Coins of Roman Egypt
CollectionTopicsResources
Greek Dates

 


THE NOMES OF EGYPT.

By W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE.


43. FROM the earliest times that we can trace, Egypt was always divided into separate principalities or administrative districts. The earliest divisions were about the size of the modern mudiriyehs; but they were subdivided as the cultivation and population increased. Thus the primitive thirteen regions, which made the corn-images of Osiris in prehistoric times, became in later times about a hundred.

As these divisions thus fluctuated, the developments which they underwent should be noted historically. The nome lists which we have for study are mostly of a late period; but the lists of cities where ceremonies took place, or where the fourteen or sixteen parts of Osiris were deposited, shew us what were the principal centres et a very early date. Other indications may be gleaned from the double use of names for contiguous nomes, inner and outer, or south and north, which shew the larger districts which were subdivided. Another guide is the order of the nomes in the Delta, the basis of which is systematic, though interrupted by insertions out of order, which are therefore later.

In following the various publications the hieroglyph text should be used, as translators have made curious errors in well-known names, and a later compiler has even added to such blunders. The principal sources of lists are the following, lettered as in the table pl. vii.

A. Corn-figures of Osiris made at 13 cities. Dendereh. (Dümichen, Geog. Inschr. II, i-iii ; Brugsch, Zeits. Aeg. Spr. 1881, 79 ; Loret, Recueil iii, 44.)

B. Ceremonies performed at 16 cities. Dendereh. (Dum. Geog. Ins. II, iv ; Brugsch, Z. A. S. 1881, 84; Loret, Rec. iii, 49.)

C. Feasts of agriculture at 16 cities. Dendereh. (Dum. Geog. Ins. II, xviii ; Brugsch, Z. A. S. 1881, 97 ; Loret, Rec. v, 87.)

D. Relics of Osiris kept at 16 cities. Dendereh. (Dum. Geog. Ins. II, xvii ; Brugsch, Z. A. S. 1881, 96; Loret, Rec. v, 85.)

E
. The order of the Delta nomes consecutively along five lines of the Nile, beginning at the west. Twelve are thus in order, and eight others have been inserted later out of order.

F, G.
Cities with relics of Osiris. These are thirteen in Upper Egypt, where only seven cities appear in the earlier stages. Nine nome cities were without actual relics, and are therefore later. (F, Dum. Geog. Ins. III, i ; this list scarcely notices the Delta, and G, the Delta list, in III, xliii-liii, is so full that it belongs to a later age.)

The standard list of nomes is found from the xixth dynasty at Abydos (Mariette, Abydos, i, II), down to Ptolemaic copies at Dendereh and Philae (Dum. Geog. Ins. III, iii-xxv, xxvii-xli, lix-xcvii). It is so generally followed as a standard that it is used here as the first column of the table.

H, J. The increased list of nomes in the xviiith dynasty is shewn by the ha princes, and by the lists of Upper Egypt in the xixth dynasty, H (Mariette, Abydos, ii, 12), and of the Delta, J (Mariette, Abydos, i, 14). Another list of additional nomes is too fragmentary to be used as a whole (Dum. Geog. Ins. I, lxv).

K. The coinage of the reign of Hadrian shews the recognised administrative divisions then; but, as these coins are rare, there may have been coinage for other nomes which has not yet been found. (J. de Rouge, Monnaies des nomes.)

L. The writers of Roman age, Strabo, Pliny, and Ptolemy, give lists of nomes, all of the names in which are here given.

The two lists in the Revenue Papyrus of Ptolemy Philadelphos are entirely for specifying the rates of tax, and the amount of oil crop ; their order is therefore artificial, and they refer solely to taxation, so that their omissions are consequently of no value as compared with the lists of the Roman period.

We here avoid the complex questions of the identifications of sites, as we are only concerned with the number and general position of the administrative divisions. The Geographie ancienne de la Basse-Egypte of J. de Rouge is followed as the best authority for the Delta.

44. We shall here consider the Delta and Upper Egypt separately, and the Delta first because there are more clues to the successive subdivisions of the nomes. The Roman numerals here will thus refer only to the Delta nomes until we deal with Upper Egypt. The normal list of the nomes according to the standard of the xixth dynasty, probably transmitted from the xiith, and continued for religious purposes to Ptolemaic times, is as follows :-

Egyptian Name.
Greek Name.
i Anbu-hez
Memphis
ii Khensu
Letopolis
iii Ament
Marea (Libya)
iv Sap-qema
Prosopis
v Sap-meh
Sais
vi Ka-khas
Xois
vii Nofer-amenti
Metelis
viii Nofer-abti
Heroopolis
ix Aty
Busiris
x Ka-kem
Athribis
xi Ka-heseb
Pharbaithos
xii Theb-aht
Sebennytos
xiii Heqa-ames
Heliopolis
xiv Khent-abt
Sethroe
xv Tekh
Hermopolis
xvi Ha-mehyt
Mendes
xvii Sma-behudet
Pakhnamunis
xviii Am-khent
Bubastis
xix Am-pehu
But0 (eastern)
xx Sepdu-kemhes
Phakusa (Arabia)


The Egyptian form is the name of the nome; and the Greek is the name of the capital, from which that of the nome was later formed, except in three cases. The iiird nome was known as Libya ; the xixth is not identified as a Greek nome, but its capital was the eastern Buto; the xxth nome was called Arabia. After this we shall denote the nomes by their numbers in most cases. The table (pl. vii) should be followed in this account: in it the nomes are numbered in the order of each list.

45. The earliest stage which we can trace (Map i, pl. viii) is that of eight nomes in the Delta, ii, iii, v, x, xiii, xv, xvii, xviii. This is an earlier stage than even the shortest list, that of the Corn-Osiris in A. With four in Upper Egypt these make twelve divisions altogether; earlier than the sites of the fourteen parts into which Set divided Osiris.

Next comes the division of the ivth nome out of the vth, separating the nome Sap of the goddess Neit into the south and north halves. This is the stage of the list A, Map i, which is marked off from all later lists by its ignoring Memphis, and shewing therefore an arrangement of the country older than the dynastic age. In other words the ceremony of making the corn-figures of Osiris comes down from the prehistoric period.

The next stage is that of including Memphis, and Busiris in list B. The latter is given as Daddu, which might be confused with Mendes; but in the list of relics of Osiris (Dum. Geog. Ins. III, xliii-liii) Daddu is given in the order as the city of the ixth nome, proving its position in the earlier lists. In both nomes the name is an abbreviation of "the city of Osiris lord of Daddu." It is probable that this title is "lord of the four sky-pillars," and only by abbreviation is either town called simply Daddu. The figure of a prince, which is the sign of the ixth nome, is that of Osiris.

The lists C, of the Feast of Cultivation, and D, of the cities containing the sixteen relics of Osiris, seem to be contemporary. Both of them drop out Koptos and insert Tentyra instead ; both bring in Lykopolis in addition to Kousai ; both drop out Letopolis, which was ousted by Memphis. The nomes up to this stage are shewn in Map ii.

46. The next stage is observable in the Delta nomes, where we can trace twelve of them in regular order (see Map iii), as stated in the lists of later times. i Memphis is at the head of the Delta; from here the western side beyond the river was followed first, ii Letopolis and iii Libya occupying the western border. Then between the western and middle arms of the Nile come iv Prosopis, v Sais, vi Xois, and vii Metelis in order. Down the east of the middle, or Sebennyte, arm come x Athribis and xii Sebennytos. Farther east is the line of xiii Heliopolis, xv Hermopolis, and xvii Pakhnamunis. While along the eastern desert lie xviii Bubastis (the sanctuary of which was the Iseum at Hat-sera) and its subdivision xix the eastern Buto. Thus the whole Delta was divided along five radii, like the sticks of a fan, in regular order down each radius. The total nomes at this point were

i, ii, iii, iv, v, x, xii, xiii, xv, xvii, xviii, xix.

It should be noticed that xii Sebennytos here first appears, and is substituted for the older ix Busiris which was close to it.

The earliest addition to this order seems to have been xvi Mendes, taken out of xv Hermopolis. The relics at Mendes are duplicates of those of older cities, the phallus of Diospolis and the spine of Busiris, both of which occur in the fourteen great relics ; thus marking the secondary position of Mendes by its borrowed sanctity. xix Buto was parted from xviii Bubastis, the nome of Am being divided into inner and outer ; and the eyebrows of Osiris were adopted there, as a trifle hitherto unclaimed. xi Pharbaithos took the ear, leaving only one ear to Sais. vi Xois claimed the fluids, vii Metelis the shoulders, viii Heroopolis the entrails, already allotted to nomes of Upper Egypt. All of these seem to be claims outside of the main relics. The zerti of Metelis is explained by the list of parts of Sokar in Dum. Geog. Ins. II, where zer is stated to be pesed, a part of the back, translated "shoulder" by Brugsch. As burdens are said to be carried on pesed, it denoted the upper part, or shoulders in dual, as zerti. This agrees with the relic of the shoulders appearing between the standards of Sais and Letopolis (Petrie, Abydos, i, 28 d), and with the attribution of the shoulders to the Metelite nome, as I concluded last year (Memphis II, 10).

Last of the additions to the nomes seem to be xiv Tanis which had the dad amulet, and xx Arabia which had an amulet of turquoise, mafkat, probably the left uza eye otherwise attributed to it. These nomes seem to have been formed so late that they could not well claim an actual relic.

We thus complete the standard list of twenty nomes of the Delta (Map iv) as given in the xixth dynasty lists at Abydos, which continued as the religious standard till Ptolemaic times. Probably the actual organizing of this list belonged to the xiith dynasty.

47. Already in the xixth dynasty there was a far closer subdivision in actual use, as seen in hall D at Abydos (Mariette, Abydos, i, 14), which gives thirty instead of twenty nomes in the Delta. Such a list shews the actual condition in the xixth dynasty, while the religious lists of past ages with only twenty nomes, or sixteen or fourteen nomes of the Osiris worship, were perpetuated for ritual purposes down to the end of the kingdom. So sharp a difference between the religious and political lists as early as the xixth dynasty, prepares us to recognise the very early forms of the lists surviving in the late documents for religious purposes.

The Delta in the xixth dynasty (Map v) is represented by the following nomes, the names being on the nome standards in the list of Sety I (Mariette, Abydos, i, 14). See column J in the table pl. vii.

Nome
 
Order
i
Memphis
1
ii
Letopolis
2
iii
lost (Libya)
3
[iv
omitted]
v
Sais
4
vi
Xois
7
vii
Metelis
5
viii
Heroopolis
6
ix
Busiris
8
[x
omitted]
xi
Kabasa
9
xii
Sebennytos
10
iii Ament
11
xv Tekh
12
xiii
    Ati
13
xiv
Khent-abt
14
xiii Heqa-ames
15
vii Khebt
16
    lost
17
xv
Baht
18
xiv Zef
19
iv Ka
20
xv
Hu
21
xvi
Hap
22
vii Khas
23
xi Merti
24
ii Kherkher
25
iv Aq
26
. . . . Ptah
27
. . . of Sety
28
i Pa-mu-ne-pa-pe
29
lost
30


This list is incomplete, as there is no entry of the xviith, xviiith, xixth, or xxth nomes, either in, or out of, order. It seems evident that the ordinary list has been heavily surcharged with new divisions thrust in at random after the xiith, xiiith, xvth, and xvith nomes.

The grounds for the attribution of some of these new names to definite nomes should be stated here. iii Ament and xv Tekh are well-known nome names. xiii Ati: this is broken, and there is only a line of fluid pouring, and two strokes beneath it ; probably it is Ati, the canal of the xiiith nome (de Rouge, Geographie de la Basse-Egypte, p. 82). The two strokes of ti prevent attributing it to deb in the iiird nome (de R. 15). vii Khebt is a name found in the vith nome, but it is more probably the sanctuary of the viith (de R. 40). Baht is the town of the xvth nome (de R. 106); it is not likely to be the canal of the ist (de R. 4) or the port of the vth (de R. 25). Zef is the sanctuary of Haremakhti in the lake of Tanis, xiv (Brugsch, Dict. Geog. 988). Ka is probably Hat-ka-ne-Ra of the ivth nome (de R. 23), or it may be the river of the Saite nome (Brugsch, Dict. Geog. 811). Hu is in the xvth nome, according to another list at Edfu (Dum. Geog. Ins. I, lxvi). Hap is the town in the xvith nome (de R. 113) rather than Hap of the south or north in the ivth or vth nome. Khas is per khas in the viith nome (de R. 38). Merti is in the xith nome (de R. 72, see 67). The two fishes, Kherkher, are the canal of the iind nome. Aq is in the ivth nome (de R. 21). Pa-mu-ne-pa-pe . . , is probably “the waters of Pa-penat,” which was the domain of Bast in the Memphite nome (de R. 5). Pena means a reversal, or change of face, so Pa-penat is probably a sharp bend in the river, and “the waters of Pa-penat” agree to this. Such a bend may be that to west and then to east at Dahshur.

In a supplementary list at Edfu there are four nomes more in xiii Heliopolites, named An, Hotep-hemt, Shen-khebt, and Men-asi. (Dum. Geog. Ins. I, lxvi.)

48. We can now proceed to compare this with the later condition of the Delta (Map vi) as shewn by the Revenue Papyrus, Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, and the coinage of the nomes. We here rearrange the later lists so as to compare them with the ordinary nome lists, thus seeing what subdivisions of the larger nomes were introduced. See columns K, L in the table pl. vii. The city names are here followed.

Abydos
Rev. Pap.
Strabo
Pliny
Ptolemy
Coins
i
Memphis
x
Memphis Memphis Memphis
C
i
Pa-mu-ne-pa-pe
ii
Letopolis
x
Letopolis Letopolis Letouspolis
C
ii
Kherkher
iii
(Amu?) lost
x
Momemphis
Libya
C
iii
Ament
Mareotis Mareia
C
iii
Naucratis Naukratis
C
iii
Alexandreia
C
iii
x
Nitriotis
Nitriotai
iv
Aq
Phthemphu Taoua
C
iv
Ka
Prosopis Prosopis Nikiou
C
v
Sapi-meht
Sais Sais Sais
C
v
Cabasa Kabasa
C
vi
Hermopolis Hermupolis
vi
Ka-khas
Xois Xois
C
vi
 
x
Gynaikopolis Gynaecopolis Andronpolis
C
vii
Nefer-ament
x
Menelaos Menelaus Menelaos
C
vii
Khas
Metelis Metelis
C
vii
Khebt
Ptenethu Buto
C
viii
Nefer-abt
Heroonpolis
viii
Phagroriopolis
ix
Aty
x
Bousiris Busiris Bousiris
C
ix
Kynopolis Cynopolis
x
x
Athribis Athribis Athribis
C
x
x
Leontopolis Leontopolis Leontopolis
C
xi
Ka-heseb
     
xi
Merti
x
Pharbaithos Pharbaethis Pharbaithos
C
xii
Theb-nuter
x
Sebennytos Sebennytus Sebennytos
C
xii
Onuphis Onouphis
C
xiii
Heq-ames
x
Helioupolis Heliopolis Helioupolis
C
xiii
Ati
xiv
Zef
x
Sethroe Sethrois Herakleouspolis
C
xiv
Pelousion
xiv
Khent-abt
x
Tanis Tanis Tanis
C
xv
Tekh
xv
Baht
Panephusis
Neout
xvi
x
Mendesion Mendesium Thmuis
C
xvi
Hap
Diospolis
xvii
Hu
Pakhnumunis
C
xviii
x
Bubastis Bubastis Boubastos
C
xx
x
Arabia
C


The reasons for some of these connexions should be noted. iii. Of all the four later divisions of the nome of Amu, that of Momemphis seems to be nearest to the ancient city of Amu. Naukratis is of course an independent foundation. Ament, the west, agrees best to Mareotis. iv Aq is placed in the northern part of the nome, and so corresponds to Phthemphu or Taoua (de R. 20). vi Hermopolis Parva (Damanhur) and Gynaikopolis were both in the Xoite nome (de R. 27). In the viith nome Khebt was But0 (de K. 43), as was Ptenethu (de R. 37). Khas was Metelis (de R. 38), and therefore apparently Menelaus represents the old name Nefer-ament. viii Nefer-abt was Heroopolis, which does not
appear as a nome in Roman times. Phagroriopolis, the "eel city," was near this (Strabo), and therefore in the old Heroopolite nome. xv Baht was the civil name of the capital, Panephusis, the nome being named Neout (de R. 105-6).

49. The nomes of Upper Egypt are a simpler subject than those of the Delta ; but there are some results which follow from our study of the development of the Delta nomes, and of the successive periods of the lists. The list A of the corn-figures of Osiris was seen to be the earliest in the Delta, as it was framed before the founding of Memphis. So also in Upper Egypt it is the shortest list, only giving four nomes, v Koptos, viii Abydos, xiv Kousai, and xx Herakleopolis. Brugsch's reading of Elephantine instead of Abydos is very unlikely, as Elephantine is always written as the nome Ta-kens in these lists, and not as the town Abu. These four nomes of Upper Egypt, with nine of the Delta, make the primitive thirteen divisions of Egypt before the dynasties. (Map i.)

The list B includes Memphis, and is therefore of the earliest dynasties; in Upper Egypt it includes Elephantine.

Lists C and D appear to be contemporary. Koptos is dropped out and Tentyra substituted. The date of this change may be gathered from Khufu being stated to have founded the temple of Tentyra, and the cemetery there beginning about the end of the iiird dynasty, The xth nome appears, but not in the list of Osiris relics. The nome Atf was split into inner and outer, xiii Lykopolis and xiv Kousai. The Fayum was substituted for Herakleopolis. Thus six nomes go with ten of the Delta to make the sixteen nomes of the members of Osiris, Map ii.

The next stage is that of the various other relics of Osiris, later than the primitive list of sixteen, see Map iii. These were in ii Apollinopolis, iii Eileithyiapolis, v Koptos, vii Diospolis, xi Hypsele, xii Hierakonpolis, and xviii Hipponon. The total of the nomes was thus thirteen in Upper Egypt.

After this came the stage of Map iv, the addition of the divisions which had no relics of Osiris, nomes iv, ix, x, xv, xvi, xvii, xix, xxi, and xxii, making up the full religious list of twenty-two nomes. This was probably the condition during the Middle Kingdom or earlier.

50. At a later date (see Map v) a much closer subdivision of the Nile Valley took place. There were not only three nomes above Thebes, but three more ha princes, at Hierakonpolis, Latopolis, and Hermonthis. In the list on the temple of Ramessu II at Abydos (Mariette, Abydos, ii, 12) there are thirty-six names within the nine upper nomes. And in Ptolemaic times, at Edfu, there is a supplementary list of fourteen extra names within the first eight nomes (Brugsch, Dict. Geog. 708).

Ha Princes
Abydos
xix dynasty
Edfu
Supplement
Coins
Modern Name
x
 i Abu  (nome)
 
Elephantine
   Nubyt  Nubti
Kom Ombo
   Khennu 
 …
 
Silsileh
x
 ii Deb  (nome) 
 x
Edfu
x
   Nekhen   Nekhen
 
Hierakonpolis
x
 iii   …  (nome)  
 
Nekheb, El Kab
   Pemer  Mer-ut
 
Kom Mareh (B.D.G. 1186)
x
   Any   Per-bennu
x
Latopolis, Esneh
   Agni   Akhnet
 
 ?
   Hat-snofru
 …
 
 ?
   Heft  Hef
 
Tuphium ?
 …
 Hasfin
 
Asphynis, Asfun
   Ant   Ro-ant
 
Gebelyn
   Aa-mater 
 …
 
 ?
 iv Zerti
 …
 
Taoud
x
   Ani   Annu-res
x
Erment
x
   Uast   (nome)
Thebes
   Maad 
 
Kom Madu,
Medamot
 v Qesi  Qest
 
Qus
   Nubt 
 …
 
Tukh
x
   Qubti   (nome)
Quft
   Ha-si-ast 
 
 ?
 vi …  Nuterkhet
 
Tentyra (part)
x
   Ant  (nome)
 x
Tentyra
   Nebut 
… 
 
 vii Seshesht  (nome)
 
   Pe-bennu 
… 
 
Tabenna
   Pe-zaza 
… 
 
Diospolis, Hu
 …
 Ateb
 
 ?
 …
 Samhudti
 
Samhud
 viii Gerg (Ram. II)
 …
 
Girgeh
   Abdu   Hat-asar
 
Abydos
x
   Theni   (nome)
 x
Thinis
   Nesh 
 …
 
Menshieh
 ix Apu
 …
 x
Panopolis


These lists unfortunately break off here, and the coins only give Antaiopolis, between the xth and xith nomes, as supplementary to the standard nome list. We see how far more closely the country was divided in the south, after the early times, and probably if we had similar lists for Middle Egypt there would be more than eighty nomes in Upper Egypt, or about 120 nomes including the Delta. Roman Egypt is treated (in Map vi) as it was in the Delta map. The Thebaid, from Hermopolis up, seems to have been regarded as a single division, in the Revenue Papyrus and Strabo. The towns which he names are given in
the table pl. vii as towns, where not stated by other writers as nomes.

51. We now turn to the relics of Osiris, separated into those belonging to the earlier and later nomes, with the numbers of the nomes in the Delta (D) and Upper Egypt (U). (For sources see Dumichen, Geog. Ins. III, i, xliii-liii ; Lanzone, Dict. Mit. 697-702 ; de Rouge, Geog. Basse-Egypte.)

Earlier
Later
viii U
    i D
}head
  xix D  eyebrows
   iv D   eye   xx D  L. eye amulet
    xi D  ear
   v D   ear   
  iii U
ix D
} jaws
   ii D  neck
 xx U   arm  
  viii D  skin?
   vii D  shoulders
  x D   heart    v U  Arteries
 xv D  khu-heart  
xiii U  lungs  
xiv U  liver  
      xi U  stomach
     xii U  intestines
  xviii U
    vi D
}liquids
      vi D  torso
  ix D  spine  xvi D  spine
    vii U
 xvi D
}phallus
xiii D thigh-bone   xii D  shin bones
  vi U
  iii D
}R. leg
    i U  L. leg  xxi U  leg
xviii D leg  


Here it will be seen how the earlier nomes comprise the whole of the body ; while the later nomes only claimed duplicate relics, or parts which were not at first regarded as separate.

The duplication of the head in the earlier nomes is obviously political. Abydos had the head at first, it was "the hill of the head." When Memphis was founded by Menes, the greatest of relics was naturally transferred to the new capital. The confusion of three or four relics of the leg is doubtless due to the foot and leg not being distinguished in hieroglyphs. We should note that the relic of Koptos is called Qeb with the heart determinative ; as qeb means duplication, or arm, it suggests the large arteries of the heart. The relic of Heroopolis was called Tem (de R. 56), and was probably tem, the skin. The beqes or beseq of Busiris is unknown, but the other list gives the spine.

We have now reviewed the nomes, from the simplest list which descended from a time when Memphis was yet unknown, down to the full development under the xixth dynasty, which was continued on to Roman times.

52. The maps here given are solely to illustrate the divisions of the land. The sites which are known are marked with circles, but where the exact spot is unknown the name is put across the district where it is believed to be. We have carefully refrained here from all discussions of precise sites, as that is a very large and intricate subject. The most likely sites have been adopted, in view of de Rouge's discussion and Ptolemy's Geography, but in some cases a doubt still remains about them. For our purpose the precise site is a secondary matter, as we are here only considering the divisions of the land. The lines of river here marked are the present ones, so far as Ptolemy shews them to have been in use in Roman times. Some short necessary connexions have been made in accordance with Ptolemy. The lines not defined by Ptolemy are omitted. Doubtless the courses have all changed to some extent, but we cannot restore them by mere conjecture. The circles of towns are inserted the same throughout the maps, for the sake of identification ; but where no names or numbers are applied to them, we have no evidence that they were nome capitals at the period. For brevity the name of the nome capital is put instead of that of the nome. The Greek names are retained throughout where known, in order to enable the maps to be easily compared together, though of course they are anachronisms in the earlier periods.

53. Regarding the periods assigned to the different maps, they are only approximate, but are stated in order to give a general idea of the age when the divisions were in existence. The actual instances of the isolated mentions of nomes shew that, while Map iii may have been the state at the beginning of the Old Kingdom, some of the other nomes appear during that age. We find between the iiird and vith dynasties-

Delta
ii
(L.D. II, 3 ; M.M.D. 3.)
iii
(L.D. II, 3 ; 34.)
v
(L.D. II, 3.)
vi
?
(L.D. II, 5 ; 27, Khas-ament)
vii
(L.D. II, 3 ; Sebek was worshipped in the Delta in three nomes ; iii and iv were western ; only vii could be eastern as stated.)
viii
(L.D. II, 3.  This nefer nome would appear more likely to be vii, but that seems to be already specified as sebek.)
ix
(Maspero, Etudes Egyptologiques, 248.)
x-xii

(L.D. II, 3, 5 ; Only the bull without distinctions.
Other instances are the bull with heseb(?), xi nome, in M.M.G. e ; and the bull with two feathers in M.M.D. 5, which is otherwise unknown.)

xvi
(L.D. II, 3, 5.)

Upper

iii
(D.G. 3, 17 ; Gebrawi.)
v
??
(M.M.B. 14 ; this may only be Horus.)
x
(M.M.D. II ; Brit. Mus. 1223.)
xii
(D.G. 17, 18 ; Gebrawi.)
xiv
(Ann. Serv. II, 258 ; III, 252.)
xv
(L.D. II, 112 b ; 113, b, c.)
xvi
(L.D. II, 110 h.)
xix
(M.M.A. 2.)
xx
(P. Deshashch, xxix.)



These references are collected in the 1st volume of the Studies, M. A. Murray, Names and Titles of the Old Kingdom.

54. Other indications, which thohgh very imperfect, yet are valuable for their early age, are those given by the carved slate palettes. The earliest of these with standards seems to be that with the towns. This shews as the attacking parties the Hawk, Lion, Scorpion, and two Hawks. The single hawk is probably that of the 2nd nome of Upper Egypt (Edfu) ; the two hawks are certainly the standard of the vth nome (Koptos) ; the lion and scorpion tribes do not seem to have localised their standards later. The next slate in style is that with the bull and enemy, on the top. The standards are two Jackals, Ibis, Hawk, and Min sign ; these represent, in Upper Egypt, the xiiith nome (Asyut), the xvth (Hermopolis), the iind (Edfu), and the ixth (Panopolis). The latest slate is that of Nar-Mer, shewing the Hawk, Hawk, Jackal, and piece of flesh; these represent the iind nome (Edfu), the xviiith (Hibeh), the xiiith (Asyut) or xviith (Kynopolis), and the iind nome of Lower Egypt (Letopolis). We can see thus how the conquering league was extending its resources, first only from Edfu to Koptos, next down to Hermopolis, and by the time of Mena down to Letopolis.

55. In the maps of the Delta here there is marked on No. I B,B, for two places known as Behut, either of which might be the Sam-behud capital of the xviith nome; the eastern is the more probable. Brugsch names also a town Sam-behud which he places at Tell es Semut, here marked S. In the Map i of Upper Egypt will be seen two sites marked S, of Sam-hudet places in the Koptite region. All of these names are certainly prehistoric, as they shew the towns which were “united to Behudet,” the hawk god of Edfu, that is to say the allies of the hawk worshippers in their conquest of Egypt, as the shemsu Hor.

In Map v of the Delta it should be observed how nearly all the new divisions (marked by names here) are in the low lands toward the coast. This points to the coast districts not having been fully occupied in the earlier periods ; thus we see that the expansion of Egypt took effect in the draining and reclaiming of the lower marshes. The extra names were not so much due to a subdivision of government, as to the creation of fresh centres of cultivation.

A general feature is that the nome capitals are usually at the forking of the branches of the river, often close together but parted by the stream. Such are iv and v, ix and xii, xiv and xv, xviii and xx, ii and xiii. This shews that the rivers were the boundaries of nome territories, and that we should not usually expect to find nomes extending across a river. These positions of the river must be ancient, as two capitals would not be placed so near together unless there lay a river between them.

In Map vi of Upper Egypt the Phaturite nome is not placed at Thebes as usual, because Pliny (who alone names it) gives also Hermonthis, Thebes, and Koptos, leaving no room for it in that region. It may perhaps not represent Pa-tu-res, ‘‘the south land,” as a name of the Thebaid, but rather Pa-ta-res, “the fresh or green land,” now Derut where the land is made green by the Bahr Yusaf branching from the Nile.

 

Collection | Topics | Resources | Library | Contact | Home
© Copyright 2001-2006 Michael J. Covili. All rights reserved.