THE INCOMPLETE HIEROGLYPHS SYSTEM AT THE END OF THE MIDDLE KINGDOM PAR GIANLUCA MINIACI* Università di Pisa – Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche del Mondo Antico via Galvani, 1 – 56126 PISA A new ritual in composing hieroglyphic inscriptions is apparent in some burials at the end of the Middle Kingdom. The practice consisted in writing the hieroglyphic signs represent- ing living creatures deprived of a part of their body. This custom involved mainly signs in the form of birds and snakes, while other human and animals signs were generally avoided more than mutilated.1 A similar phenomenon, although structurally more elaborate, had already appeared in the late Old Kingdom and is evident in inscriptions of the Pyramid Texts in 6th dynasty royal tombs and of some private coffins of the First Intermediate Period, but it gradually vanished with the rising of the Middle Kingdom.2 Although tantalising, it is currently not possible to establish a direct link between the two occurrences, separated by over a century. Mainly, the late Middle Kingdom mutilated inscriptions include a number of unique formulae and previously unknown texts that do not coincide exactly with those of the early Middle Kingdom. Thus, the revival, if indeed, of the custom to mutilate some category of signs in the late Middle Kingdom is not influenced by copying mechanically the ancient models but it has have had an own origin, developing a functional and consistent system. Since the common expression referring to this custom as “mutilation of hieroglyphs”3 would fit better with another, but different, tradition where a potentially hostile animal or human figure was depicted as pierced by knives or their heads were fully detached from the bodies,4 * I am mostly indebted to Marilina Betrò who first drew my attention to the practice of writing incomplete hieroglyphs and supported this research from the beginning. I am grateful to Stephen Quirke and Pascal Vernus who encouraged the realisation of this article, to Wolfram Grajetzki, without his discussion and the book on Zemathor coffin it would never appeared, and to Susan Allen and Catharine Roehrig for their help in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. I am sincerely indebted to Paul Whelan for reading through my English and the drawings. 1 In some rare cases, also the human figures are subject to mutilation, see for instance the shabti of Renseneb, T.E. Peet, The Cemeteries of Abydos. Part II.-1911-1912, II (MEEF 34), 1914, p. 57-58, 113, pl. XIII.3, discussed in J. Bourriau, Pharaohs and mortals. Egyptian Art in the Middle Kingdom. Exhibition organised by the Fitzwilliam Museum. Cambridge 19 April to 26 June-Liverpool 18 July to 4 September 1988, 1988, p. 99-100 (83), and the coffin fragments of Senebhenaef, see infra n. 74. 2 M.P. Lacau, “Suppressions et modifications de signes dans les textes funéraires”, ZÄS 51 (1913), p. 1-49; and C.M. Firth – B.G. Gunn, Excavations at Saqqara: The Teti Pyramid cemeteries, 1926, p. 171-174. 3 J. Bourriau, “Patterns of change in burial customs during the Middle Kingdom”, in St. Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies, 1991, p. 13; more generally, G. Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, 1994, p. 69. 4 About the mutilation on the coffins coming from Asyut see for instance, R. Hannig, Zur Paläeographie der Särge aus Assiut (HÄB 47), 2006. Revue d’égyptologie 61, 113-134. doi∞∞: 10.2143/RE.61.0.2059903 Tous droits réservés © Revue d’égyptologie, 2010. 993715_RdE_61_05_Miniaci.indd3715_RdE_61_05_Miniaci.indd 111313 117/01/117/01/11 009:169:16 114 G. MINIACI it is reasonable to use another label to categorize this late Middle Kingdom feature. Following Quirke, the term “incomplete hieroglyphs” would fit better in describing the method adopted during the late Middle Kingdom, because it does not consist in damaging the signs but sim- ply in reproducing them in a truncated form, namely incomplete.5 The reasons for the devel- opment of this practice are still unknown, but it can be conjectured that its purpose was to protect the deceased from the potential harm deriving from the magical meaning of each sign, such as the danger of an animated snake or birds that could fly away from the formula making it ineffective.6 Moreover, the use of incomplete hieroglyphs, with some exceptions,7 occur in particular in those cases where the inscriptions are confined to the exterior of the coffins, strengthening the impression of a definite desire to remove any possible danger from the body of the deceased. The practice to remove the legs and tails of signs is usually traced back to the late Middle Kingdom, because in this period the first examples are attested. At Dahshur several undis- turbed burials belonging to members of the royal family and to the highest court officials, contain inscriptions with incomplete hieroglyphs.8 The key burial for the group is represented by the tomb of king Awibra Hor, buried in a chamber at the end of a shaft inside the enclosure of Amenemhat III at Dahshur.9 The king’s burial belongs to the so-called “court type burials”, or more precisely “Osirification burials”, containing a set of royal insignia for the identifica- tion of the deceased as Osiris king of the dead, and a wide range of objects made especially for the tomb.10 All the inscriptions found on the objects equipping the tomb were drawn with an elaborate incomplete hieroglyphs system; not only legs and tails were removed but, in some instances, also the heads (e.g. the bee sign, GARDINER, sign list L2; see fig. 1).11 King 5 St. Quirke, “Review “Christine Geisen, ‘Die Totentexte des verschollenen Sarges der Königin Mentuhotep aus der 13. Dynastie. Eine Textzeuge aus der Übergangszeit von den Sargtexten zum Totenbuch, (SAT 8), Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 2004’”, JANER 5 (2005), p. 231. 6 W. Forman – St. Quirke, Hieroglyphs and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt, 1996, p. 101-103. 7 See infra, n. 24. 8 Cf. the “king’s daughter” Nubheteptikhered, J. de Morgan, Fouilles à Dahchour. Mars-Juin 1894, I (MOM), 1985, p. 111-115, fig. 263, 268-269, pl. 36; the “king’s daughter” Keminub, J. de Morgan, Fouilles à Dahchour en 1894-1895, II (MOM), 1903, p. 70-71, fig. 116-117; and perhaps the “lady of the house” Sat-Sobek, P. Lacau, Sarcophages antérieurs au Nouvel Empire, II (CGC), 1906, p. 83. 9 J. de Morgan, Fouilles à Dahchour. Mars-juin 1894, I (MOM), 1895, p. 101-102, pl. 36. 10 B. Williams, “The date of Senebtisi at Lisht and the chronology of major groups and deposits of the Middle Kingdom”, SERAPIS 3 (1975/76), p. 41-59; W. Grajetzki, “Box Coffins in the Late Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period”, EVO 30 (2007), p. 48-50; G. Miniaci – St. Quirke, “Reconceiving the tomb in the late Middle Kingdom: the burial of the accountant of the Main Enclosure Neferhotep at Dra Abu el-Naga”, BIFAO 109 (2009), p. 339-384. 11 J. de Morgan, Fouilles à Dahchour. Mars-juin 1894, I (MOM), 1895, p. 91-106, pl. XXXVI. Additionally, the throne name of the king, Hor, was deliberately written phonetically, Îr, in order to avoid damaging any part of the body of the royal bird (GARDINER, sign list G5). The only exception to this is a wooden shrine containing the ka statue of the king which was found in the funerary chamber and is inscribed with complete hieroglyphs. However, their inclusion there may be the result of haste in assembling the burial, as this statue type was generally deposited in a special chamber separate from the burial apartment, D. Arnold, Die Pyramidenbezirk des Königs Amenemhet III. in Dahschur. Die Pyramide (ÄV 53), 1987, p. 57 sq. RdE 61 (2010) 993715_RdE_61_05_Miniaci.indd3715_RdE_61_05_Miniaci.indd 111414 117/01/117/01/11 009:169:16 THE INCOMPLETE HIEROGLYPHS SYSTEM 115 Hor, following the Turin King list, can be dated to the early 13th dynasty and, in any case, the presence of his tomb in a northern cemetery prevents his belonging to the late 13th dynasty.12 Fig. 1. Inscribed columns and bands from the coffin of the king Awibra Hor found at Dahshur (from J. de Morgan, Fouilles à Dahchour. Mars-juin 1894, 1895, p. 101, fig. 241). In fact, the burial equipment of princess Neferuptah provides a more accurate date for the origin of this practice. Usually, it has been assumed that Neferuptah was Amenemhat III’s daughter, since there is a close link and a precise correspondence between her and the king.13 Unfortunately, the genealogy of Neferuptah is never explicitly stated and it can only be assumed that she outlived Amenemhat III. Since parts of Neferuptah’s burial equipment were found still in position inside the funerary chamber of Amenemhat III’s pyramid at Hawara,14 one can conclude that the king had also intended to include the burial of princess Neferuptah within his own sepulchral chamber, but the absence of any real funerary items of the princess from the royal complex suggests that when Neferuptah died the royal burial chamber was already closed and she had to find another burial place. In fact, in 1955, about 2 km south of the pyramid of Amenemhat III at Hawara, Nagib Farag and Zaky Iskander 12 K.S.B. Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period c. 1800-1550 B.C. (CNIP 20), 1997, p. 218 and J. von Beckerath, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte der Zweiten Zwischenzeit in Ägypten, 1964, p. 44-45. 13 Amenemhat’s name was mentioned in her burial at Hawara south on two silver vases, see infra n.