DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1350#0011
THE ROCK INSCRIPTIONS OF ASSUAN,
mothers of one set of brethren being named in
No, 270), whereas re-marriage of a widow is not
known so far. But it was much more than this;
the father was ignored; so long as he lived, and
filled offices, he was important, but on his death
he became nobody, and was not reckoned as a
link in the family. For instance, in inscriptions
Nos. 86, 87, and 114, all of one family, the mother
is commemorated and repeatedly named, the father
is never mentioned; the mother's mother is named
also. In Nos. 267-8 there is not a single husband
mentioned among over twenty wives, only a few
unmarried sons appearing. Again, in No. 270, the
four mothers of a set of brethren are named, the
father being but once mentioned, and then not as
any'bond of union to the whole. It is the same in
the tombs at El Kab; there interminable relations
cover the walls in rows, the tombs seeming to be
a sort of joint-commemoration of a whole family
and their friends, for their benefit in the future
world; possibly a pious duty of the head of a
house; possibly a memorial got up by joint-sub-
scription. But in these tombs the relations are all
on the female side, except the very nearest. Paheri,
for instance, has his father, wife's father, brothers,
and sons, but no further male relations; whereas
his first cousins in the female line, " daughters of the
sister of the mother of his mother," are given at
length. And we see from other cases that this
was no mere accident of relationships. Matriarchy
was in great force in Egypt, the husband in many
contracts even gave his wife everything he possessed;
and it seems highly probable that though offices
might descend from father to son, property would
go in the line in which relationship was reckoned
and commemorated; so that a widow was, by her
rights, mistress of the house, or nebt per. De Rouge
has shown reasons for believing that Khufu married
a daughter of Seneferu, and succeeded to the throne
instead of any of the sons of Seneferu; Khafra
similarly married a daughter of Khufu, and succeeded
in place of any of the sons of Khufu; and Menkaura
is not among the sons of Khafra. Here we see that
the throne descended in the female line; and the
long list of priestesses of Amen at Thebes, an office
which also went in the female line, shows this same
course of inheritance. It seems highly probable
that, down to the latest times, the only legitimate
succession was in the female line; and the sons
of kings could only rule legally by the system
of sister-marriages, which was begun in the Xllth
dynasty, and fully carried out in the XVIIIth and
later dynasties. The Egyptian system of the descent
of property in the female line thus tended to increase
the energy and ability of a family; while the
modern system of male descent rather increases
its mere beauty. Perhaps the Egyptians were the
wiser.
12, As an illustration of the reading of these
inscriptions, for those who are not already familiar with
them, we may take No. 159. "A royal offering
presented to Sati, Khnum, Anket, and the gods who
are in Ta-kens (the land of the bow, or Nubia);
giving to them services, bread, wine, beeves, and
fowls, and all things that are good and living
amongst the gods, for the ka (soul) of the chief of
the south thirty (a district of the frontier—perhaps
the Dodekaschoinos of later times), Amenemhat,
true-voiced {makheru); born of the widow (nebt-per)
Thenasit, true-voiced ; and for the son of his brother
Amendudu, true-voiced; and for his wife, his be-
loved, the widow Nait, true-voiced ; and his daughter
Senb-tesi; and his daughter Annutpu." The pre-
cise significance of many of the formulas continually
met with is still more or less uncertain; but this
example will, at least, show how such inscriptions
run. The constant opening, "a royal offering," has
been very happily explained by Professor Maspero;
his view being that the king was the only inter-
mediary between his subjects and the gods; he
alone could offer acceptably to the gods; and what-
ever was offered could only be done in his name, as
being done for him : thus every offering was a " royal
offering."
13. Turning now to some details of the inscrip-
tions, it should be noted that, in most cases, they
are copies and not transliterations; that is to say,
the style and character of the original is preserved
as nearly as may be in a hand copy. Where they
are very rude, as in Nos. 1 to 18, each line is repro-
duced as exactly as can be readily done ; where they
are in better style, as in Nos. 19-22, the forms of
the signs have been duly observed, the number of
waves in n, the number of strokes on men, and such
details, have been in nearly all cases copied. These
details are of considerable value in educating the eye
in styles of various periods, but they are generally'
ignored by copyists; even in the ostentatiously
pictorial plates of the Denkmaler, a seemingly pre-
cise copy will differ altogether from its original in
the forms of the signs. From this carelessness has
arisen a neglect and indifference to the historic
variation of such details, which is a hindrance to
any Egyptologist who works from books and not
B
mothers of one set of brethren being named in
No, 270), whereas re-marriage of a widow is not
known so far. But it was much more than this;
the father was ignored; so long as he lived, and
filled offices, he was important, but on his death
he became nobody, and was not reckoned as a
link in the family. For instance, in inscriptions
Nos. 86, 87, and 114, all of one family, the mother
is commemorated and repeatedly named, the father
is never mentioned; the mother's mother is named
also. In Nos. 267-8 there is not a single husband
mentioned among over twenty wives, only a few
unmarried sons appearing. Again, in No. 270, the
four mothers of a set of brethren are named, the
father being but once mentioned, and then not as
any'bond of union to the whole. It is the same in
the tombs at El Kab; there interminable relations
cover the walls in rows, the tombs seeming to be
a sort of joint-commemoration of a whole family
and their friends, for their benefit in the future
world; possibly a pious duty of the head of a
house; possibly a memorial got up by joint-sub-
scription. But in these tombs the relations are all
on the female side, except the very nearest. Paheri,
for instance, has his father, wife's father, brothers,
and sons, but no further male relations; whereas
his first cousins in the female line, " daughters of the
sister of the mother of his mother," are given at
length. And we see from other cases that this
was no mere accident of relationships. Matriarchy
was in great force in Egypt, the husband in many
contracts even gave his wife everything he possessed;
and it seems highly probable that though offices
might descend from father to son, property would
go in the line in which relationship was reckoned
and commemorated; so that a widow was, by her
rights, mistress of the house, or nebt per. De Rouge
has shown reasons for believing that Khufu married
a daughter of Seneferu, and succeeded to the throne
instead of any of the sons of Seneferu; Khafra
similarly married a daughter of Khufu, and succeeded
in place of any of the sons of Khufu; and Menkaura
is not among the sons of Khafra. Here we see that
the throne descended in the female line; and the
long list of priestesses of Amen at Thebes, an office
which also went in the female line, shows this same
course of inheritance. It seems highly probable
that, down to the latest times, the only legitimate
succession was in the female line; and the sons
of kings could only rule legally by the system
of sister-marriages, which was begun in the Xllth
dynasty, and fully carried out in the XVIIIth and
later dynasties. The Egyptian system of the descent
of property in the female line thus tended to increase
the energy and ability of a family; while the
modern system of male descent rather increases
its mere beauty. Perhaps the Egyptians were the
wiser.
12, As an illustration of the reading of these
inscriptions, for those who are not already familiar with
them, we may take No. 159. "A royal offering
presented to Sati, Khnum, Anket, and the gods who
are in Ta-kens (the land of the bow, or Nubia);
giving to them services, bread, wine, beeves, and
fowls, and all things that are good and living
amongst the gods, for the ka (soul) of the chief of
the south thirty (a district of the frontier—perhaps
the Dodekaschoinos of later times), Amenemhat,
true-voiced {makheru); born of the widow (nebt-per)
Thenasit, true-voiced ; and for the son of his brother
Amendudu, true-voiced; and for his wife, his be-
loved, the widow Nait, true-voiced ; and his daughter
Senb-tesi; and his daughter Annutpu." The pre-
cise significance of many of the formulas continually
met with is still more or less uncertain; but this
example will, at least, show how such inscriptions
run. The constant opening, "a royal offering," has
been very happily explained by Professor Maspero;
his view being that the king was the only inter-
mediary between his subjects and the gods; he
alone could offer acceptably to the gods; and what-
ever was offered could only be done in his name, as
being done for him : thus every offering was a " royal
offering."
13. Turning now to some details of the inscrip-
tions, it should be noted that, in most cases, they
are copies and not transliterations; that is to say,
the style and character of the original is preserved
as nearly as may be in a hand copy. Where they
are very rude, as in Nos. 1 to 18, each line is repro-
duced as exactly as can be readily done ; where they
are in better style, as in Nos. 19-22, the forms of
the signs have been duly observed, the number of
waves in n, the number of strokes on men, and such
details, have been in nearly all cases copied. These
details are of considerable value in educating the eye
in styles of various periods, but they are generally'
ignored by copyists; even in the ostentatiously
pictorial plates of the Denkmaler, a seemingly pre-
cise copy will differ altogether from its original in
the forms of the signs. From this carelessness has
arisen a neglect and indifference to the historic
variation of such details, which is a hindrance to
any Egyptologist who works from books and not
B