'scarab series'
Scarabs of the type known for mid-Dynasty 13 kings with filiation (in general Martin back-type 6) attest to a wide variety of names and titles, and in several instances the same name and title recurs on several scarabs (here denoted 'scarab series').
The most substantial early
series is that of Senebsumai, recorded by Martin
1971 as with back-types 6 predominantly but also 3 (1), 4 (1, from Lisht
tomb 405), 5 (1), 7 (1), and 10 (2).
Scarabs of the type known for Hyksos and non-Egyptian names (in general Martin back-type 10) attest to a far lesser number of names and titles, and belong mainly to scarab series for men titled treasurer or king's son.
These peak in the treasurer
Har series, recorded by Martin 1971
as with back-types 5 and 10 predominantly but also 4 (x2), 6 (1), 7 (1), 8 (1).
Earlier
series
UC 11463 commander of the ruler's crew Sobekhotep son of commander of the ruler's crew Mentuhotep (identified by Ryholt as the future Sekhemrasewadjtawy Sobekhotep (III) son of Mentuhotep)
UC 11472 treasurer Nebresehwy
|
UC 11485 treasurer Senebsumai
|
|
|
UC 11591 eldest king's son Nehesy,
back-type 10
|
UC 11597 eldest king's son Nehesy,
back-type 10
|
UC 11600 eldest king's son Qupepen,
back-type 5
|
UC 11601 king's son Seket (?) back-type
10
|
|
|
Scarabs of Har
UC 11486 back-type 10
|
UC 11488 back-type 5
|
UC 11489 back-type 10
|
UC 11490 back-type 10
|
UC 11491 back-type 10
|
UC 11492 back-type 10 - note determinative
disappearing into border
|
Scarabs with treasurer titles only - might these be by-products from the Har scarab series production?
UC 11513 from Tell el-Yahudiyeh, back-type 10 (already in Historical Scarabs, no.462)
Scarabs with poorly attested treasurers - might these also derive from the Har scarab series production?
UC 11479 'Rediha' back-type 10
|
UC 11507 'Rediha' back-type 10
|
A problematic example
UC 11514 clear writing of title of treasurer followed by inverted shen-loop, m, unclear central group - is this an otherwise unattested treasurer (Martin, Ryholt), or a random assemblage of signs? Where should the attestation be situated on the spectrum of meaningfulness, given parallels available in the surviving record?
Copyright © 2002 °×С½ãÂÛ̳. All rights reserved.