
accepted. Indeed the Egyptians would have faced sporadic rebellions
in the region throughout the 18th and 19th Dynasties. If Irem is to
be located in the central Sudan, the Pharaonic military activities were
more wide ranging and aggressive than previously thought, indeed,
comparable with those in Asia. Significantly, this alternative view posits
a more aggressive reaction by the “princedoms” of the Central Sudan
towards Egypt and its Nubian possessions.
The Disestablishment of the Viceregal Administration
The disestablishment of the Viceregal administration is suggested to

have occurred at the end of the reign of Ramesses XI. Firth, largely on
the lack of evidence for cemeteries, argued that the agricultural decline
of Lower Nubia began in the later 18th Dynasty, and he was followed
in this by many archaeologists. The result was a vision of Ramesside
Nubia in which the colossal temples of Abu Simbel and elsewhere were
created in an almost unpopulated land. Säve-Söderbergh adhered to
this view, but arguing that the Egyptian focus moved southwards to
135
O’Connor, “The location of Irem”.

952 robert morkot
the temple-towns of the Abri-Delgo Reach. Even if hydraulic crisis had

caused depopulation, there must have a point at which the Egyptians
decided to quit Nubia.136
There is evidence that gold production had declined significantly
by the reign of Ramesses III, but clearly the integration of Nubia into
Egypt was such that there was no incentive to completely abandon
it. There is no evidence for climatic changes in Nubia, or agricultural
decline, and Jacquet-Gordon argued against Firth’s thesis. Williams
has also argued that some material can be attributed to the late New
Kingdom to ‘Napatan’ phase.137 Whilst it is perhaps possible that the
elites would have gone to Egypt, without severe agricultural disrup-
tion in Nubia itself it is difficult to believe that the agrarian popula-
tion would have moved. O’Connor138 suggested that the intensity of
Herihor’s and Paiankh’s campaigning in Nubia was responsible for
the de-population; but again it is difficult to see what the Egyptians
would have achieved by this, other than the repression of a formidable
military opponent who was threatening the security of Upper Egypt.
If the titular Viceroys in Thebes were attempting to re-establish Egyp-
tian authority over Nubia there would have been little point driving
out its population. In any case, the intensity of the campaigning is
hardly likely to have been greater than that of the pharaohs of the early
18th Dynasty who established Egyptian control over Nubia; they did
not drive out the population. The disestablishment of the 500-year old
administration can hardly have been effected overnight, and the land-
holding officials may not have wanted to abandon their property.
It was the record of Panehesy’s presence in Thebes earlier in the
reign of Ramesses XI, and the appearance of Herihor and Paiankh
with the Viceregal titles later in the reign, which led Reisner to suggest
that Thebes had been the Viceregal centre in the late 20th Dynasty.139
This is fallacious; but has maintained an unwarranted authority in lit-
erature. Viceregal titles continued to be held by Theban royalties and
officials of the 21st and 22nd Dynasties, but opinion was, until very
136
Cf. Morkot, “Studies in New Kingdom Nubia”; James et al., Centuries of Dark-
ness, 206–208.
137
H. Jacquet-Gordon, “Review of W.Y. Adams Meroitic North and South (Meroit-
ica 2)”, OLZ 77 (1982), 451–454. B.B. Willams, Twenty-fifth Dynasty and Napatan
remains at Qustul: Cemeteries W and V (OINE VII; Chicago, 1990).
138
O’Connor, “New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period c. 1552–664 B.C.”,
268.
139
Reisner, “Viceroys”, 63.

recently, unanimous that this does not indicate a continued Egyptian

control of Nubia. Newly published material identifies more Viceroys
of Third Intermediate Period date and combined with the new archae-
ological evidence from Qasr Ibrim requires us to reconsider Egyptian
activities in, and attitudes towards, Lower Nubia.
The lack of Viceregal monuments in Upper Nubia after the reign
of Ramesses IX, although the area is inadequately surveyed and exca-
vated, suggests that fragmentation may have begun in the late 20th
Dynasty. The campaigning of Panehesy in Middle and Upper Egypt
during the early years of Ramesses XI, and possibly as early as the
reign of Ramesses X, would have presented ample opportunity for new
powers to establish themselves in Upper Nubia. Even if he was not
resident at Thebes, Panehesy seems still to have been involved with
the area as late as year 17 of Ramesses XI, and the political situa-
tion in Egypt possibly distracted him from events in more southerly
parts of Nubia. Certainly, the campaigning of Herihor and Paiankh
would have preoccupied the Viceroy in Lower Nubia, and possibly
have forced a withdrawal of troops from the southern garrisons, if not
an abandonment of the territory south of the Second Cataract.
The excavations at Amara suggested the possibility that the site had
been systematically closed down, rather than simply abandoned or
destroyed in a period of unrest. Given that the latest work there belongs
to the reign of Ramesses IX (dated to year 6), it is perhaps possible that
the reigns of Ramesses X or Ramesses XI saw a withdrawal by the
Egyptians back to the Second Cataract in the face of a rising Kushite
power to the south.140 This, of course, is speculative, but the later years
of the reign of Ramesses XI must have been marked by considerable
political disturbance in Nubia and Upper Egypt. However, Panehesy
may still have acknowledged Ramesses XI as his sovereign, even if the
king and government had technically deprived him of office. Whether
the fortification of Qasr Ibrim was effected by Panehesy as a defen-
sive point against the campaigns of Paiankh, or an attacking position
opposite Mi‘am, cannot be established.
The death of Ramesses XI, and with it the end of the Dynasty, may
have been the turning point in the political situation in Nubia. With
a new dynasty in the Delta, and the High Priests of Amun at Thebes
arrogating the royal style, the successor of Panehesy, and perhaps other
140
Spencer, Amara I, 217–221 for discussion of dating of the levels.

954 robert morkot
Nubian chiefs, may likewise have assumed the symbols of a power they
already actually possessed.
The Transition from Egyptian Rule to Kushite Kingdom
The interpretation of the evidence for this phase is extremely contro-

versial. It is certain that a Kushite state emerged that was sufficiently
militarily and economically powerful, centralised, and organised to
take over Egypt. How this was achieved remains unknown, and there
is hardly any evidence for the administration of the region during this
dynamic period. Even under the rule of the “25th Dynasty” there is
remarkably little evidence of how the Kushite homeland was governed.
Viceroys During the Libyan Period

The use of the titles associated with the Viceroy by Nesikhons A, wife
of Pinudjem II, were known to Reisner and dismissed in the most
disparaging way.141 Her titles associate her with the cult of Khnum
and Satet at Elephantine, and of Nebet-hetepet lady of Sered (perhaps
a Lower Nubian locale) as well as being Overseer of the Southern
Foreign Lands and Viceroy. A single later occurrence, also noted by
Reisner, was dismissed as of any significance, but excavations by the
DAIK on Elephantine have now recovered more inscriptions relating
to Libyan Period Viceroys, all of whom have an association with the
cult of Khnum. An unnamed official with the titles is dated to the
reign of Osorkon II; Hat-nakht of the reign of Takeloth II has the titles
King’s Son of Kush and Overseer of the Southern Foreign Lands; the
Vizier Pamiu of the time of Osorkon III or Takeloth III was King’s Son
of Kush, and Ankh-Osorkon probably a descendant of Osorkon III,
carried the titles, again as Prophet of Khnum.
It is tempting to see the use of these titles as indicative of Libyan
Egypt’s new southern frontier territory. The association of the tem-
ple of Khnum with control of part of Lower Nubia would perhaps
be a continuation of that established in the Elephantine Decree of
141
Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia”, 53: “to satisfy the vanity of a woman”, a
comment not improved upon by K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt
(1100–650 B.C.) (Warminster, 1973), 275–276. See for this period K. Zibelius-Chen,
“Überlegungen zur Ägyptischen Nubienpolitik in der Dritten Zwischenzeit”, SAK 16
(1989), 329–345.

Ramesses III and continuing into the Late Period, culminating in the
pseud-epigraphic “Famine Stela” attributing the grant of land to Djoser.
There is hardly any evidence of how the Kushite kings adminis-
tered their southern territories. The inscriptions refer to the nomes of
Nubia, but this is more likely to be an archaism of language than an
indicator of an administrative system. Similarly, the Meroitic nomoi
listed at Philae, although interpreted by some as administrative dis-
tricts, cannot be more than a list of important towns. The post-25th
Dynasty stela referring to Piye’s son, Khaliut, as Mayor of Kanad, may
suggest that royal princes were appointed as district governors. More
significantly, there is a possibility (but only that) that the vast terri-
tory was divided and the region south of Aswan placed under the rule
of a prince, perhaps the designated successor. The prime evidence is
a reference in the inscription of the Assyrian ruler Sargon II at Tang
ı-Var in Iran that suggests that Shebitqo was ruling in Kush (but not
as “Pharaoh”) in 707/706 B.C., while Shabaqo was reigning in Egypt.142
Certainly the size of the Kushite kingdom would have meant that it
was impossible to rule from one point, and would have required divi-
sion into territories and constant communication between the centres.
There is no evidence for the administration from any of the reoccupied
sites of Lower Nubia: Mirgissa, Buhen, or Qasr Ibrim.
The administration of Nubia changed, developed and expanded
according to the Egyptian activities in Nubia. It appears to have moved
quite quickly from a primarily military to civil system, the military
concentrating on the frontiers. The advantages of the system to the
local elite were quickly realised, although they may as equally have
taken advantage of Egyptian weakness to reassert their own indepen-
dence. The, admittedly scanty, evidence of the post-New Kingdom
suggests the origins of the system found in Late and Ptolemaic Egypt,
in which a territory to the south of the First Cataract acted as a border
zone, and was attached to the temple of Khnum at Elephantine.
The Administration of Egypt under Kushite Rule
There are many officials documented for the late-Libyan and Kushite
periods and there are many studies of the Libyan-Kushite periods and
142
A considerable literature has been generated by this one reference: this is con-
sidered in detail in R.G. Morkot, P.J. James, “Shebitqo” (forthcoming).

956 robert morkot
specific offices.143 Unfortunately, rather few officials are linked directly

through their monuments to rulers and, inevitably, there are problems
of precise dating of individuals. As a result, much dating relies on
genealogical connections and/or stylistic evidence of coffins and statu-
ary which is itself often related to genealogies anchored, sometimes
tenuously, to kings. Despite these problems, it is possible to give some
indications of how the Kushites controlled Egypt.
The Kushites first appeared in Upper Egypt in the reign of Kashta:
a fragment of a stela from Elephantine, and a possible reference in the
Karnak Priestly Annals being the only contemporary records. How-
ever, the early inscriptions of Piye confirm that the Kushites already
had garrisons and were acknowledged in Thebes. The length of Kash-
ta’s reign is unknown, as are the processes by which the Kushites
gained control of Thebes and Upper Egypt. It is generally, if tacitly,
assumed that there was some sort of military invasion: some scholars
have speculated that the political situation in Thebes saw opportunism
by the Kushites, or that they were ‘invited’ by one or other faction.
Kashta ensured that his daughter, Amenirdis, was installed as eventual
successor to the God’s Wife of Amun, Shepenwepet I, daughter of
Osorkon III. Although a considerable number of writers have assumed
that the installation of Amenirdis was effected by Piye, there is no
evidence to support that, and all other God’s Wives were installed by
their fathers.144 Kashta may have left a military presence in Thebes and
elsewhere in Upper Egypt, and the princess would doubtless have had
143
In addition to numerous articles (some cited below) major studies are: J. Yoyotte,
“Les principautés du Delta au temps de l’anarchie libyenne”, in: Mélanges Maspero,
vol. I.4 (Cairo, 1961), 121–181; K.A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt
(1100–650 BC) (Warminster, 19963); F. Gomaà, Die libyschen Fürstentümer des Deltas
vom Tod Osorkons II. bis zur Wiedervereinigung Ägyptens durch Psametik I. (TAVO
Reihe B, Nr.6; Wiesbaden, 1974); G. Vittmann, Priester und Beamte im Theben der
Spätzeit. Genealogische und prosopographische Untersuchungen zum thebanischen
Priester-und Beamtentum der 25. und 26. Dynastie (Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 1; Wien,
1978); E. Graefe, Untersuchungen zur Verwaltung und Geschichte der Institution der
Gottesgemahlin des Amun vom Beginn des Neuen Reiches bis zur Spätzeit (ÄA 37;
Wiesbaden, 1981). See also G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée & O.E. Kaper, eds., The
Libyan Period in Egypt. Historical and cultural studies into the 21st–24th Dynasties:
Proceedings of a conference at Leiden University 25–27 October 2007 (Egyptologische
Uitgaven, 23; Leuven, 2009). A number of recent doctoral dissertations are, as yet,
unpublished.
144
See lengthy discussions of R.G. Morkot, “Kingship and kinship in the empire
of Kush”, in: Studien zum Antiken Sudan. Akten der 7. Internationalen Tagung für
meroitistische Forschungen vom 14. bis 19. September 1992 in Gosen/bei Berlin (Meroit-
ica 15; Wiesbaden, 1999), 179–229 with references. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period,

an entourage: there is no evidence that any other Kushites were placed

in significant administrative offices at this point.
The earliest record from the reign of Piye, the sandstone stele from
Gebel Barkal,145 makes it clear that he was the effective ruler of all
Egypt: this might be the result of additional military activities as yet
undocumented. The text of the stela tells us that Piye had the power
to confirm, install, and depose rulers:
He to whom I say “You are a Chief (wer)”, he shall be a Chief,
He to whom I say “You are not a Chief (wer)”, he shall not be a Chief,
He to whom I say “Make an Appearance (khau i.e. as King)”, he shall
make an Appearance.
He to whom I say “Do not make an Appearance (i.e. as King)”, he shall
not make an Appearance.
Thus the distinction between the wer-chiefs and the nesut-kings is
clearly drawn. The political situation in Egypt is described in more
detail in the narrative of the ‘Victory Stela’ recording Piye’s military
actions against the ‘rebellion’ of Tefnakht ruler of Sais.146 The Victory
Stela is dated to the beginning of year 20 and most scholars attribute
the conflict described to years 19 and 20. From the narrative we learn
that there were four rulers who are described as ‘uraeus-wearers’ and
had full royal titles. They are named on the ‘Victory Stela’ as Nimlot of
Khmunu (Hermopolis), Peftjauawybast of Nen-nesut (Herakleopolis),
Osorkon (usually ‘IV’) of Per-Bastet (Bubastis), and Iuput of Tent-
remu. The historical background to this division of Egypt into four
followed Macadam in arguing that Piye installed Amenirdis, and has been followed
by many other writes.
145
Khartoum SNM 1851: most recently D.A. Welsby & J.R. Anderson, Sudan
Ancient Treasures (London, 2004), 162–163 (146) with bibliography; for discussions,
see R.G. Morkot, “The Origin of the Kushite State: a response to the paper of László
Török”, in: Actes de la VIIIe Conférence Internationale des Études Nubiennes. I: Com-
munications principales (CRIPEL 17; Villeneuve d’Ascq, 1995), 229–242; Id., The Black
Pharaohs: Egypt’s Nubian Rulers (London, 2000), 179–80; Id., “Tradition, innovation,
and researching the past in Libyan, Kushite, and Saïte Egypt”, in: Regime Change the
Ancient Near East and Egypt from Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein, H. Crawford,
ed. (Proceedings of the British Academy 136; London, 2007), 141–164.
146
N. Grimal, La stèle triomphale de Pi(ankh)y au Musée du Caire. JE 48862 et
47086–47089 (Études sur la propagande royale Égyptienne I, MIFAO 105; Cairo,
1981); numerous translations and discussions, all older ones cited in Grimal. Cf. also
T. Eide et alii, ed., Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Vol. I: From the Eighth to the Mid-
Fifth Century BC (Bergen, 1994); R.G. Morkot, The Black Pharaohs; R.K Ritner, The
Libyan Anarchy. Inscriptions from Egypt’s Third Intermediate Period (Writings from
the Ancient World, 21; Atlanta, 2009).

958 robert morkot
kingdoms plus the Thebaid is highly controversial: what matters is that

Piye placed or confirmed these rulers (or perhaps their predecessors)
in office early in his reign.
In addition to the four kings, the ‘Victory Stela’ of Piye lists the
other weru-rulers: eight ‘Great Chiefs’ and ‘Chiefs’ of the Ma, who had
specified territories in the Delta. They are referred to, and depicted on
the Stela, as the ‘plume-wearing chiefs’. There was also another layer
of local rulers who had Egyptian titles, such as ‘Mayor’. The leader of
opposition to Piye, Tefnakht, carried the titles Chief of the Ma and
Chief of the Libu, along with a range of other Egyptian titles which
indicate that he was the ruler of (Sau) Saïs and the western Delta.
Although the emergence of the four kingdoms appears to be a late
development, the existence of a system of Great Chiefs and Chiefs is
documented throughout the Libyan period, although by monuments
of individual dynasts. It is the Victory Stela of Piye and the Assyrian
documents of the later 25th Dynasty that show most clearly how it
functioned in practice.147
The text of the ‘Sandstone Stela’ from Gebel Barkal shows that early
in his reign Piye acknowledged other kings, and appears to have con-
firmed them in office, presumably in return for their fealty. From the
narrative of the ‘Victory Stela’ it is clear that Nimlot of Hermopolis and
Peftjauawybast of Herakleopolis—the two territories immediately to
the north of the Kushite controlled Thebaid—were allies of Piye. Even
after Piye’s victory over Tefnakht and his coalition of Delta rulers, the
Kushites maintained the system of Libyan dynasts. This continued into
the later 25th Dynasty when both Taharqo and Tanwetamani both
faced the dynasts’ collaboration with the Assyrians. Looking broadly
at the evidence, it would appear that neither Kushites nor Assyrians
could effectively control the Delta without eradicating the kings and
dynasts completely, which is what, ultimately, the Saite victor Psamtik
I had to do. So, from the appearance of the Kushites in Upper Egypt
under Kashta, until their withdrawal in the reign of Tanwetamani—a
period of roughly a century—a system of kings and chiefs continued.
Towards the end of the reign of Piye, Bakenranef, assumed to have
been the direct successor of Tefnakht, started to expand the Saite king-
dom once again. His control of Memphis is confirmed by the series
147
The Assyrian lists have been examined most recently by H. Verreth, “The East-
ern Egyptian Border Region in Assyrian Sources”, JAOS 119/2 (1999), 234–47.

of stelae recording the burial of an Apis bull in his sixth year, but his
defeat and death at the hands of Shabaqo are documented only by the
Greco-Roman tradition. Shabaqo is recorded in Egypt (Thebes and
the Delta) in his second year (probably 710 B.C.), and he does seem
to have seized Memphis and established himself as a Pharaoh there,
rather than just in Thebes: this does mark a change in Kushite policy.
Memphis was also used by his successors Shebitqo, Taharqo, and Tan-
wetamani as a major royal residence, no doubt because the Delta and
western Asia were now the focus of their actions.
The Kushite system of rule thus reflected that of the preceding Lib-
yan pharaohs. The main difference from the earlier Libyan period is
the existence of other nesut-kings. Although the internal chronology
remains problematic and subject of debate, it is certain that there were
kings who used the full five-fold titulary and who must be contempo-
rary with the Kushites.
In Hermopolis, Nimlot is attested as the ruler at the time of Piye’s
campaign, and certainly had been in power for some time before. His
family connections are unknown, as are the origins of the kingdom.
Nimlot was also the name of the ‘king’ (sharru) of Hermopolis at the
time of the Assyrian invasions, although most writers assume that this
is a second of the name, perhaps a grandson.148 Another ruler of Her-
mopolis was Thutemhat, but whether he preceded Piye’s ally Nimlot,
or reigned between Nimlot ‘I’ and Nimlot ‘II’ remains speculative.149
In Herakleopolis, Peftjauawybast was the king who allied himself
to Piye and was consequently besieged in his city by Tefnakht and
the coalition. Peftjauawybast was related by marriage to the family of
Osorkon III, Takeloth III, and Rudamun. It has been proposed that
he was the former High Priest of Memphis and representative of the
senior royal line descended from Osorkon II.150 He had no male suc-
cessor and the region was under the control of the ‘Shipping Mas-
ters’ or ‘Masters of the Quay’ by the late 25th Dynasty (also appearing
148
The Assyrian is ‘Lamentu’: K.A. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 397: Nimlot
‘E’; no regnal years are known for Nimlot, and there is a possibility that he reigned
from the time of Piye to the Assyrian invasions.
149
K.A. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 97–98, 136–7, 371; H. Wild, “Une
statue de la XIIe dynastie utilisée par le roi Hermopolitain Thot-em-hat de la XXIIIe”,
Revue d’Égyptologie 24 (1972), 209–215.
150
R.G. Morkot & P. James, “Peftjauawybast, king of Nen-nesut: Genealogy, art
history, and the chronology of Late Libyan Egypt”, Antiguo Oriente 7 (2009), 13–55,
with all relevant previous literature.

960 robert morkot
with the equivalent Assyrian title rab kari). Verreth has equated the
Hinishi of the Assyrian records with Herakleopolis Magna, rather
than with the Delta city more usually assumed, proposing that a ruler,
Nah-ke was installed by Esarhaddon in 671 and still in office under
Assurbanipal.151
The dynastic connections of Iuput of Tent-remu and the base of
his power are unknown and there is no evidence that he had succes-
sors in the kingdom. The identity of Osorkon of Bubastis, recorded
on the Victory Stela of Piye, has long been a subject of controversy,
and opinion is still divided. Some writers think that he is Osorkon
III of the line established by Shoshenq I, but many identify him with
an otherwise barely attested Osorkon ‘IV’.152 The excavations at Tanis
produced blocks of king Gemenefkhonsubak that must, on stylistic
grounds, belong to the early Kushite period. Other blocks belong to a
king Pedubast, undoubtedly the same as the Putubishti ruler of Tanis
named by the Assyrian lists. It seems likely that the Tanite line was
interrupted at one or two points in the late-Libyan and Kushite peri-
ods: no king is named by Piye, and fragmentary inscriptions suggest
that there was a period of Saite control. Indeed, the throne name of
Gemenefkhonsubak, Shepseskare, is clearly related to that of Tefnakht,
Shepsesre; and his personal name has the same construction as that of
Tefnakht’s father.153 Sais was the major seat of opposition to the Kush-
ites, but even there the same dynasty may have retained, or regained,
control. Inscriptional evidence of the reigns of Shabaqo and Taharqo
shows that the Kushites did extend their authority over the western
Delta, and the (unreliable) epitomators of Manetho state that there
was a Kushite ruler in Sais.
151
H. Verreth, “The Eastern Egyptian border region in Assyrian sources”, JAOS 119
(1999), 234–247; cf. e.g. K.A. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, 397.
152
E.g. K.A. Kitchen Third Intermediate Period, 372–75. Whether Osorkon III was
part of the Tanite line or a member of a ‘Theban’ or ‘Hermopolitan’ ‘23rd Dynasty’
had been subject of considerable debate: see generally papers in G.P.F. Broekman,
R.J. Demarée & O.E. Kaper, eds., The Libyan Period in Egypt. Blocks excavated recently
at Tanis, which had been reused as building material in the Sacred Lake of the god-
dess Mut, carry the simple ‘archaising’ forms ‘Usermaetre Osorkon’ as found in the
Chapel of Osiris Heqa-Djet at Karnak for Osorkon III, but will probably generally be
assigned to ‘IV’.
153
For the debate over the king Tefnakht being Tefnakht ‘II’ see conveniently
D. Kahn, “The Transition from Libyan to Nubian Rule in Egypt: revisiting the Reign
of Tefnakht”, in: The Libyan Period in Egypt, G.P.F. Broekman, R.J. Demarée &
O.E. Kaper, eds., 139–148.

Interruptions in, and replacements of, dynastic lines would have been
affected by a range of political (as well as personal) factors. The policy
of confirming or replacing dynasts is expressed in the early inscription
of Piye, and no doubt continued. The Kushite conflict with Assyria
in 701 B.C. and the later Assyrian invasions saw the capture, execu-
tion, and deportation of rulers: some of these may have been replaced
by family members, or others, with or without Kushite royal assent.
The implication of this system is that local kings and chiefs would
have had authority within certain territories and although the Kush-
ite kings may have installed and removed the highest level of rulers,
appointments at a lower level would have been in the hands of those
local dynasts. Obviously areas directly ruled by the Kushites—Thebes
for example, and perhaps Memphis and Heliopolis, would have seen a
more active control. Unfortunately, Kushite evidence from Memphis
and Heliopolis is very limited, much building and sculptural material
having been destroyed or reused during the Assyrian invasions and
later Saite rule.
The Kushites followed Libyan practice by making marriage alliances
with the elite, probably throughout Egypt. Although the evidence is
not as clear as with the earlier kings, we can document marriages
of Kushite royal women with Montjuemhat, Mayor of Thebes, and
the northern Vizier Montjuhotep. Marriages with the Libyan dynasts
are probable, and the name of the daughter of the chief of the Ma
Akanosh, Takushit, is generally accepted as implying such an alliance.
Amongst other rulers, Patjenfy of Pharbaithos was probably related to
Shebitqo.
The evidence from the Theban region is far clearer and more abun-
dant than it is from other parts of Egypt, and it reveals that the Kushites
did place their own nominees in key roles within the administration.154
The highest ranks in the priestly offices of Thebes were those of Gods’
Wife of Amun and High Priest (First Prophet) of Amun. Following
the death of the Libyan holder, Shepenwepet I, the office of God’s Wife
passed to her Kushite heiress, Amenirdis I and thence through Kush-
ites until Psamtik I installed his own daughter as the eventual succes-
sor in 656 B.C.
154
R.G. Morkot, “Tradition, innovation, and researching the past . . .” in: Regime
Change the Ancient Near East.

962 robert morkot
Since the reign of Shoshenq I, the office of High Priest of Amun

had been held by a son of the reigning king who does appear to have
exercised some religious functions, but was equally significant as a
Viceroy and military figure in the south. Indeed, many High Priests
seem to have been resident at el-Hiba, a key stronghold founded by
the High Priests of the 21st Dynasty. Kitchen assumed a gap in the
pontificate of some fifty years before the appointment of Haremakhet
son of Shabaqo who is documented from the reigns of Taharqo and
Tanwetamani. Haremakhet was succeeded by his son Harkhebi who
was pontiff when the Saite princess Neitiqert was sent to Thebes in
year nine of Tanwetamani and Psamtik I (656 B.C.), an event generally
regarded as marking the end of Kushite rule in Upper Egypt. Harkhebi
is also depicted on the ‘Saite Oracle Papyrus’ of year 14 of Psamtik I
(660 B.C.), showing that he continued to serve under the new regime,
as did many other Kushite appointees. It seems likely that these two
princes were born and brought up in Egypt: Haremakhet’s wife is
unknown but may have been a member of the Theban elite.
Of the other major priesthoods of Amun at Thebes some, such as
that of Second Prophet, seem to have ‘gaps’ in the recorded holders.155
Nesishutefnut, son of Taharqo was appointed as Second Prophet, but
the date is unknown. The rank of Third Prophet became hereditary
in the family of Pediamennebnesuttawy who had married a daugh-
ter of Takeloth III, and had also served Piye. They retained the office
into the 26th Dynasty. The seemingly lower rank of Fourth Prophet
was for a period linked to that of Mayor of Thebes, and does dem-
onstrate Kushite intervention. The Fourth Prophet and Mayor, Kara-
basken (Kelbasken), clearly holds a Kushite name. His tenure of office
is difficult to determine: Kitchen placed him under Piye and Shabaqo,
from around 725 B.C., but the style of the tomb decoration might
suggest a slightly later date in the reigns of Shabaqo and Shebitqo.
Both offices were also held by Montjuemhat, member of one of the
leading Theban families, who is attested under Taharqo, was regarded
as the ‘king’ (sharru) of Thebes by the Assyrians, and continued in
office into the reigns of Tanwetamani and Psamtik I. Montjuemhat
had several wives, one being the granddaughter of Piye: it is possible
155
The most recent discussion is G.P.F. Broekman, “The Leading Theban Priests
of Amun and Their Families under Libyan Rule”, JEA 96 (2010), 125–48. Also see,
D.A. Aston & J.H. Taylor, “The family of Takeloth III and the ‘Theban’ Twenty-third
Dynasty”, in: Libya and Egypt c. 1300–750 BC., A. Leahy, ed., (London, 1990), 131–154.

that there had been an earlier Kushite marriage in the family also.
Montjuemhat’s family originally held the Vizierate, but that office was
given to Nesipeqashuty ‘C’ and continued in his family far into the
26th Dynasty. It is difficult to be precise about the dating of these
changes in office-holding, but it looks as if one change was effected in
the earlier years of Taharqo.
As far as we can see Kushite rule did not alter the way in which
Egypt was administered: the alterations were more straightforwardly
related to the holders of office, whether individuals or families. There
was probably most change in the Delta where the dynasts were con-
firmed or replaced, deported, executed, or killed in conflict. In the
Theban region, there was continuity in the elite families: many of them
were descendants of the earlier Libyan kings through the female line,
and had established marriage alliances with Osorkon III and Takel-
oth III. The families continued to hold office under the Kushites and
the Saites. There is evidence suggesting that ‘new’ families such as
those of Pediamennebnesuttawy and Nesipeqashuty were appointed
to key offices: in fact, we do not know the origins of these individu-
als, but their positions certainly show an intervention. The apparent
moving of offices hereditary in one family to another one (as with
the Vizierate) again suggests royal intervention: but this is nothing
new or particularly unusual. The negotiation of power between the
elite—always desirous of hereditary office—and the king was one of
the characteristics of Egyptian government. This involved marriage
alliances, and favouring of individuals (perhaps with close royal asso-
ciations). Placing of officials from elsewhere in key Theban offices is
also well-documented from earlier: those new appointments usually
established alliances with the Theban families very quickly. There were
certainly Kushites appointed to both major and lesser offices, but all
seems to have worked within the well-established administration of
Libyan period Egypt.

Nubia From The New Kingdom To The End o

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nubia From The New Kingdom To The End o

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancient Egyptian Administration

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

The Study of Ancient Egyptian Administration ........................... 1

The Organisation of a Nascent State: Egypt until the

The Central Administration of the Resources in the

The Territorial Administration of the Kingdom in the

Kings, Viziers, and Courtiers: Executive Power in the Third

The Administration of the Royal Funerary Complexes .............. 177

Balat, a Frontier Town and Its Archive ......................................... 197

Setting a State Anew: The Central Administration from

The Royal Command (wd̠-nsw): A Basic Deed of

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

Nomarchs and Local Potentates: The Provincial Administration

The Organisation of the Pharaonic Army (Old to

Categorisation, Classification, and Social Reality: Administrative

Crisis and Restructuring of the State: From the Second

The Rising Power of the House of Amun in the New

The Administration of Institutional Agriculture in the

A Bureaucratic Challenge? Archaeology and Administration

The Ramesside State .......................................................................... 831

Administration of the Deserts and Oases: First

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

From Conquered to Conqueror: The Organization of Nubia

The Saite Period: The Emergence of a Mediterranean Power ...... 965

The ‘Other’ Administration: Patronage, Factions, and

Index .................................................................................................... 1067

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

Terminology: Nubia is used throughout in the conventional way as a

Nubia under Egyptian Rule during the New Kingdom:

Although a huge number of monuments document those who worked

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

has until recently taken precedence over more generalised analytical

The Political Geography of New Kingdom Nubia

The general literature up until 2000 reflected the large amounts of

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

can be charted through inscriptional and archaeological material,

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

Some—but not all—of these assumptions were challenged by Kemp,

A Different Model for New Kingdom Wawat and Kush

The present writer presented a model for “Nubia” under Egyptian

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

accepted.13 Arguments against the model emphasised that there had

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

Rather than full Egyptian administrative integration extending as

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

Horemheb using talatat blocks of a temple of Akhenaten, and com-

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

versions; Reinhold and Welsby also found no colonial sites.26 Recent

The Ruling Elite: Background and Education

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

the highest officials of the New Kingdom is allied with an indiscrimi-

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

In the New Kingdom there are indications of a more structured and

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

denominator of great significance.31 A number of Viceroys certainly

The Career Structure

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

officeholders (e.g. high priesthoods, overseer titles, vizier, stewards

The Development and Structure of the Viceregal Bureaucracy

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3

of the local socio-political composition at this date, although it seems

© 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-24952-3