Читать книгу The Fayum Landscape - Claire J. Malleson - Страница 12

3

Landscape of the Lake: The Ancient Egyptian Fayum (7500–332 bc)

It is a remarkable fact that despite the vast numbers of finely sculptured records to be found on the monuments erected by the Ancient Egyptians, there is nothing of the nature of a map, nor any inscription that is capable of providing us with a clear notion of the geographical and cosmological views held by them.¹

—John Ball (1942)

Despite an apparent lack of explicit descriptions in geographic texts, it is in fact possible to gain insight into ancient Egyptians’ ideas of their geographical surroundings—their landscape. The locations of the remains of towns and temples provide information on the nature of the land (for example, its habitability or suitability for cultivation) and help us understand what shaped people’s experience of the landscape, answering questions such as: Which landscape features did they live near? What could they see? Which environmental factors may have affected their daily lives? The ability to ‘people’ the landscape is perhaps unique to the study of ancient Egypt; it is not often in archaeology that we are able to put names to individuals living in the past as easily as we can for the elite in Egypt.

One of the most strikingly apparent phenomena when looking at all the combined evidence of Pharaonic activities in the Fayum is that the activities appear to have been restricted to a very small portion of the region. It seems highly likely that only a relatively restricted area of the Fayum was actually habitable. The dominant feature of the ancient Egyptians’ landscape in the Fayum was the lake, but not as it is known today. The lake of the fourth to the second millennia bc was a considerably larger expanse of water, filling at least seventy-five percent of the region. The sacred landscape of t3-š was intimately linked with the fact that the expansive marshy lands were an ideal habitat for crocodiles and thus the worship of the crocodile god Sobek/Sobek Shedty. The Fayum also had a unique place in the bureaucracy of Egypt, clearly defined as an administrative zone named š-rsi . Interestingly, it was never defined as a nome within the standard ancient Egyptian system of regional divisions.

The Fayum: Pharaonic History

As is the case throughout Egypt, the preservation of archaeological remains in the Fayum is highly variable. This is a result of the traditional archaeological focus on the more ‘obvious’ remains of temples and tombs, the inevitable loss of ancient settlements as towns grow and expand over time, and the effects of the constantly changing watercourses, with millennia of flood silt deposits obscuring and obliterating archaeological remains. Further factors affecting what we know of the history of the Fayum are the almost fanatical zeal with which people sought to locate the sites mentioned in Classical texts, and the fact that Flinders Petrie led most of the early excavations of Fayum sites (1888–1920). These factors had both positive and negative outcomes. It is hard to truly ascertain if the distribution of archaeological evidence in the Fayum reflects ancient settlement patterns and land use or is a result of choices made by archaeologists. Generally speaking, the early surveys of the region (see Chapter Six) defined the sites that have been explored. Sites with highly visible remains are naturally far more likely to attract attention, and it is only in recent years, since the 1990s, that survey methods enabling archaeologists to detect ‘invisible’ remains have become more readily available in Egypt, meaning that a large proportion of remains has already been lost to cultivation and expanding towns (as is the case globally). It is important to look not only at the remains found in the region but also at the history of the excavations in order to understand why some sites have yielded ‘better’ results and more information than others, and to be aware of how that inevitably affects our potential to understand ancient activities in the Fayum and ancient perceptions of the region.

Prehistoric and Predynastic Periods (500,000 bp–3000 bc)

Stone tools dated to the Lower Palaeolithic (500,000–250,000 bp) provide the earliest evidence of human activities in Egypt. During the Middle Palaeolithic (250,000–70,000 bp), periods of heavy rainfall across North Africa supported both seasonal and permanent lakes in the Western Desert, and there is evidence of exploitation of natural resources (mining) along the Nile Valley at that time. Gradual climate change during the Upper Palaeolithic (c.70,000–24,000 bp) led to a shift toward far more arid conditions, which appears to have drawn people out of the desert toward the Nile, where resources (especially food) were now more easily available. Archaeological evidence from Late Palaeolithic sites (24,000–10,000 bp) suggests that people occupied desert campsites seasonally, exploiting various types of food resources (fishing, hunting, and gathering wild grasses and tubers). The Western Desert gradually became uninhabitable due to increasing aridity, until the Neolithic early Holocene wet phase (8,800–7,000 bp) when average rainfall across North Africa increased. Exceptionally high Nile levels and unpredictable floods meant that the valley became uninhabitable, but increased water availability in the desert regions made the Western Desert once again suitable for people to occupy, and Neolithic sites provide evidence for groups of people living in semi-permanent camps, herding cattle and hunting, collecting and processing wild grains.²

The picture is far from simple, however, and it has to be borne in mind, especially for the Fayum, that localized regional changes may well fall outside the general pattern of overall climate change. Most scholars have equated (noncatastrophic) higher floods with better agricultural opportunities in Egypt, due to a larger expanse of silt deposits being available after the waters recede. In the Fayum more water means a higher overall water level as water cannot escape the basin, and therefore in fact less land available for use. The Fayum basin becomes more attractive for agriculture when the waters are lower; hence the irrigation projects that sought to drain the region via canals. However, the annual cycle of the inundation means that there is usually some land available in areas affected by flooding after the waters recede, revealing fresh deposits of fertile silts.

The earliest evidence for human activity in the Fayum dates to the Nile Epipalaeolithic, roughly contemporary with the Saharan Early Neolithic (c.7000 bc), found along the northern shores of the lake. For decades, long before scientific archaeological investigations began, the area was renowned for being rich ground for collecting ancient flint implements.³ The work of many scholars, including British geologist Hugh Beadnell,⁴ pioneering archaeologists Gertrude Caton Thompson and Elinor Gardner⁵ for the British School of Archaeology in Egypt (1924–28), and K.S.

Sandford and Anthony Arkell⁶ of the University of Chicago, laid solid foundations in the first half of the twentieth century. These have been built on more recently by Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild,⁷ Bolesław Ginter and Janusz Kozlowski (Krakow),⁸ and a team from the University of Michigan led by Robert Wenke.⁹ The current combined Dutch–American surveys led by Simon Holdaway and Willeke Wendrich have allowed for far more nuanced conclusions, unraveling the complex chronology of occupation around basins along the north lakeshore during prehistory in the Fayum (see plate 5).¹⁰

Around the northern perimeter of the lake are dense concentrations of remains, primarily lithics, burned plant materials (charcoal), ceramics, and animal bones. Caton Thompson and Gardner argued that the distribution of the sites possibly related to the changing ancient shoreline of the lake, and most subsequent studies have had the same hypothesis, using radiocarbon dates from habitation remains (for example, charcoal from hearths) to provide a chronology of the variations in the ancient lake level. They make the assumption that people have always chosen to live along the lakeshore. This, however, may well not be the case.¹¹ Recent work in the northern Fayum has shown that a number of smaller basins were probably more influential in determining changing locations of human activity than the primary lake was, and that most ‘sites’ show short-term, repeated use depending on which resources were available.¹²

The sites date from around 7500 to 3300 bc. They contain the earliest evidence of cultivation of domesticated cereal crops in Egypt, dated c.4700 bc.¹³ One of the biggest problems facing archaeologists attempting to reconstruct the early history of the Fayum is the fact that many of the earliest survey missions in the region (except those of Caton Thompson and Gardner) simply collected the lithics they found littering the desert surface, making it very hard to determine the true extent of ancient activities. Additionally, the nature of the archaeological remains means that it is almost impossible to determine how long the ‘sites’ (areas of scattered pits and hearths) were in use, or how frequently they were reused/revisited.¹⁴

Holdaway and Wendrich demonstrate that we should not see this time period as a simple forward-moving ‘evolution’ of cultures, but more as a gradual intermingling of ideas and adaptations to local and regional environmental fluctuations.¹⁵ But the generally accepted chronology based on recent radiocarbon dating is that the Fayum Epipalaeolithic (Qarunian) lasted about fifteen hundred years from circa 7530 to 6090 bc, the early Fayum Neolithic (Fayumian) lasted about twelve hundred years from circa 5480 to 4260 bc, the late Fayum Neolithic (Moerian) lasted around a thousand years from circa 4620 to 3640 BC, and the Fayum Predynastic dates cover circa 4170 to 3360 bc.¹⁶

Qarunian (Epipalaeolithic) sites have been found on the northern shores of the lake and in the southern regions of the Fayum. These consist of scatters of artifacts and fish/bones with minimal evidence of the exploitation of wild plants, which is interpreted as showing that the sites were in use by transitory groups of hunter–fishers. Fayumian (early Neolithic) remains are also found on the north shore as well as in the southwest regions of the Fayum.¹⁷ The most significant Fayumian sites are Kom W and Kom K in the north, identified by Caton Thompson and Gardner and extensively studied by Holdaway and Wendrich. At both sites many firepits were uncovered, and at Kom K the remains of basket-lined storage pits containing the preserved remains of domestic cereals were found, providing firm evidence of the development of agriculture in Egypt. Other features of the Fayumian culture include handmade ceramics, lithics (sickles), grinding stones/grinders, and objects made from non-local resources. These artifacts indicate that these people traveled away from their camps to procure specific items,¹⁸ and are suggestive of a more complex economic system.

Only a small number of sites in the Fayum can be considered Moerian (late Neolithic, 4620–3640 bc), and it has been suggested that this indicates an ‘abandonment’ of the region.¹⁹ They show no signs of habitation, and the people staying there seem to have relied on seasonal fishing for subsistence. Aspects of the Moerian lithic assemblages mirror those found in Buto-Maadi culture sites along the northern Nile and into the Delta (c.4000–3400 bc), and it has been suggested that the Buto-Maadi traditions grew out of the Fayum late Neolithic culture.²⁰ Although there are sites in both the northern and southern regions of the Fayum dated to the Predynastic, there is still some debate surrounding their association with the main Nile Predynastic phases (Buto-Maadi or Naqada cultures, 5300–3000 bc). To complicate matters, radiocarbon dating suggests that the Moerian and Fayum Predynastic may in fact represent different aspects of one contemporaneous culture.²¹ One theory is that the Moerian is in fact different in material culture but contemporary in date with the Fayumian. That difference is a result of the fact that these were people who lived in closer proximity to the lake and thus naturally relied on different subsistence methods, namely, more fishing.²² Since the Fayum is essentially on the border between the Western Desert and the Nile Valley, it seems likely that the people in the area were affected by both of those distinct cultures, while retaining their own cultural identity.

These earliest inhabitants of the Fayum lived in an environment that would be barely recognizable to us today. The lake covered the majority of the region, rising to as high as 20 meters above sea level, making everything but the desert edges of the Fayum uninhabitable. However, this lake-based environment provided the means for subsistence. People could rely on seasonal fishing and hunting, combined with farming and herding, in both instances ‘tied’ to some extent to the lakeshores. Crocodiles and hippopotami were certainly present and would have been a threat to these people, but they were also a resource. The earliest Fayum dwellers were naturally opportunistic, and it is highly possible that the area represented a chance to settle and engage in more sedentary and reliable farming, in a move away from their earlier nomadic and transitory life. Beside the lake, they would have been able to exploit the rich natural resources of fish and edible wild plants, as well as good land for cultivation of domesticated crops and raising herds of sheep and goats. The Fayum was both physically and temporally a transition point for the development of settled culture and agricultural activities in Egypt.

Early Dynastic Period and Old Kingdom (3000–2160 BC)

The earliest signs of urbanism in Egypt (mud-brick architecture, nucleated settlements, official buildings) appear during the Buto-Maadi cultural phase, in the Naqada II Period (3500–3200 bc). Hierakonpolis in Middle Egypt is the ‘type-site’ for the emergence of settled life along the Nile Valley, primarily a result of the extensive and highly focused research that has been conducted there. Here, and at various other sites in Egypt, there is strong evidence that people started to come together and settle permanently in increasingly dense villages.²³

During the final phase of the Predynastic Period (Naqada III, 3200–3000 bc), a unified ‘state’ emerged in Egypt. Evidence from cemeteries points toward increasingly stratified communities, with elite members able to equip their graves richly with objects made of gold and semiprecious materials. Hierakonpolis and Abydos became major centers, as attested by both settlement remains and increasingly elaborate burials. Tomb U-j at Abydos covers 66.4 square meters and contained large quantities of Egyptian and Palestinian ceramics—evidence of well-established trade routes. The beginning of the pharaonic, or Dynastic, period is marked by the presence of the name of just one king in textual evidence (pot-marks, jar labels, seal impressions) across Egypt, identifying that ruler as the sole ruler of the country.²⁴

The Old Kingdom (2686–2125 bc) is perhaps best known as the age of the great pyramids. Archaeological remains of massive funerary complexes clustered in the north between Giza and the Fayum are the most obvious landmarks of increasing economic success, which followed the development of complex organizational structures for overseeing large-scale construction projects that involved huge teams of laborers and skilled craftsmen. Access to and control of natural resources became important, and much of the Old Kingdom evidence in the Fayum is indeed associated in some way with exploitation and management of resources.

Not a great deal is known about activities in the Fayum during the Old Kingdom. In this period the lake level was at around 15 meters above sea level, give or take 5 meters,²⁵ which left just a small area of unflooded dry land surrounding the area of modern Madinat al-Fayum. Based on a sealing of Narmer found at Tarkhan (Petrie Museum UC59522), it is clear that Shedet (šdt ) as a cult center for the crocodile god Sobek was founded at least as early as the First Dynasty. In addition, evidence from the Fifth–Sixth Dynasty pyramids texts of Unas, Pepi I, and Pepi II shows that a cult of Sobek in šdt was well established by the middle of the Old Kingdom. There is archaeological evidence for Old Kingdom activities in the Fayum at Lahun and Seila and in the far north at the quarries of Umm al-Sawan and Widan al-Faras. Close to the better-known Twelfth Dynasty remains at Lahun there is a small early-Dynastic cemetery dating to around the Second Dynasty, excavated by Petrie at the beginning of the twentieth century. He uncovered 104 graves, some of which contained very fine quality objects. Nearby Kom al-Iswid and Dimiqshin also yielded a small number of later Old Kingdom cemetery remains.²⁶

The existence of ancient quarries in the deserts to the north of the Fayum was noted in 1905, and the area was first explored by Caton Thompson and Gardner in the 1920s. It is important to consider whether the northern quarry zone along the Gebel Qatrani was thought of as part of the Fayum. Basalt quarries and associated camp/settlement areas at Widan al-Faras and gypsum quarries at Umm al-Sawan have been dated to the Old Kingdom, with reuse in the late Roman Period,²⁷ but the fact that the basalt was used in royal funerary complexes at Giza and Saqqara could suggest that the quarries were thought of as being a part of the Western Desert. However, the existence of a road running south from the Widan al-Faras quarries to Qasr al-Sagha appears to link the sites to the Fayum.²⁸ The lake in the Old Kingdom was at least 15 meters above sea level, meaning that Qasr al-Sagha would have been close to edge of the lake—very much within the Fayum region. The presence of a quay at that site does strongly suggest that this was the case.

The lack of any reasonable evidence to date this quarry road is problematic. The lack of any signs of use/wear on the paving slabs makes it hard to visualize how large numbers of blocks could have been transported from the quarries to the lake, but the suggestion that the paving acted as a foundation for wooden ‘runner’ planks is plausible.²⁹ A large number of circular depressions and Fifth to Sixth Dynasty ceramics were found at both the basalt quarries in the Gebel Qatrani escarpment at Widan al-Faras and at Qasr al-Sagha. These closely resemble features interpreted as temporary hut foundations found at the Old Kingdom quarries of Umm al-Sawan (to the north of Widan al-Faras) and Hatnub (close to Amarna),³⁰ providing a clear link between Widan al-Faras and Qasr al-Sagha and suggesting that this road was indeed used during the Old Kingdom. The physical and temporal links to the northern quarries certainly show that they were perceived to be part of the landscape of the Fayum during the Old Kingdom. In all likelihood the blocks were transferred to boats at Qasr al-Sagha and transported south through the deeper channels in the flooded lands of the Fayum to the main river channel of what is now known as the Bahr Yusuf. From there they could go north through Nile channels (the Bahr Libeni, which runs north toward Memphis, may be a remnant of older major river channels) to the royal funerary complexes at Saqqara and Giza.

A small step pyramid at Seila in the eastern Fayum was discovered in 1899.³¹ Exploration and excavation works took place in the 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s, and the monument has been dated to the reign of Sneferu by the remains of a statue and two stelae found during excavations in 1986–87.³² It is thought to be one of seven similar pyramids built along the Nile Valley that acted as both symbols of royal power and administration and local centers of worship for the royal cult.³³ The presence of this small monument here is evidence that the region was included in the countrywide administrative network of resource management.

Evidence for Old Kingdom activities in the Fayum is not restricted to the archaeology of the region itself. Inscriptions in private tombs belonging to officials who clearly had links to establishments in the Fayum have been found in Giza, Saqqara, Abusir, Deshasha, and Tihna al-Gebel. The earliest textual evidence for Fayum activities attests not only that the cult center at Shedet was established as early as the reign of Narmer in the First Dynasty, but also that the very specific hieroglyph used to designate this cult of Sobek was already in use at that time. A seal impression found by Petrie at Tarkhan (UC59522) bears images of several crocodiles,³⁴ one of which is depicted on a standard, and also has the distinctive booth sign surmounted by a bucranion (bull head). The sign is well known as the ‘determinative’ for the cult of Sobek in Shedet from later inscriptions, usually transliterated just as šdt .

The earliest occurrence of a name for the whole region appears early in the Old Kingdom in the Third Dynasty tomb of Meten (mtn ). This tomb, found close to the pyramids at Abusir, was first recorded by Richard Lepsius,³⁵ and can now be found reconstructed in the Berlin Neues Museum (Berlin 1105 (tomb) and Berlin 1106 (statue)). Meten held many administrative titles during the reign of Sneferu, one of which was ‘Chief of the towns of the Great Estate of (the) Southern Lake (š-rsi ).’³⁶ A fragment of an inscription naming an ‘Overseer of all acacia trees of (the) Southern Lake (š-rsi )’ was discovered at Lisht and may well also belong to Meten. The titles found in the block from Lisht are rare, and the closest parallels all date to the Third Dynasty, and most particularly to the tomb of Meten, leading to the hypothesis that the Lisht block came from his tomb.³⁷

A false door from Dahshur currently in the British Museum (BM1324) belonged to one of the sons of the pharaoh Sneferu, Ka-nefer (a common name in the Old Kingdom). His massive mudbrick mastaba (number 28, to the southeast of the much later pyramid of Amenemhat II) was excavated in the late nineteenth century by Jacques de Morgan.³⁸ Ka-nefer was overseer of the pyramid of Sneferu (at Dahshur). He was also a priest of Sobek of Shedet.³⁹ Mastaba G2150 in the western cemetery on the Giza plateau is among a group of large stone mastabas probably laid out during the reign of Khufu. G2150 also belonged to an individual named Ka-nefer (k3-nfr) . This mastaba does not name him as son of Sneferu, and the dating of this tomb suggests that the Giza and Dahshur Ka-nefers were two different individuals who by coincidence both acted as priests of the same cult. This tomb was first explored by Lepsius in 1842 and fully excavated by George Reisner in 1906/1911–13. The inscriptions are now held in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (34.58, see plate 6). The mastaba contained nine burial shafts and was in use from the end of the fourth into the early fifth Dynasty.⁴⁰ Ka-nefer had various titles, including priest of Shedet.

Shedu (šdw ), whose tomb was found at Deshasha (south of the Fayum in the Nile Valley), held several titles, including ‘Overseer of the Fields,’ during the Sixth Dynasty, probably under the reign of Teti.⁴¹ The tomb contains a series of typical Old Kingdom ‘daily life’ and craft scenes, including one showing woodworking with the description, “Strengthening the staff (of office) of (the) Southern Lake (š-rsi ).”⁴² A group of Old Kingdom rock-cut tombs at Tihna al-Gebel (just north of Minya) was first discovered by Petrie in 1887 and later explored by George Fraser in 1890.⁴³ Tomb 14 appears to belong to an individual named Khenwka, and in the inscriptions is a nome list that appears to include š-rsi .⁴⁴ The tomb was in poor condition, but at least one title was discernible: ‘Chief of the Gangs of the South.’ This is the only occasion when š-rsi , the Fayum, appears in a nome list of the pharaonic period. Adding to the evidence of the two known priests of Sobek of Shedet, there is also good evidence for the existence of a cult center in Shedet in the Old Kingdom in the Pyramid Texts. The pyramid of Unas has one spell (275) that includes the line, “Unas becomes the Great One in Shedet.” In the pyramids of Pepi I and Pepi II, spell 582 states, “I govern as Sobek who is in Shedet (sbk imy šdt ).”⁴⁵

The Old Kingdom evidence shows that the cult of Sobek in šdt was well established, and that š-rsi was defined as an administrative area/estate early in Egyptian history. It is impossible to know if the occurrences of ‘Southern Lake’ in the tombs of Meten and Shedu are evidence of š-rsi as an established place name or descriptions of a place. Is it ‘the’ southern lake or ‘Southern Lake’? It seems highly likely that š-rsi began as a description of the area and then became established as the name for the region. This reveals two interesting points. First, the fact that ‘Lake’ was chosen clearly shows that it was a highly significant feature in the landscape. Second, the fact that this is the southern lake reveals that the naming took place north of the Fayum. Even if ‘north’ and ‘south’ are modern conceptions based on knowledge that the earth is a globe with two poles, the word rsi clearly designates a location upstream, which in Egypt is ‘south.’ The titles are clearly administrative titles, and therefore the need to allocate a description/name to the area almost certainly came from the fact that the resources of the Fayum were being exploited and that there were officials allocated to manage those resources.

The issue of the central ‘control’ town for Egypt, and indeed the issue of centralized organization, is under debate, but most of the evidence points to the fact that the majority of Egypt’s officials and organization were housed in the north at Memphis (modern Mit Rahina, ancient mn-nfr ) or perhaps at the town close to the pyramids at Giza (modern Heit al-Ghurab). Both sites are north of the Fayum. All the evidence for this administration comes from outside the Fayum, and while this may be due simply to a lack of evidence as a result of loss of archaeological remains, it does indicate that the region was administered externally. The very descriptive title held by Meten—Chief of the towns of the Great Estate of (the) Southern Lake (š-rsi )—is perhaps the most revealing piece of evidence for the status of the Fayum as an estate, probably belonging to the pharaoh with several towns. Sadly the locations of these towns are lost.

There is no evidence to suggest that the name ‘Lake Land’ (t3-š ) was in use at this time. The evidence suggests that this second name for the region came into use during the Middle Kingdom and the growth of the cult of Sobek.

First Intermediate Period (2160–2055 bc)

Following the reign of Pepi II (2278–2184 bc), the rule of Egypt was no longer in the hands of one pharaoh. The Seventh and Eighth Dynasties consisted of numerous rulers, none of whom was in power for very long, and little is known about them. The First Intermediate Period is usually defined as a time of instability and civil conflict, based on the lack of a sole ruler, and texts describing a state of chaos in towns and villages. Around 2125 bc a line of southern rulers appeared, about whom a great deal more is known, and it was they who finally succeeded in unifying Egypt once again under the rule of one pharaoh in 2055 bc.⁴⁶

There is very little evidence of activities in the Fayum during this period of change in Egypt. However, directly to the east of the southern part of the Fayum, the town of nn-nsw (modern Ihnasya al-Madina, Greek Herakleopolis Magna) became the ruling base of the northern pharaohs in around 2160 bc. No contemporary settlement remains have been detected to date, but the large associated cemeteries to the west of the town at Sedment in the narrow strip of desert between the Nile Valley and the Fayum region attest to major First Intermediate Period occupation in the area. It is almost certainly significant that the name of the chief deity of nn-nsw —Herishef—means ‘The one who is upon his Lake’ (ḥri-š-f ).

The earliest evidence for the name of the locality r-ḥnt (possibly the root of Lahun) appears in the biographical inscription of the tomb of the nomarch Ity-Ibi at Asyut.⁴⁷ Several important tombs were first documented in 1799 at Asyut by the Napoleonic expedition, the publication of which is still invaluable, as the tombs have suffered considerable damage since then. The tombs were studied and recorded by numerous scholars during the nineteenth century, and the key publication of the inscriptions was made by Francis Llewellyn Griffith (1889). The tombs became the subject of a recent reevaluation and have been carefully documented by a German–Egyptian mission, which began work in 2003.⁴⁸ The inscription in tomb III, belonging to the treasurer Ity-Ibi, is heavily damaged, but what fragments remain do give a hint at Ity-Ibi’s view of some events during the First Intermediate Period. The context in which r-ḥnt occurs is in a section describing a journey north after fighting (with southern leaders) has finished. What this inscription does provide is the earliest evidence for r-ḥnt as a Fayum location.

Middle Kingdom (2055–1650 bc)

The southern rulers who gained control over all of Egypt came from Thebes, and it is now recognized that the Middle Kingdom began with this reunification during the Eleventh Dynasty circa 2055 bc. The first king of the Twelfth Dynasty (Amenemhat I, 1985–56 bc) relocated the principal royal residence to the north, to a new town called iṯ-t3wy —Itj-tawy (probably Lisht) just north of the Fayum.⁴⁹ The Twelfth Dynasty is sometimes seen as an Egyptian Renaissance,⁵⁰ with a flourish of temple building, remarkable and exquisitely crafted funerary and religious art, the development of new and complex styles in literature and poetry, and the construction of many highly structured, obviously planned settlements associated with state-run projects (for example, quarries and pyramids).

The Middle Kingdom is by far the best-represented period of pharaonic history in the Fayum. Temples were constructed at Shedet (Madinat al-Fayum), Qasr al-Sagha, Madinat Madi, Biahmu, and possibly at Abgig. There are private ‘nobles’ tombs at Kom Khelwa, and two major royal funerary complexes are located in the Nile–Fayum corridor at Lahun and Hawara.

This period is considered to be the Golden Age of the Fayum, during which major hydrological works took place, many monuments were erected, and the region became both highly significant and prosperous. There is one frequently repeated assumption about the Fayum during the Middle Kingdom: that Amenemhat I engaged in major irrigation works in the region (although sometimes this work is credited to Senwosret II).⁵¹ There is evidence for Middle Kingdom interventions into the hydrology of the region at the Gadallah dam, but the remains cannot be dated to a specific reign.⁵² This notion—that the pharaohs intervened into the hydrology of the region in a significant way—is perhaps born more out of legend than fact. While the evidence certainly does point toward some control over the water entering the region between Madinat el-Gurob and Lahun in the Middle Kingdom,⁵³ there is very little real evidence to suggest that human interventions had any major effect on the Fayum landscape prior to the Ptolemaic period. Indeed, the other dams in the region (Shedmu, Dimikshin, and Bahlawan) have been dated to the Ptolemaic and Roman periods.⁵⁴ Despite the proliferation of repeated assertions that there were major developments in Fayum agriculture during the early Middle Kingdom, at present there is in fact a real lack of evidence to support those statements.⁵⁵

Nonetheless, the region did become more important during the Middle Kingdom, and perhaps the key sign of this is that both Senwosret II and Amenemhat III erected their pyramids on the boundary of the region at the Nile–Fayum divide, at Lahun and Hawara, respectively, and that the cult of Sobek grew almost immeasurably. Additionally, after his death up until the Roman period, Amenemhat III was worshipped as a deity. It is hard to find ways to understand the trigger for the apparent surge of interest in the Fayum region during this period. The establishment of a new royal residence and administrative center at Itj-tawy—the new ‘capital’ of Egypt of the Twelfth Dynasty—certainly would have drawn people south from the older centers at Memphis and Heit al-Ghurab. It is possible that a desire to perhaps retain some kind of links with the First Intermediate Period center at nn-nsw (Ihnasya) may also have been behind the increased interest in the Fayum. Without new evidence, we can probably never fully understand this phenomenon.

The earliest Middle Kingdom archaeological evidence in the region dates to the reign of Amenemhat I (1985–56 bc). While the lack of evidence makes it impossible to know if he constructed a new temple at Shedet, there is one statue attributed to him that is thought to have originally come from the site. This was seen by Lepsius, George Schweinfurth, and Petrie, close to the Ptolemaic Sobek temple at Kiman Faris.⁵⁶ The statue was ‘rediscovered’ in the 1990s and described as the lower part of a pair statue of Amenemhat I with Bastet seated on a throne.⁵⁷ The difficulty with this is that it may not have originally been situated there, as the removal and transport of statues between different temples in Egypt was common.

Better evidence of interaction with the sacred landscape of the Fayum comes from the reign of his successor, Senwosret I (1956–11 bc). The so-called ‘obelisk’ of Abgig now stands in a roundabout in central Madinat al-Fayum. The earliest report of this monument dates to the mid-seventeenth century, when Father Johann Michael Vansleb visited the region and stopped at the village to see the ‘needle’ standing in the middle of a field (see Chapter Six for details of his exploration of the Fayum).⁵⁸ This monument, often called an obelisk, is 12.9 meters tall, made from red granite, and has inscriptions on four sides and a rounded stela-like top (instead of a pyramidion pointed top). It stood on a 3.6-meter square limestone base. By the time the inscriptions were recorded accurately by the Prussian expeditions led by Lepsius (1842–46), the monument had fallen and only three sides were visible. Even then, they were heavily damaged and very little was legible.⁵⁹

There has never been any archaeological evidence to suggest that there was a larger enclosure or temple at the location. The ‘obelisk’ seems more likely to have been a part of an open-court shrine of some kind, possibly linked to solar worship. Several deities are represented on the monument in the scenes of offerings (Montu, Ptah, Atum, Amun, Re-Horakhty, Isis, Nephthys, Thoth, Min, Horus of Letopolis, Sheshat, and Sobek), but Marco Zecchi notes that the ‘obelisk’ should not be seen as evidence of any specific worship of their cults in the Fayum, as it is not a symbol showing local beliefs.⁶⁰ The presence of these deities on the monument was more a way for Senwosret I to establish his presence in the region.⁶¹ The text of the inscriptions fits within a genre known as königsnovelle , which is found on other monuments from the reign of Senwosret I. The king is described engaged in various activities, such as temple construction, restoration, or endowment, making it similar in some respects to autobiographical texts.⁶² Just why this monument was erected in this location is really tricky to determine, and it is not impossible that it was moved from another location at a much later date. However, the fact that the village in which it was found lies at the ‘head’ of the al-Wadi drain, one of the major natural ravines in the region, may be significant.

Outside the Fayum, Senwosret I commemorated the region on his ‘White Chapel’ at Karnak. On the western façade, at the base of two columns, offering bearers personifying various different regions in Egypt are found, as well as topographic features. The Fayum does not occur in the main list of nomes, but š-rsi does appear in one scene.⁶³

While there are no archaeological remains clearly dating to the reign of Amenemhat II in the region, there is one very important monument dating to the reign of his successor Senwosret II: the pyramid at Lahun. The site is perhaps better known for the remains of the town to the east next to the valley temple (see plate 7). Petrie discovered the town site (which he named Kahun) near the Lahun pyramid during explorations in 1888–89, undertaken with the explicit aim of preventing an “inexperienced German team” from working at the site.⁶⁴ Petrie spent several seasons focused on work in this area, not only at Lahun/Kahun but also at Hawara and Madinat al-Gurob. Why Senwosret II chose to locate his pyramid so much farther south than any of his ancestors is hard to assess, but the possibility that this decision reflects the increasing importance of the Fayum region during the Twelfth Dynasty cannot be ruled out.

The name Lahun or al-Lahun is believed to derive from the name r-ḥnt (mouth of the waterway), which seems to have been used to denote the region at the entrance to the Fayum, around modern Lahun.⁶⁵ This place name occurs only rarely, and never in documents from Lahun itself. The name r-ḥnt in this area of the Fayum primarily occurs in later texts: the New Kingdom Wilbour Papyrus and the so-called ‘Victory Stela’ of Piy from the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. It seems plausible that if this area was known as the ‘mouth’ of the Henet, Senwosret II may not only have been trying connect with the newly emerging importance of the region but also have chosen the spot specifically to locate his funerary cult with a symbolically highly significant place name.

Archaeological remains from within Kahun point to the fact that it did not simply function as a workers’ town for the pyramid builders and

2. Google Earth image of Lahun area.

3. Google Earth image of Kahun town.

home for the priests and officials of the pyramid cult. Like many other so-called workers’ towns or pyramid towns, it functioned as a base for regional administration. Petrie’s extraordinary work in this site unarguably ensured the preservation of the remains, and the artifacts from the site can be found in several collections across Britain, primarily in the Petrie Museum in London and the Manchester Museum. Two separate groups of papyrus documents were discovered at the site that relate to activities within the temple complex and the town during the reigns of Senwosret III and Amenemhat III. The papyri from the temple archive can clearly be shown to derive from one unified collection of documents belonging to one scribe, Horemsaf,⁶⁶ and show that the funerary cult of Senwosret II was being maintained for up to four generations following his death. The papyri from the town are less of a ‘collection’ but are certainly contemporary, showing that the town was probably still active in the later Twelfth Dynasty into the reign of Amenemhat IV.

Within the two collections it is apparent that there were two different ‘places’ at the site: Hetep-Senwosret, which according to most scholars was the name for the town site, and ‘Sekhem-Senwosret,’ which was the name given to an area designated for the temple administration.⁶⁷ The two collections of papyri are held in two different museum collections, the Petrie Museum in London and the State Museum in Berlin. The London archive is now fully published (see Collier and Quirke 2002, 2004, 2006), while the publication of the Berlin archive (primarily from the temple complex) is ongoing by Ulrich Luft. The exact nature and locations of the two different ‘places’ named in the archives has much been debated,⁶⁸ and it is unclear if there was more than one town at the site or if the two ‘places’ refer to two different institutions in one location. In a detailed reevaluation of all the documents, Zoltán Horváth (2009) proposes that the upper, western part of the town was Sekhem-Senwosret and the lower part with the large mansion-like dwellings was Hetep-Senwosret.⁶⁹ What is clearer, however, is that there were several temples there: the funerary temple and valley temple of Senwosret II, as well as temples/shrines (or, at the very least, cult areas in the primary temples) for Sobek, Hathor, and Anubis.⁷⁰

The documents in both archives are all administrative, and additional evidence for administrative activities is provided by the remains of seal impressions found in heaps in several places in the town. Texts from the town papyri name a nearby location ‘Lake of Sobek’ (š sbk / š n sbk ), or ‘Northern Lake of Sobek’ (š sbk mḥty ), and occasionally just ‘Lake’ (š ). They also refer to ḥnt as a place within the region. Within the corpus of letters found in the town, many open with a standard formulaic greeting that praises sbk šdty ḥr ḥry-ib šdt : “All the concerns of the Lord LPH are secure and flourishing in all their places through the favour of Sobek Shedty Horus residing in Shedet” (UC32210 lot VIII.1).⁷¹ The fact that the names ‘Lake Land’ t3-š and ‘Southern Lake’ š-rsi do not appear in these texts is noteworthy, but may be due to the fact that this is principally an administrative archive relating to activities within one town area. It is possible that these documents in fact do not refer at all to the Fayum as a region, but instead relate to the estate of the mortuary complex of Senwosret II. The complete lack of reference to š-rsi as a region does suggest that the perspective of the officials based in Kahun did not extend beyond their own estate, and upholds the theory that š-rsi was the name given to the region by the external administration. The texts place the vizier, the most important official below the pharaoh, in the town, as well as treasurers of various offices, high-ranking overseers of several institutions, high stewards, secretaries, accountants, and many different officials, including those in charge of stores.⁷²

An offering table fragment found by Petrie at the site does belong to a mayor of š-rsi (and w3ḏ-wr , ‘Great Green’),⁷³ but this is likely to come from the local cemeteries, and it is perhaps unsurprising that an official for the broader region chose to be buried or was granted a burial close to the pharaoh. This is one of the only occurrences of the name š-rsi on an object found within the region, and it may be possible that this official, although buried at Lahun, was actually based elsewhere. The occurrence of w3ḏ-wr in this context is of interest as this place seems to be (based on later evidence) more connected with the sacred aspect of the landscape, the waters of the realm of the gods.

At some point during the mid-Twelfth Dynasty the northern quarry sites may have been revived. While there are no Middle Kingdom archaeological remains in the quarries themselves, a settlement was established and a small temple was built at Qasr al-Sagha, north of the lake. Excavations in the town over several seasons by a joint German–Polish mission led by Joachim Ś liwa have revealed a typical Middle Kingdom ‘planned’ town:⁷⁴ orthogonal, laid out to one unified plan, and walled. The site has been dated to the late Middle Kingdom / Second Intermediate Period, and lies on what would have been the northern edge of the lake during the Middle Kingdom, about 15 meters above sea level. It is estimated that it could have been occupied by up to twelve hundred people living in thirty distinct ‘house’ units. To the west of the town is a large contemporary cemetery. The material culture is typical of this type of settlement, and combined with the architectural evidence it indicates that the town was built to house the officials and administrators, craftsmen, and overseers possibly associated with the basalt quarries at Widan al-Faras. The dating of this settlement and the renewed exploitation of the quarries ties in well with the major temple-building program initiated by Amenemhat III.

A survey along the southern edge of the region in 1966 by Dieter Arnold showed that at Kom Khelwa/Ruqayya the remains of a substantial Middle Kingdom tomb complex were preserved.⁷⁵ In the 1980s the tomb was investigated fully by a mission based at Madinat Madi (University of Pisa), led by Edda Bresciani, as part of a regional survey of this southern edge of the cultivated area. The tombs at Kom Khelwa are rock-cut into a low outcrop of limestone, the roofs of which collapsed long ago. The lower portions of the inscribed pillars were sufficiently well preserved to provide some information on the tomb owner. His name and primary titles are also known from a statue found in 1981.⁷⁶ The tomb belonged to Wadj—ʻ ḥm priest, Chief Lector, Treasurer/sealer of Lower Egypt, Sole Companion, One who sees the beauty of the King in holy places, Overseer of the priests of Sobek, Sole one of Horus of Shedet, Governor of the sanctuary of the south and the sanctuary of the north, Governor of Nekheb, One who enters into the most holy parts of the temple, Pure of fingers, Stolist of Horus Shedty, and Overseer of the fields.’ Clearly, Wadj was an important official.

The fact that Wadj chose to locate his tomb on this southern edge of the region is interesting because there are no known major temple or settlement remains any closer than Madinat Madi and the site is some way away from the center and main Sobek temple at Shedet. The fact that this tomb is not at Hawara or Lahun, close to royal funerary complexes, may indicate that the tomb dates to the earlier part of the Middle Kingdom, prior to the foundation of the pyramids at Lahun and Hawara. The presence of this tomb on the southernmost tip of the Fayum is a good indication that there must have been a major settlement somewhere nearby. Activities along the southern edge of the Fayum may have been an extension of those along the western Nile Valley at Herakleopolis (nn-nsw ) and the desert cemetery at Sedment. It is not uncommon at all in Egypt for settlement remains to be ‘missing’ from the landscape. In many locations along the Nile there are extensive cemeteries with no apparent evidence of the towns where the buried individuals must have lived. Invariably this is due either to the fact that the ancient town remains have been destroyed by the inevitable development of the town over time or the obliteration of remains by the constant fluctuations in the course of the Nile and smaller river courses. The fluctuating water levels and changing shape of the landscape of the Fayum would have had similar effects.

The southern site of Tebtunis/Umm al-Burigat (to the east of Kom Khelwa) was first investigated properly by Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt in 1899–1905, and is best known for extensive Ptolemaic, Roman, and Coptic remains. The site has been occupied continuously since at least the Middle Kingdom.⁷⁷ Grenfell and Hunt opened hundreds of tombs and excavated houses within the Roman quarters, where they found the large quantities of papyri that made the site so famous. Sadly the site was heavily and systematically looted for years, with a brief pause while it was investigated in the 1930s by an Italian team. The site once again fell prey to the sebbakhin (the people who quarry sites for mudbricks to use as fertilizer) and dealers until the late 1980s, when work was resumed by a combined French–Italian mission.⁷⁸ The history of looting at the site resulted in hundreds of papyri appearing on the antiquities market. Sadly their true provenance is lost along with the information that this kind of detail can reveal if proper excavations are conducted.⁷⁹ The presence of a Middle cemetery Kingdom here, and hints at the presence of a temple in texts show that this area was certainly occupied at this time.

4. Google Earth image of Biahmu.

With the reign of Senwosret II’s successor Amenemhat III came the elevation of the Fayum to an even more significant status. Given the lack of sufficient evidence, the question of whether or not Amenemhat III (1831–1786 bc) made any major interventions in the hydrology of the region and/or expanded agricultural activities in the Fayum is essentially still impossible to answer with any certainty. He undeniably paid a great deal more attention to the region than any of his predecessors had done and initiated a major temple-building program in the Fayum during his reign.

The so-called ‘pedestals’ at Biahmu are arguably among the most enigmatic monuments in Egypt (see plate 8). The earliest descriptions were made by the Greek traveler–scholars Herodotus, Pliny, and Strabo. Herodotus described them as pyramids, with statues of the pharaoh on thrones seated on top. Similar descriptions were offered in most accounts until the medieval Islamic governor of the Fayum compiled a more accurate report based on having actually visited the site, describing two “idols” of stone, “built in the natural soil,” with ancient writings on them, similar to the pyramids and temples.⁸⁰ Until about the sixteenth century ad, two seated colossi were probably still present on thrones, but from at least 1737 all that remained were the base pedestals of the statues.⁸¹ During his season in the Fayum in the late nineteenth century, Petrie conducted excavations at the site over six days. His record and theoretical restoration of the monument are still considered reliable. Based on the dimensions of the preserved pedestals and the few fragments of the statues (a nose and clothing pieces, plus nome figures from the throne bases), he estimated that the original colossi would have been around eighteen meters tall, making them the same height as the Colossi of Memnon in Luxor. The two statues had a walled courtyard in front of them measuring around 24 by 29 meters. Petrie noted that the courts were almost certainly paved since he detected a ‘uniform spread’ of limestone chippings, and there were ‘stairs’ leading down from the statue bases to the courtyard paving level.⁸²

No other remains have ever been found in the area around these pedestals (possibly because no archaeological work has taken place there since Petrie’s time), bringing into question their function and purpose. Since at least 1737 there has been a road running between the statues from Madinat al-Fayum toward the lake (it now runs into the village of Biahmu), which Petrie believed to be evidence of the purpose of the colossi: as a monumental ‘entrance’ to the Fayum. Until the construction of the Aswan High Dam in the 1960s, the area around the pedestals flooded during the inundation. Indeed, it was probably the fact that Herodotus saw them from a distance surrounded by water that led him to believe they were far larger monuments within the lake itself. The level of the lake during the Middle Kingdom was around 15 meters above sea level and the Biahmu monuments sit just above this level, meaning that they did actually sit on the ‘edge’ of the region close to the lake. This makes Petrie’s hypothesis that these colossi acted as a monumental ‘gateway’ to the Fayum leading to Shedet plausible. The apparent lack of evidence of a temple attached to these colossi is perplexing, and any analysis of this monument has to be undertaken with extreme caution until more information is available. The Colossi of Memnon appeared to be isolated monuments in the floodplain for many decades, but recent work has brought to light clear evidence that they were just one part of a major temple.

From later religious texts we know that the region itself was perceived to be the embodiment of a temple of Sobek, and these monuments may actually have marked the entrance to that ‘imagined’ temple, just as colossi flank the entrances to many later temples. Fragments of inscriptions found at the site date the monument to the reign of Amenemhat III, although it is impossible to know at what point in his reign they were constructed. The colossi are clear evidence of how significant the region was to this pharaoh, and when combined with the hydrological data they provide a clue about just what the landscape may have looked like. Only a small area of the Fayum region was habitable, but it was a considerably larger area than was accessible during the Old Kingdom. Perhaps part of the reason for the increase in royal interest in the region was the fact that there was more land naturally available for exploitation.

One other point worth noting in regard to the colossi is that they seem to act as an entrance to the inhabited areas of the region from the north. The name of the region (š-rsi ) already hints that it was ‘viewed’ from the north, but this monumental ‘gateway’ (or temple) suggests that unlike today—when we look at a map and can see that the ‘entrance’ to the region through the Nile–Fayum channel is from the east—the region was ‘engaged with’ from the north. This phenomenon of an ‘upside-down’ perception of the region is made very explicit in the Book of Fayum. The way we ‘see’ the region today is shaped by Cartesian geography—the mapping of the globe and an appreciation of what is north and south. Without this knowledge visions of landscapes are not seen from a bird’s-eye perspective; they are created based on experience at ground level, which is always relative to where you place yourself.

Very little remains of the ruins of Middle Kingdom Shedet, but columns dating to the reign of Amenemhat III found by Labib Habachi (1937) near the ruins of the Ptolemaic temple do provide some particularly interesting evidence of the Sobek temple in Shedet constructed by that pharaoh.⁸³ Habachi found fourteen red granite papyriform column fragments that he believed were deliberately broken up for reuse in the construction of the Ptolemaic temple. The columns clearly all belonged together, and nine had fragments of inscriptions preserved that can be pieced together to show that the inscription was a dedication text to the pharaoh (the living Horus), who constructed a monument for ‘his father’ Sobek of Shedet, with a columned hall, which had granite floors and doors of electrum.⁸⁴ Excavations in the area where the columns were found showed no other evidence of a temple at that location, and some scholars have argued that the fragments probably came from Hawara, due to the fact that throughout Egyptian history it was not uncommon for temples to be dismantled for the stones to be reused elsewhere.⁸⁵ The fact that Petrie excavated other inscribed granite blocks from within the ruins of the Ptolemaic temple pylon⁸⁶ does back up a theory that the blocks found by Habachi were probably also remains of Ptolemaic reuse of earlier materials, although it is ultimately probably impossible to know from where the blocks came.

5. Seated statue of Rameses II at Kiman Faris (Crocodilopolis), 1980. Photograph by R. Neil Hewison.

The description of the temple in these inscriptions clearly suggests a major cult-temple dedicated to Sobek of Shedet / Sobek Shedty, constructed by Amenemhat III. Prior to the New Kingdom there is very little evidence of major stone-built cult temples for gods, so if these fragments were from a Sobek cult temple at Shedet they would indicate the exceptional nature of Amenemhat III’s dedication to the Sobek cult in Shedet. As Zecchi points out in his study of the cult of Sobek in the Fayum, given the fact that this pharaoh did indeed dedicate temples to Sobek elsewhere in the Fayum (for example, at Hawara), it would seem strange for him to have ignored the primary cult center for the crocodile god.⁸⁷

There are numerous other inscribed fragments in museum collections around the world that probably come from Madinat al-Fayum. Petrie noted when he was working at the site that the area was being cultivated and that many blocks were being lifted and removed, so it is probably safe to assume that many were sold. There are many blocks in collections with a provenance of ‘the Fayum’ naming Sobek of Shedet or Sobek Shedty.⁸⁸ Some of these blocks could come from Hawara rather than the Sobek temple at Shedet, but they all attest to the incredible proliferation of temple construction activities in the Fayum undertaken by Middle Kingdom pharaohs. The connection between Sobek and Horus was emphasized, and

6. Remains of the temple of Sobek at Kiman Faris (Crocodilopolis), 1980. Photograph by R. Neil Hewison.

the very specific form of Sobek—Sobek Shedty—first appeared during the reign of Amenemhat III, along with t3-š , the ‘new’ name for the sacred landscape of the Fayum.

The only preserved cult temple in the Fayum is officially dedicated to ‘Renenutet, the living one of Dja’—Madinat Madi. The temple dates to the end of the reign of Amenemhat III and the earliest years of Amenemhat IV, and was expanded considerably during the Ptolemaic period. Until the 1930s, Egyptologists thought this site to date exclusively to the Ptolemaic and Roman periods, but excavations by Italian missions in the later temples uncovered this important Middle Kingdom temple. Despite the fact that it is dedicated to the cobra goddess of the harvest, Sobek–Horus of Shedet plays a key role in the temple and appears in many inscriptions.

The temple of the Twelfth Dynasty is relatively small (10.5 by 9.7 meters), with a columned portico in the front and a transverse hall with three recessed niches at the rear. In the niches are depictions of rituals being performed by Amenemhat III for either Renenutet or Sobek.⁸⁹ Within the temple Renenutet appears in the role of attendant of the two deities (Sobek–Horus and the pharaoh), and the legitimacy of royal power is expressed through the father–son relationship of Sobek and Amenemhat III. In return for the offerings being made by the king (in the scenes), Renenutet provides him with protection, while Sobek very specifically provides ‘good products of the Lake Land’ (t3-š ), which symbolically ties the notion of legitimate royal power to the Fayum in this instance.⁹⁰ Marco Zecchi sees this temple as an expression of the “perfect parallel between the economic and agricultural exploitation of the region by the ruling dynasty and the legitimization of the royal power.”⁹¹ By choosing to dedicate a temple to Renenutet—protective goddess of the harvest—Amenemhat III was making it clear that agriculture was a key element in the relationship between the pharaoh/royal power and the Fayum.

The location of this temple is especially interesting because it appears to be extraordinarily remote. Just as the tomb of Wadj at Kom Khelwa attests to what must have been important areas of occupation along the southern tip of the Fayum, this major temple on the southwestern edge of the region surely has to be read as evidence of the existence of a major town nearby, possibly lying hidden under the Greco-Roman town next to the temple. The fact that the temple was built in the desert might be an indication that it was not plausible to construct a major temple within the fertile area of the Fayum due to year-round high water levels. It is of course possible that there were other temples in the fertile area of the Fayum and that these remains have simply not been preserved, but it is hard to

7. Google Earth image of Madinat Madi.

8. Google Earth image of Hawara.

envisage a situation in which a temple of such importance, built in stone—a rare occurrence for the Middle Kingdom and testimony to the significance of this temple—would be constructed in an out-of-the-way location. For a temple to be built anywhere there has to have been a strong motive behind the choice of location. As discussed above, the location of the Biahmu pedestals on the edge of the flooded zone appears to have been perceived as the ‘entrance’ to the occupied area/Shedet. Quite what the motive was behind this choice of location for a temple is impossible to determine at present, but it is important to remain aware that this location clearly held some significance in the sacred landscape of the Fayum. During the later Roman occupation of the area, it acted as an outpost for the routes to the western desert oases, and the presence of the Twelfth Dynasty temple might indicate that this location played a similar role during the Middle Kingdom.

The Fayum owes much of its fame to Herodotus, but Hawara—location of the mudbrick pyramid of Amenemhat III—is an exceptional case. The description of the Fayum by Herodotus is dominated by the fantastic nature of the enormous lake and the overwhelming size and complexity of the Labyrinth. Herodotus’s account is discussed at length later in the book (Chapter Four), but it is important to note here that his description of the Labyrinth has undoubtedly shaped the way in which scholars think about the site of Hawara—and the Fayum as a whole. It probably affected the way in which the Ptolemaic and Roman inhabitants of the region perceived the region, the site of Hawara, and the religious geography of the Fayum. As is discussed in the chapter on early travelers, the first European explorers in the Fayum all went with the explicit desire to find the fabulous Labyrinth. Initially it was believed that the temple at Qasr Qarun was the Labyrinth (at that time they did not realize that Qasr Qarun was not even built when Herodotus visited the region), but by 1819 when Giovanni Belzoni visited the Fayum he was certain this was not the case (see plate 9).⁹² By 1827, when Edward William Lane wrote his account, “some modern travelers” agreed that Hawara was the location of the Labyrinth,⁹³ and Petrie pronounced in 1912 that he had identified the site of the Labyrinth temple at Hawara in 1888.⁹⁴ Since then, this theory has been accepted almost without question and a huge amount of energy has been put into determining the form of the Labyrinth at the site.

The issue of the form of the Labyrinth at Hawara has caused scholars many problems. Reconciling the scant and inconclusive archaeological evidence from the few excavations at the site with the elaborate descriptions of an enormous and complex temple has been virtually impossible. Since the first suggestion that Hawara was the site of this famous monument, people have created reconstructions of what the temple might have looked like, paying varying amounts of attention to the physical remains found in the ruin field south of the pyramid. Several detailed studies have been dedicated to this project, such as Pharaoh’s Gateway to Eternity (Uphill 2000). It is probably fair to state that if this site was not considered to be the home of such a famous monument, the ruins would be simply seen as the remains of the mortuary temple of Amenemhat III. There is so little evidence at the site of anything more than a standard funerary temple that it is hard to build an argument that it bore more importance for the ancient Egyptians of the Twelfth Dynasty than any other royal mortuary complex. Even Petrie admits that “from such scanty remains it is hard to settle anything”⁹⁵ and notes in his journal that “the plan of it is hopelessly gone.”⁹⁶ The most extensive study of the exploration and archaeology of Hawara is the monumental work by Inge Uytterhoeven.⁹⁷

There is, however, ample evidence to suggest that Sobek played an unusually important role in this temple complex, as many fragments of individual and group statues of the crocodile god have been found at the site, which can be dated to the Middle Kingdom.⁹⁸ Elsewhere in Egypt there is further evidence of this temple. A quarry inscription in Wadi Hammamat from an expedition led by Senwosret, overseer of stone-cutters, provides what could be read as evidence of a Sobek temple at Hawara. The inscription shows that the mission of the expedition was to obtain stone for ‘ten statues of five cubits seated upon a throne,’ and to deliver them to Ankh-Amenemhat living forever and ever in the ‘House of Sobek of Shedet.’⁹⁹

There is a great deal of evidence of activities in the Fayum in textual sources found outside the region, and it is these sources that provide a lot of examples of the new name for the sacred landscape of the Fayum—t3-š —and Sobek Shedty. The huge numbers of private stelae and statues dedicated at the important pilgrimage site of Abydos means that there is a large quantity of inscribed material from this period available for study. Many of these stelae contain autobiographical information about the owners, providing us with an invaluable source of information on not only different roles played by people in ancient Egyptian administration but also the more personal activities of individuals and the locations in which they lived and worked. In addition to this, the development of literary works during the Middle Kingdom that were valued enough to be copied repeatedly—often to the point of canonization—and have been preserved in much later papyri can provide much more nuanced insight into the way society, humankind, and the known world were perceived by ancient Egyptians of the time.

Sobek and Sobek Shedty in Shedet

The prominence of the cult of Sobek of Shedet during the Middle Kingdom means that there is ample evidence of individuals being connected to the Fayum via their role in temple activities at this time. Zecchi provides the most comprehensive overview of the role of Sobek in the Fayum (for all periods), listing all the relevant objects and inscriptions.¹⁰⁰ Many demonstrate that the Fayum was a hub of religious activities during the Middle Kingdom, and Zecchi convincingly argues that links to the Fayum via Sobek were used as tools of legitimacy by several pharaohs, proving the importance of the region to the royal court and the pharaohs.

Among the numerous stelae set up in individual shrines at Abydos during the Middle Kingdom, there are, as perhaps could be expected, several that belong to individuals with links to the Fayum, now held in the Cairo Museum (CG and JE numbers refer to the stelae registration numbers). The list includes a wab priest, w3b ʻ3 n sbk šdty (CG20616),¹⁰¹ and an overseer of the priests of his cult, imy-r ḥm nṯr n sbk šdty (CG20562),¹⁰² an overseer of the Southern Lake of Sobek, imy-r pr š-rsi sbk (CG20070),¹⁰³ and a ‘chief’ of Sobek Shedty, ḥry-tp n sbk šdty (CG20075).¹⁰⁴ Although such a conclusion is essentially impossible to prove, it is tempting to assume that these individuals were all based at the temple of Sobek in Shedet.

A group of funerary statuettes in a private collection (Favre) in Switzerland could potentially also come from Abydos, but they more likely come from cemeteries in or around the Fayum. A statuette of Sobekhotep (an overseer) has been dated to the reign of Amenemhat III and includes formulae for offerings to both Sobek Shedty Lord of the Lake Land (sbk šdty nb t3-š ) and to Ptah Sokar.¹⁰⁵ The offering formula on a small (damaged) basalt standing statuette of a deputy of Atfih (east of the Nile opposite Meidum) names Sobek Shedty, and a seated statuette of Ren-seneb, a district official of sentries, bears an offering formula dedicated to Sobek Shedty and Horus who is in Shedet (sbk šdty ḥr ḥry-ib šdt ).¹⁰⁶ The fourth statuette in this group names a deity about whom little is really known: Osiris Ity, one who is in the Lake Land (3sir ity ḥry-ib t3-š ).¹⁰⁷ Wild notes several other statues that name this deity, namely five Middle Kingdom and nine Late Period ones. This list was expanded by Zecchi, who notes that this deity appears in the late Twelfth Dynasty.¹⁰⁸ In addition to the statuette published by Wild, 3sir ity ḥry-ib t3-š appears on a statue in the Metropolitan Museum collection (66.99.6) (which also has offerings dedicated to sbk šdty nb t3-š ) and on two statuettes in Cairo (JE 43095 and JE 43093). 3sir ity ḥry-ib t3-š also appears on a coffin (unknown provenance) that was usurped during the Third Intermediate period by Takelot II.¹⁰⁹ Zecchi lists three further unprovenanced Middle Kingdom statues bearing offerings to Osiris (Ity) who is in the Lake Land and to Sobek Shedty: in Berlin (10/66 and ÄM31210), in Strasbourg (1382), and in Copenhagen (AIEM 88).¹¹⁰

The Louvre in Paris holds at least three Middle Kingdom statues with inscriptions that place the owners in or near the Fayum. Again their provenance is unknown, although the catalog suggests the Fayum as its origin based on the inscriptions mentioning Sobek Shedty and the ‘Lake Land.’ Louvre E10985 is a basalt cube statue of Ta dated to the Thirteenth Dynasty that bears an offering to Sobek Shedty and ‘Osiris who is in the Lake Land’ (sbk šdty 3sir ḥry-ib t3-š ).¹¹¹ Louvre E11196 is a composite statue of Wadjiwer with offerings to Sobek Shedty Horus who is in Shedet. Interestingly, his father was named Nefershedty, spelled using the specific Shedty hieroglyph, which suggests that this family was closely linked to the Fayum.¹¹² This appears to be the only occurrence of Shedty in a personal name. Louvre E11053 is dated to the reign of Amenemhat III and belonged to Amenemhat-ankh (Ameny-ip), who was the chief of priests and ḥry šst3 n st wrt m ʻḥ-wr m šdt m t3-š , ‘Chief of secrets of the great place in the great palace in Shedet in the Lake Land.’¹¹³ This inscription is one of the very few that provides information on a non-temple establishment in Shedet. Based on this inscription it is possible to state that there must have been a palatial building or compound for the pharaoh in Shedet during the Middle Kingdom.

To summarize, this group of inscriptions contains a variety of different titles and dedications relating to Sobek, Shedet, and the Fayum:

• sbk šdty , Sobek Shedty: Occurs frequently, with the name always written using the specific Shedty hieroglyph.

• Sobek Shedty as nb t3-š , Lord of the Lake Land: Occurs on the statue of Sobekhotep (Favre collection)¹¹⁴ and Metropolitan Museum statue 66.99.6.

• Sobek Shedty as ḥr ḥry-ib šdt , Horus in Shedet: Occurs on the statue of Renseneb (Favre collection)¹¹⁵ and Wadjiwer (Louvre E11196).¹¹⁶

• Sobek Shedty who is Asir ḥry-ib t3-š , Osiris dwelling in the Lake Land: This is attested on the Louvre statuette of Ta (E10985).¹¹⁷

• 3sir ity ḥry-ib t3-š , Osiris Ity who dwells in the Lake Land: This is attested in at least six inscriptions.

• The Palace in Shedet, ʻḥ-wr m šdt m t3-š : This is attested on the statue of Amenemhat-ankh (Ameny-ip) (Louvre E11053).¹¹⁸

Based on this large group of statues and stelae it is apparent that t3-š is the ‘home’ of the Fayum deities: Sobek Shedty, the specific Fayum Sobek crocodile God; Osiris in the Lake Land; and Osiris Ity in the Lake Land. While it is impossible for this list to be exhaustive, the absence of any other name for the region in these inscriptions and the fact that t3-š only ever occurs in relationship to the Fayum deities strongly suggests that t3-š was the name given to the sacred landscape of the Fayum—the landscape in which the gods dwelled.

Literary Texts

The Middle Kingdom is often considered to have been the Golden Age of ancient Egyptian literature, and dozens of compositions were used as ‘school’ texts and copied for hundreds of years, probably by hundreds of trainee scribes. Many of these texts are only preserved on papyri dating from the New Kingdom, and in many cases they are incomplete and therefore hard to translate, leaving many questions about their underlying meaning. Many of the texts have the appearance of simple tales of activities involving private individuals or the royal court, but all have a much deeper meaning and were frequently intended to be ‘teachings,’ much like Biblical parables. Some were a means of expressing religious beliefs, but all reveal a great deal about how at least a small part of ancient Egyptian society perceived certain aspects of the world around it.

What is best described as a ‘hymn’ in praise of the king is preserved on one Eighteenth Dynasty papyrus held in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. The first translation of the text appeared in 1956, and the composition was divided into two parts.¹¹⁹ Since then, further studies have shown that these two parts almost certainly belong together and are often also linked to a major annals inscription dating to the reign of Amenemhat II discovered in the Ptah temple at Mit Rahina (Memphis).¹²⁰ These three texts are best studied as one group.

The Memphis annals inscription is preserved on two main blocks that were reused in the construction of the New Kingdom Ptah temple. The first (smaller) fragment was discovered by Petrie in 1908 in front of the west pylon,¹²¹ while the larger fragment that was beneath a Ramesside statue base was noted in 1974 and recognized as part of the same inscription.¹²²

The inscription records the income and expenditure of a temple during the reign of Amenemhat II and may well not actually be from a temple at Mit Rahina. It is only possible to guess at its original location.¹²³ The activities recorded include expeditions to obtain raw materials for making statues, temples constructed, and arrivals of notable visitors. In this list of activities, Amenemhat II is said to have spent some time in a palace in the Fayum, specifically the ‘Palace in the Southern Lake Land in the island of Senwosret I,’ ḥtp nsw m ʻḥ n t3 š-rsi iw n nswt bity ḫpr-k3-rʻ . While there, he took part in fishing and fowling, activities often deemed to be highly symbolic, linked with fertility and humankind’s mastery of the chaos of nature. This is followed by a record of deliveries to the temple of 1,350 fowl and 459 fish, presumably the catch from the hunting expedition.¹²⁴ This inscription is of particular interest because it is the only occurrence of this extended name for the region—t3 š-rsi , the Southern Lake Land. It is possible that the name reflects the fact that this is an official royal inscription, but it could be an attempt to unite the two aspects of the Fayum landscape, sacred and administrative (imagined and experienced).

The section of this inscription relating to the Fayum activities stands out as being somewhat different in character to the rest of the text, less formal and more narrative.¹²⁵ John Baines actually compares this to the Old Kingdom tomb of Meten. It is tempting to consider the fact that there is some kind of connection between the activities (hunting, fishing, and fowling) and the Fayum landscape that caused this alteration in style, perhaps subtly reflecting ancient Egyptians’ attitude toward and perception of the Fayum as an ‘unworldly’ landscape that held more sacred meaning.

Steven Quirke considered the event recorded in the Memphis annals to have been the inspiration behind the more literary texts in the stories ‘The Sporting King’ and ‘Fishing and Fowling’ in the Moscow papyri.¹²⁶ The parallels are indeed remarkable. The papyri are sadly fragmentary, which makes translation and interpretation difficult. Much like other Middle Kingdom ‘stories’ (for example, the tale of Khufu in the Westcar Papyrus), the papyri depict the royal court at leisure, and therefore the text reveals aspects of ancient Egyptian ideals. In these texts the landscape is very much the background for the activities: the activities take place because of the landscape.¹²⁷ The landscape seems to exist for the pleasure of the elite. It is an alternative world, described in idealized terms, much as it is in European nineteenth-century poetry.

The ‘Sporting King’ and ‘Fishing and Fowling’ texts traditionally were engaged with as two separate compositions, but they are increasingly recognized as most probably having been written on one papyrus, if not actually also being one tale with two parts, one royal and one nonroyal.¹²⁸ The story in the ‘Sporting King’ is introduced as being a speech given to the king by Sehetibreankh, describing the activities of the king, ‘He of the Two Ladies, Hunter,’ in the Fayum. Despite the severe damage to the manuscript, it is possible to discern that the hunting party arrives in the ‘Palace of the Fayum’ (‘ḥ t3-š ) and that the activities that follow take place in the area.

He of the Two Ladies, Hunter, foremost . . . to the Red Crown as noble of the crew . . . ? Life! Prosperity! Health!, our lord, your setting is in the cool field . . . united with eternity . . . in supplies. . . . Women the children of the king shouting delight, receiving . . . proceeding in peace . . . in a ferry for crossing (?) shore . . . land, in the palace of the Land of the Lake (t3-š).¹²⁹

Later in the text the palace is mentioned again, and the Fayum (t3-š ) is mentioned at least twice more. The landscape described in the poem is lush, rich with marshes, birds, trees, canals, pools, and fish. The mention of what may be an abbreviated form of the name of the Middle Kingdom residence at Itj-tawy—iṯw (the full form is iṯ-t3wy )—combined with the setting of the tale in the Fayum really does point to the conclusion that the poem was composed by a scribe in the court of the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs in Itj-tawy. It is tempting to consider that it was written in ‘praise’ of the Fayum landscape.

The non-royal ‘Fishing and Fowling’ poem is far better preserved and therefore much easier to translate and study. It is not so obvious that the activities take place in the Fayum, but the landscape is described using almost identical terms to those in the ‘Sporting King.’ The marshes are rich with birds, fish, and trees:

The fish are pierced on the spear, I kill at each chance. There is no stopping my harpoon, I make bundles of white bulti-fish.¹³⁰

Spend time . . . in the midst of the water over the mouth . . . with the shrubs in two lines, reeds at my back for matting beneath me, the cover . . . birds roaming with no end to their passing.¹³¹

In a rather fragmentary part of the manuscript (section C),¹³² the statement ‘Let me teach you of the Lake of Sobek the western land’ (sb3.i tw š n sbk t3 imnty ) occurs at the beginning of a list of places in the Fayum and the Delta. It is in section A (which Quirke places at the end of the text) that the Fayum plays a more obvious role.¹³³ This part is a joyous celebration of fishing and fowling in the marshes. One line reads: ‘Happy day when we arrive going down to the field!’ Another reads, ‘Happy day for Sobek Lord of the Lake Land’ (hrw nfr sbk nb t3-š ).¹³⁴ Burnt offerings (fish, birds, geese) are made to Sobek (Lord of the Lake Land) several times in the poem. The location in which the activities of Section B¹³⁵ take place is less obvious. The landscape is clearly marshland, but there is one small clue that this may also be set in the Fayum near the end in the lines: ‘I might go down to the rivers on the month and fifteen-day festivals and go down to the Lake.’¹³⁶ While this could be any lake, the references to Sobek of the Fayum in the other sections strongly suggest that the ‘Lake’ is the Fayum lake.

‘Fishing and Fowling’ and the ‘Sporting King’ name the region as t3-š , and refer to š n sbk . The landscape of the Fayum is described in terms that make it the ultimate fertile, rich, and pleasurable landscape. It is an idyllic landscape in which to pass leisure time, for royalty and nonroyalty alike. The poems are of course idealized images, and if they were indeed composed by scribes in the Fayum or Itj-tawy it is unsurprising perhaps that they chose to use their ‘own’ landscape as the setting for the activities. The Fayum would certainly have been a marsh-like landscape rich in wildlife, and most likely was ideal hunting grounds for fish and birds. The fact that the region is named t3-š as opposed to š-rsi shows that the poems refer to the sacred landscape of the Fayum, the landscape of the gods, and therefore it is perhaps unsurprising that the landscape is described in such idealized terms.

Hymns

During excavations at the Ramesseum in 1895–96, Flinders Petrie and James Quibell discovered a Thirteenth Dynasty tomb shaft containing a box of papyri. Now known as the Ramesseum Papyri, the collection is held in the British Museum in London and the Ägyptishes Museum in Berlin. The papyri were in poor condition as the tomb had certainly been affected by inundation waters, and the mounting process in the early twentieth century unfortunately did further damage to the manuscripts. The documents represent a collection of some of the most important ancient Egyptian literary and religious works, including the ‘Tale of Sinuhe’ and the ‘Eloquent Peasant,’ as well as medico-magical texts and spells.¹³⁷ Among them are two hymns dedicated to Sobek of Shedet / Sobek Shedty (P.Ramesseum 6; BM EA10759).

The first hymn opens with a statement that Sobek arose from the primeval waters / the flood and is lord of low-lying lands and desert edges, of land where fishing and fowling takes place, and ruler of river-streams. The hymn extols the virtues and character of Sobek, who is nb t3-š , who ‘cleaves a way through’ r-ḥnt , and is ‘great of might’ in nn-nsw (Herakleopolis / modern Ihnasya al-Medina, ‘capital’ of the Herakleopolitan Dynasty during the First Intermediate Period), among other epithets. Sobek Shedty, Horus dwelling in Shedet—sbk šdty ḥr hry-ib šdt —is described as both fearsome and loving, and the son of the goddess Neith.¹³⁸ The second poem is longer, but once again is dedicated to Sobek Shedty, Horus dwelling in Shedet. He is said to travel the Lake Land (t3-š ), cross the Great Green (w3ḏ-wr ), and be ‘rescued’ in the great Henet (ḥnt-wr ) by Nun. He is the son of Osiris (naturally, being Horus he would be the son of Osiris) and of Neith. In this poem Sobek is described as being more powerful than all other gods, adored by all.¹³⁹ His first epithets place him in a cult-place at Lahun (r-sḥwy ) in the Lake (š ), which he entered via r-ḥnt .¹⁴⁰ He is adored/pacified by ‘those who are in the flood’; he opened the lakes and is ruler of river-streams.¹⁴¹ There are few direct references to the Fayum in the hymn, but Sobek is clearly placed in the region within the hymn via the Fayum-specific spelling of ‘Lake.’

This hymn, while explicitly written in praise of Sobek, is a description of the sacred landscape of the Fayum and, importantly, is the earliest record of the Fayum creation theology. The overtly religious nature of the text means that the boundary between the landscape experienced by people and the landscape of the gods (found in the afterlife) is somewhat blurred. The fact that Sobek is said to ‘cleave’ a way through r-ḥnt