DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3236#0099
34
TELL NEBESHEH.
One of these is carefully cut, and the sign mer,
beloved, remains, but the god's name is broken
away; the other is a rough piece with the
cartouches of the king cut upon it, and portions
of the name of Uat and Khem remaining. The
former name is beneath the prenomen, the latter
beneath the personal name.
In the hieroglyphic lists and the papyri, Uat'
is always mentioned as the goddess of Amt, but on
the Ptolemaic tablets from San there is a triad
consisting of Khem (called Jlor her ah set had),
Horus sam taui, and Uat, the latter pair being
closely connected together.
We now see that two members of this triad
date back at least as far as the reign of Amasis.
There is no appearance of a third name having
been inscribed on the block.
When the temple of Amasis was being ex-
cavated, several red granite blocks were found
between the vestibule and the shrine, with scraps
of hieroglyphs and sculpture on one face. These
blocks had been much scaled by decomposition of
the stone. The inscriptions had been very lightly
engraved, and parts had been cut out. Squeezes
were taken of them as each was found, before they
were passed and covered up by the advancing
lines of trench and rubbish. It was not until the
squeezes were compared together in England that
any idea could be formed about them. By good luck
• these blocks, the only granite blocks that occurred
in the small temple besides those that obviously
belonged to the shrine and lay around it, make
up the greater part of a large stele (pi. ix. 4).
In the upper part in two compartments the
vultures of the north and south shadowed with
their wings a royal name and titles which are un-
fortunately no longer legible, having been erased.
Below this two more compartments, edged on
either side with a line of symbols of life and
stability, contain figures of Khem back to back
before the standard of the same king. Behind the
god are traces of the usual altar or stand. Below
these again are the king's titles. He is "beloved
of Horus, her tep ^as-^et."
The royal titles have been almost entirely
erased, but there is an important remnant of the
standard which begins with S. The same letter
is the first in the standard on the side of the great
shrine, the inscription upon which has likewise
been erased. No. 3.
For many reasons I at first supposed the stele
and the shrine to belong to the period of the
middle kingdom, but it is clear that they were
placed here by Amasis. Nearly the whole of the
standard name of the king, smen maat, can be traced
on the side of the great shrine ; and the material,
the fine shallow cutting and polish, and the
erasures are sufficient to show that the stele was
made and defaced at the same time as the other
monument.
To dispose at once of the shrine, the only
hieroglyph that has been left untouched when few
signs can be even traced elsewhere, is an. eye
following the cartouche. To suppose it to be the
first letter of the formula of dedication, ar-nef m
mennuf, &c, seems insufficient: it should be part
of the name of Osiris. The dedication must have
been to Uat, but Amasis may have styled himself
beloved of Osiris, her ah set luia, or merlti her ah
Amt, or even as in early dedications Neb Tattu.
There are two instances in the British Museum
Gallery that I have noticed of erasures of the
name of Amasis: No. 134, statue of Henaat,
whose great or good name was Kakhnemab men :
the basalt has resisted the evident attempt at
erasure ; and No. 94, which is not so clear an
instance, as much of the inscription has been
battered. These monuments are undoubtedly
from Sais.
If at Sais itself the cartouche of Amasis is
found to be defaced on a statue placed *in the
tomb-chapel of a functionary (for his sarcophagus
also is in the British Museum), we need not be
surprised if the people of Amt, terrified by the
approach of the victorious army of Cambyses from
Pelusium, hastened to own themselves vanquished,
and to show their zeal in the cause of the con-
queror by chiselling out the name of the king
TELL NEBESHEH.
One of these is carefully cut, and the sign mer,
beloved, remains, but the god's name is broken
away; the other is a rough piece with the
cartouches of the king cut upon it, and portions
of the name of Uat and Khem remaining. The
former name is beneath the prenomen, the latter
beneath the personal name.
In the hieroglyphic lists and the papyri, Uat'
is always mentioned as the goddess of Amt, but on
the Ptolemaic tablets from San there is a triad
consisting of Khem (called Jlor her ah set had),
Horus sam taui, and Uat, the latter pair being
closely connected together.
We now see that two members of this triad
date back at least as far as the reign of Amasis.
There is no appearance of a third name having
been inscribed on the block.
When the temple of Amasis was being ex-
cavated, several red granite blocks were found
between the vestibule and the shrine, with scraps
of hieroglyphs and sculpture on one face. These
blocks had been much scaled by decomposition of
the stone. The inscriptions had been very lightly
engraved, and parts had been cut out. Squeezes
were taken of them as each was found, before they
were passed and covered up by the advancing
lines of trench and rubbish. It was not until the
squeezes were compared together in England that
any idea could be formed about them. By good luck
• these blocks, the only granite blocks that occurred
in the small temple besides those that obviously
belonged to the shrine and lay around it, make
up the greater part of a large stele (pi. ix. 4).
In the upper part in two compartments the
vultures of the north and south shadowed with
their wings a royal name and titles which are un-
fortunately no longer legible, having been erased.
Below this two more compartments, edged on
either side with a line of symbols of life and
stability, contain figures of Khem back to back
before the standard of the same king. Behind the
god are traces of the usual altar or stand. Below
these again are the king's titles. He is "beloved
of Horus, her tep ^as-^et."
The royal titles have been almost entirely
erased, but there is an important remnant of the
standard which begins with S. The same letter
is the first in the standard on the side of the great
shrine, the inscription upon which has likewise
been erased. No. 3.
For many reasons I at first supposed the stele
and the shrine to belong to the period of the
middle kingdom, but it is clear that they were
placed here by Amasis. Nearly the whole of the
standard name of the king, smen maat, can be traced
on the side of the great shrine ; and the material,
the fine shallow cutting and polish, and the
erasures are sufficient to show that the stele was
made and defaced at the same time as the other
monument.
To dispose at once of the shrine, the only
hieroglyph that has been left untouched when few
signs can be even traced elsewhere, is an. eye
following the cartouche. To suppose it to be the
first letter of the formula of dedication, ar-nef m
mennuf, &c, seems insufficient: it should be part
of the name of Osiris. The dedication must have
been to Uat, but Amasis may have styled himself
beloved of Osiris, her ah set luia, or merlti her ah
Amt, or even as in early dedications Neb Tattu.
There are two instances in the British Museum
Gallery that I have noticed of erasures of the
name of Amasis: No. 134, statue of Henaat,
whose great or good name was Kakhnemab men :
the basalt has resisted the evident attempt at
erasure ; and No. 94, which is not so clear an
instance, as much of the inscription has been
battered. These monuments are undoubtedly
from Sais.
If at Sais itself the cartouche of Amasis is
found to be defaced on a statue placed *in the
tomb-chapel of a functionary (for his sarcophagus
also is in the British Museum), we need not be
surprised if the people of Amt, terrified by the
approach of the victorious army of Cambyses from
Pelusium, hastened to own themselves vanquished,
and to show their zeal in the cause of the con-
queror by chiselling out the name of the king