The Great Tomb Robberies of the Ramesside Age. Papyri Mayer A and B. I.

Papyrus
Mayer A
Author(s): T. Eric Peet
Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology , Jun., 1915, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jun., 1915), pp.
173-177
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3853828

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

This content downloaded from

77.111.247.76 on Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:12:36 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 173

THE GREAT TOMB ROBBERIES OF THE RAMESSIDE

AGE. PAPYRI MAYER A AND B

BY T. ERIC PEET, B.A.

I. PAPYRUS MAYER A.

THERE is no more attractive branch of Egyptology than the study of the jud
system and methods of the ancient Egyptians. This study has been made possible
only by the decipherment of the hieroglyphic or, more strictly, the hieratic script.
Thanks to the advances made in this direction we are now able not only to lay down
certain broad lines of Egyptian judicial procedure at various important periods but even
to gain a detailed knowledge of some of the causes cel}bres of ancient Egypt. Of
these last the most important and interesting are without doubt the harem conspiracy
in the reign of Rameses III and the inquiry into the robbery of the royal tombs at
Thebes in the time of Rameses IX and X. It is with this latter case that the Mayer
papyri deal.
The empire of the XVIIIth Dynasty, consolidated by the warrior Rameses II of
the XIXth, fell rapidly to pieces under his weak successors. The attacks of the
Libyans and northern sea peoples were, it is true, successfully resisted by Rameses III,
but the Egyptian empire was even more seriously threatened by decay from within.
Of the weakening of the central authority and the consequent lawless condition of the
country there are no clearer signs to be discerned than the series of attacks made by
thieves on the tombs of the great monarchs buried at Thebes. These seem to have
begun in the reign of Rameses IX, if not earlier, and to have continued into the
following dynasty, when they assumed such alarming proportions that the priests found
it necessary to move the royal bodies from their tombs and place them in a position
of greater safety. There is something pathetic in the fate of these great monarchs
whose feats are so well known to us, exposed by the weakness of their successors to
the attacks of vulgar plunderers, moved from hiding place to hiding place by the still
faithful priests, and finally rediscovered in the XIXth century A.D. to be carried off
to a museum for the instruction of the student and the delectation of the tourist.
Between the fourteenth year of Rameses IX and the sixth year of his successor
there seems to have been in progress an almost continuous prosecution of persons con-
cerned in the plundering of these royal tombs. Fortunately for us the proceedings
were all formally recorded on papyrus, and certain portions of them have been found,
all no doubt on Theban soil, though the place of discovery is nrot known to us in all
cases.
Journ.
Journ. of
ofEgypt. Arch.
Egypt. II.
Arch. 2
23n.

This content downloaded from

77.111.247.76 on Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:12:36 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
174 T. ERIC PEET

The best known of these papyri is the Abbott, which records

took place in the sixteenth year of Rameses IX into certain alleged violations of
tombs. Ten royal sepulchres were inspected, of which all were found intact with the
exception of that of King Sebekemsaf of the XIIIth Dynasty. Many private tombs
had, however, been violated and a number of thieves were arrested and put in prison.
Another papyrus, the Amherst, refers to this same inquiry and embodies the
confession of the thieves, who describe in a vivid narrative how they broke into the
tomb of Sebekemsaf through the masonry, lifted the bodies of the king and his
consort from their coffins, stripped off the ornaments and the gold, and finally set fire
to the wrappings. Eight men were concerned in the plundering of this tomb. They
were made to identify the scene of their crime, and their doom was left in the hands
of the Pharaoh.
In the following year, year 17, a long list of thieves of the necropolis was drawn
up. These were doubtless men who had plundered various private tombs the violation
of which is, as we saw, recorded in the Abbott papyrus, but received little notice
there in comparison with the far more serious desecration of the royal tomb of
Sebekemsaf. This list of names constitutes the papyrus known as Harris A. It was
found at Medinet Habu in 1860 and after suffering sadly from careless treatment and
want of proper preservation found a resting place in our British Museum.
Two years later "in year 19 corresponding to year I1," an endorsement was made
on the Abbott papyrus giving the names of a nrumber of tomb-robbers reported to
the Pharaoh. Practically all these names occur in the Papyrus Mayer A, and it is
probable that the addition to the Abbott simply gives the result of the trial described
in Mayer A and brings the whole series of documents up to date.
In the first year of Rameses X Papyrus Mayer A was drawn up.. Its fellow
Mayer B gives no indication of date.
From the sixth year of the same king dates the Vienna list of documents relating
to the trial. For the sake of completion we must mention as being connected with
this process three papyri in the British Museum, as yet unpublished, and some frag-
ments at Turin2.
Our main concern here is with the little known Mayer papyri3, which now lie in
the Liverpool Museum. It will not be possible to give here a full translation, at any
rate of the longer of the two; nor is this really necessary to our purpose, for the
document records the evidence of a very large number of witnesses and accused
persons, involving a great deal that is comparatively dull and a constant repetition of
certain formulae.
Papytrus Mayer A originally consisted of a single piece of papyrus measuring
1430 centimetres by 425. It has been cut into two unequal portions in modern times
1 This perhaps indicates a co-regency, in which case Rameses IX must have taken Rameses X
as co-regent in his own 19th year, or, what is less likely, the old dating is conltinued to give
uniformity to the whole set of documents. (So PETRIE, History, III. p. 181.)
2 SPIEGELBERG, Zicei Beitrage, 12, 13.
3 For early notices see A eg. Zeitschr., 11. 39 and 12. 61. In 1891 Spiegelberg devoted eight days
to a study of the document and sent to the Directors of the Liverpool Museum a translation of
parts of it, which they published in pamphlet form. I hope in the near future to publish, with the
permission of the Museum authorities, a complete transcription and translation of both this papyrus
and Mayer B.

This content downloaded from

77.111.247.76 on Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:12:36 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT TOMB ROBBERIES 175

in order to facilitate preservation and mounting'. Unfortunately the m

further to assist the preservation of the document by covering it wit
parent varnish which, while it may have slightly enhanced the black o
darkened the papyrus many degrees, and made decipherment always t
really difficult. On the recto there are five pages (1-5) followed
The arrangement of the verso is peculiar. At one end is a single page and three
lines of another (12 and 13) which ought perhaps to be read immediately after the
five pages of the recto. At the other end of the verso begins a series of six pages
(6-11) of varying breadth written upside down as compared with the single page
and the three odd lines. These six pages are doubtless the conclusion of the docu-
ment, for they end with a series of lists of witnesses and prisoners, with, finally, an
account of the sentences given and a summing up of the whole trial.
The document begins with the dating, Year 1 of Rameses XI, fourth month of
the summer season, day 15. Then follows the description of the contents. "On this
day (was) the examination of the thieves of the tomb (?)3 of King Rameses II and of
the 40 houses4 of King Seti I which lie in the treasury of the temple-domain of
King Rameses III, (the thieves) whom the chief of police Nesuimen had reported in
a list of their names, for he it was who had stood there with the thieves when
they laid their hands on the tombs5, who were beaten (?) in examination on their
feet and hands in order to cause them to tell exactly what they did, by the mayor
and vizier Nebmaatranekht, by the overseer of the treasury and overseer of the granary
Menmaatranekht, by the steward and......Senes the fan-bearer (?) of Pharaoh, and by
the steward and royal butler Pameryimen of the estate of the Pharaoh.

THE TRIAL.

The ,'" official6 Paykamen was brought, who is under the authority of the over-
seer of the cattle of Amon. He was made to take the oath by the Ruler not to
speak falsehood. They said to him, What is the story of your going with the men
who accompanie(l you when you violated the tombs (?) of the kings which lie in the
treasury of the temple-domain of King Rameses III? He said, I hastened with the
priest Tasheri son of the divine father of the temple Heri, and with the scribe (?)7
Paybeki son of Nesuimen of this temple, and with the ;" Nesumnentu of the temple
1 Curiously enough Spiegelberg seems not to have noticed this, for he passes straight from
page 3 to page 6 which is on the verso of the first sheet, despite the fact that the cutting of the
papyrus into two was so carelessly done as to leave the beginnings of the lines of page 4 on the edge
of the first sheet, where they are visible after page 3, thus proving the correct order of the pages,
which is further obvious from the sense.
2 The actual king-name is not given, the phrase used being whm r7nwt 'Repeating Births.' That
the reference is to Rameses X is clear from several considerations.
3 Egyptian pr n ,;'. 4 The sign for 40 is quite clear. What the ' houses' were is uncertain.
6 ,'wt dt ' to place the hand on' must refer either to the robbing of the places or to an identification
by the thieves of the scene of their crime, such as we have in the Abbott. The former interpretation
seems to me preferable in view of Nesuimen's statement, given below, from which it is clear that he
was actually present when the crime was committed.
6 For this title or epithet see Recueil de Travaux, 14. 41-42, and a forthcoming note by Gardiner
in Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.
7 The sign is curiously formed both here and in 12. 22.
23-2

This content downloaded from

77.111.247.76 on Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:12:36 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
176 T. ERIC PEET

of Mentu Lord of Inu, and with the ,"' Panehsy son of Tchat who w
Sebek of the 'House of Life,' and with Taty, a man belonging to Panehsy the son of
Tchat who was a priest of Sebek of the 'House of Life'; total six."
From this the general facts of the trial are clear. The places attacked by the
thieves are the "40 houses" of Seti I and the pr-n-st,' of Rameses II. The thieves
are said by Paykamen, onre of them, to have been six in number, and this is con-
firmed at once by the statement of Nesuimen the chief of police, who was actually
present during the commission of the crime. His evidence, which is the next to be
taken is, "The men were hastening to do violence to this tomb and I went and found
the six men whom the thief Paykamen has named correctly."
Then follows a long series of examinations of prisoners, suspects and witnesses.
The formula of their examination is almost invariable. "So-and-so was brought. He
was examined by beating with the stick; the bastinado was given upon his feet and
hands, and he was made to take oath by the Ruler that he would speak no falsehood."
These persuasive methods of what is euphemistically called 'examination' generally
succeeded in drawing a confession of some kind out of the person examined, usually
implicating someone else, who is forthwith produced and examined. In some cases,
however, the accused can only be got to reply " I saw nothing," whereupon a further
resort to the bastinado takes place, usually with the desired result.
Among this monotonous catalogue of confessions and denials there are a few
which stand out from the rest as of higher interest. There is, for example, the
evidence of the herdsman Qaru who has apparently been suspected of being one
of the thieves. This he denies, but admits having purchased some of the stolen
property. "As I was going down I heard the voice of the men who were in this
tomb. I placed my eye to the crack (?) and saw Paybeki and Tashery within.
I called to him (sic) saying, 'Come.' He came out with two rings of copper in his
hand. He gave them to me and I gave him 1~ sacks of spelt in exchange. I kept
one of them and gave one to the ,"' Anefsul ."
The next witness is the priest Nesuimen, son of Paybeki, who was "brought
on account of his father. He was examined by beating with the stick. They said
to him, Tell the story of thy father's going with the men who accompanied him.
He said, My father was indeed there, but it was when I was a little child and
I do not know what he did."
The calling of the child to bear witness against his father affords ample testi-
mony to the completeness with which the evidence against the thieves had been
prepared, a fact which is further obvious when we find that even the boatman
who ferried them across the Nile is called and examined. "There was brought the
fisherman Pa ...... of the chapel (??) of the Prince of the City. He was examined
by beating with the stick," etc. "They said to him, What was the manner of
your ferrying over the thieves whom you ferried ? He said, I ferried the thieves
over and they gave me sack of spelt and two loaves."
A great part of the evidence deals with the disposal of certain quantities of
stolen metal, especially silver, by the thieves. A certain Bukhaaf plays an important
role in the story in this connection. A butcher, Pennestytauy, was suspected of
complicity in the thefts owing to the statetnent of one Perpanefu who averred that
1 This is corroborated, except in small details, by the evidence of Anefsu himself.

This content downloaded from

77.111.247.76 on Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:12:36 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE GREAT TOMB ROBBERIES 177

he had seen him in the place where the robbery was committed. He denies the
charge, and his accuser is produced and accuses him of being the accomplice of
the herdsman Bukhaaf and another in certain thefts, the connection of which with
the tomb robberies is not made clear. "Then said the court, Let Bukhaaf be
brought. The herdsman Bukhaaf was brought. They said to him, What hast thou
to say? He said, He was not with me at all. What is all this? He seen with
Imenkhau son of Heri and with Nesuimen son of ...... 11 Nonsense. He go with
him !1 He never went." These vehement denials apparently exculpate Pennestytauy
who, we read in the last line of the document, was released. Bukhaaf, however,
is "examined again by beating with the stick. They said to him, Now tell the
other tombs which you opened. He said, I opened this tomb of the Royal Wife
Nesymut. He said, It was I who opened this tomb of the Royal Wife Bekurner
of King Menmaatra." This Menmaatra is not to be confused with Seti I, who
likewise bore this name but had no wife Bekurner. The Menmaatra here in question
is the successor of Seti II, and his wife Bekurner is mentioned in his tomb, No. 10
in the Valley of the Tombs of the Kings at Thebes. Queen Nesymut seems to
be unknown except from this passage.
The further examination of Bukhaaf, the translation of which is not easy owing
to the state of the papyrus at this point, clearly deals with the whereabouts of
certain quantities of gold, silver and copper.
Equally interesting and no less difficult from the point of view of translation
is the evidence of the gardener Ahautynefer who with two others had been observed
standing near the scene of the thefts by Nesuimen son of Paybeki. Ahautynefer's
explanation, which is not easy to follow, appears to be that he was in the place
mentioned in pursuance of his work, certain firewood used by the gardeners being stored
there, and he having gone to get some of it. His accuser Nesuimen is then brought
and retracts his former statement, remarking that he had made it "out of fear."
The last three pages of the papyrus, very cursively written, with ink much
faded and in parts badly obscured by the varnish, contain a series of lists, the
relation of which to one another it is not always easy to establish. The first,
dated in year 2, first month of the inundation, day 13, is headed "The names of
the thieves of the tomb (?) of Pharaoh." Of the 14 names which it comprises many
have not been mentioned in the course of the evidence and we may infer that
we have not here the whole of the proceedings. The next list is "Persons im-
prisoned in the first month of the inundation, day 13." Then follow "Thieves of
the necropolis examined and found to have been in the places," among whom are
Bukhaaf and Perpanefu. Then follow two persons shown to have received stolen
silver and a number of persons " whom the thieves said were not with them." Finally
there is a summing-up of the whole trial. "Thieves who were brought before the
Vizier previously, 7 men. Thieves who were put to death .........., 15 men. Thieves
whom Paynehsy slew, 3 men. Imprisoned, 15 men." And so on, ending with Imen-
payinefu and Pennestytauy who were 'set at liberty.'
(To be concluded)

1 Spiegelberg seems to me to have missed the point of these two sentences. They are not
assertions but indignant and ironical echoes of the accusers' words.

This content downloaded from

77.111.247.76 on Fri, 26 Jan 2024 20:12:36 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms