REIGN OF IMHOTEP HAMMAMAT INSCRIPTION 388. This unknown king, from whom we have no other documents, sent his eldest son Zaty, who held the office of treasurer of the god, as well as that of general in the army, to the Hammamat quarries to procure a monument, possibly a statue for the king. Zaty left the following record of the enterprise: 389. 'Commission which the eldest king's-son, the treasurer of the god, commander of the army, Zaty (D'ty), called Kenofer (K3-nfr) executed. 390. I was at the front of the people (hm) in the day of battle, 3I controlled the going in the day of attack, by my counsel. I was exalted above multitudes, I made this work of Imhotepa 5with 61,000 men of the palace, 100 quarrymen, 71,200 'soldiers and 50 - His majesty sent this numerous troop from the court. 1oI made this work while in every 1, while his majesty gave 1150 oxen and assesb every day. 200 Palace-overseer, Intef. Scribe of the marine, Mereri. aThe name is in a cartouche with the determinative of a king. INSCRIPTIONS OF SIUTa 391. Of the five inscribed tombs of Siut, threeb date from the period of the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties, and form our only contemporary source of information for that obscure epoch. They belonged to three princes of the Lycopolite nome: Tefibi (§§ 393-97), his son Kheti I (§§ 398-404), and another Kheti (II) (§§ 405-14), whose relation to the two others is not clear. These princes as nomarchs all bore the same titles: "Hereditary prince, count, wearer of the royal seal, sole companion, superior prophet of Upwawet, lord of Siut." They were the continual friends and supporters of the weak Heracleopolitan kings, forming a buffer state, warding off the attacks of the rebellious Theban princes, who are the ancestors of the Eleventh Dynasty. Unfortunately, they do not mention any of the Thebans against whom they fought, and only one of the Heracleopolitans whom they served-Merikere. 392. The language of these texts is exceedingly obscure and difficult; these hindrances, together with the very aIn an upper row of three tombs, side by side, high up in the face of the cliffs overlooking the modern city of Assiut (or Siut). First copied by the expedition of Napoleon, they were almost wholly neglected till late in last century, having in the interim been frightfully mutilated (serving as a stone quarry!). Finally, after repeated visits, from 1886 to 1888, Mr. F. Ll. Griffith published a careful text, not only of the difficult original, but, where necessary, also of all existing earlier fragmentary copies (The Inscriptions of Siût and Dêr Rîjeh, London, 1889). Mr. Griffith furnished an account of his edition, and a digest of the content of the texts in the Babylonian and Oriental Record, III, 121–29, 164–68, 174–84, 244-52, where he also gives an exhaustive bibliography. Maspero (Revue critique, II (1889), 410-21) reviewed Griffith's work and gave a very free paraphrase of the texts, some of which is repeated, Dawn, 456-58. bFor the remaining two, which belong to the Twelfth Dynasty, see §§ 535 ff. <See §§ 415 ff. |