von Lieven, Clockmaker Amenemhet.pdf

RICH and GREAT Studies in Honour of Anthony J. Spalinger on the Occasion of his 70th Feast of Thoth edited by Renata Landgráfová and Jana Mynářová RICH and GREAT Studies in Honour of Anthony J. Spalinger on the Occasion of his 70th Feast of Thoth edited by Renata Landgráfová and Jana Mynářová Charles University in Prague Faculty of Arts 2016 2 The book was published through a non-investment subsidy of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic for the purpose of the development of international cooperation with the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Republic of the Sudan. Reviewed by G. Pieke and B. Vachala Contributors: L. Bareš, M. Bárta, V. G. Callender, F. Coppens, L. Depuydt, T. Dobbin-Bennett, E. Frood, O. Goelet, Jr., C. R. Hamilton, J. Hellum, C. A. Hope, J. Hsieh, D. Kahn, M. I. Khaled, R. Landgráfová, A. von Lieven, E. A. Mackay, J. Malek, M. Megahed, J. Mynářová, H. Navrátilová, A. Niwiński, J. F. Quack, K. Smoláriková, D. Sweeney, K. Szpakowska, M. Verner, H. Vymazalová Cover: Drawing of the image of Amun-nakht in the gateway at Ayn Birbiyeh, Dakhleh Oasis, courtesy of Olaf Kaper; a photo of a statuette of an Asiatic captive, Abusir (Archive of the Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague). Type-setting layout: Agama® poly-grafický ateliér, s.r.o., Praha Print: TISKÁRNA PROTISK, s.r.o. © Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, 2016 ISBN 978-80-7308-668-8 @b Ssp mnx.t. A Feast of Re-Harsomtus of Khadi on Mesore 29 207 The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet ALEXANDRA VON LIEVEN* As Anthony Spalinger has always taken a keen interest in astronomy, calendars and clocks, I hope he will enjoy this fresh look at one of the most amazing sources on this subject – which, moreover, he also once studied (Spalinger 1996) – by an early New Kingdom scholar called Amenemhet who has been rightly termed by Ludwig Borchardt “der erste namentlich nachweisbare Physiker der Alten Welt”. It is well known that the Ancient Egyptians liked to emphasize that they were following a long tradition and that things were done like it had always been in ancient times, in other words – correctly. However, there are also many texts stating that some wonderful achievement of one’s own was so grandiose that the like had never before happened “since the time of Re”. Thus, veneration for the past did not at all prevent pride in useful innovations nor did the positive valuation of innovations lead to a despising of the past (Vernus 1995). Of course, modern scholarship has always been most interested in documents attesting to innovations. All the more amazingly, one of the most outstanding examples for this kind of text fared rather badly upon its discovery, perhaps because its value was only fully recognized when it was already too late. The text in question is the biographic inscription of a certain Amenemhet, who lived at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty. He relates proudly how he invented some technical devices, thus giving his testimony unique value among the hundreds of “biographical” texts preserved from ancient Egypt. The invention described is usually interpreted as concerning the classical Egyptian water clock, which, indeed, happens to be positively attested by archaeological finds just since the 18th Dynasty. Unfortunately, we know next to nothing about the man, Amenemhet. His tomb, TT C. 2 (PM I, 1: 457), was found in February, 1885, by fellahs on the hilltop at Sheikh Abd elQurna in the direction towards el-Asasif, and was already much damaged at the time. Upon discovery, Ernesto Schiaparelli and Wladimir Golenischeff were present and copied the remains of the biographical text independently of each other. Otherwise, they did not take too much trouble with it, which is a great pity, because its location is now lost, and all that remains for the time being is its meagerly published description by Schiaparelli and some more information based on Golenischeff’s unpublished notes. As TT C. 3 has recently been rediscovered,1 there is perhaps a chance also to find this tomb again, but it is doubtful whether anything remains of its decoration. That more destruction occurred is proven by the fact that in 1899 part of the lower ends of cols. 2–5 of the biographical inscription had already been deposited at the Museum in Berlin.2 It had been bought by Dr. Karl August Reinhardt3 in Luxor and inventoried in the Berlin museum under inv. no. 14470.4 On July 6, 1898, before buying it, Reinhardt had already made a squeeze copy which he sent to Berlin. Apparently, this was the usual practice to give the museum the possibility to decide for themselves whether they really wanted a piece or not.5 The relief fragment, which at the time comprised the lower ends of four columns, measured 33.5 cm in width and 19 cm in height according to the museum documentation. No photo of its original state is preserved. Sadly, it fared not much better than the whole tomb. In 1943, during the Second World War, it was evacuated together with many other pieces to Schloß Sophienhof near * This article was written during a Heisenberg Fellowship (Li 1846/1-2) of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), for which I would like to thank them very much. 1 See http://crea.ulb.ac.be/Thebes.html (accessed on 2 October 2013). 2 Borchardt (1920: 60, n. 3, pl. 18; the shape of the fragment is indicated by a contour line). The fact that the fragment comprised scarcely more than two cartouches of Ahmose I and Amenhotep I demonstrates that it was hacked out of the wall by some ignoramus simply keen on making more money with royal names. In reality, just by itself, this is the least interesting part of the inscription imaginable. For having located for me the correct number and providing all the information from the museum inventory quoted here, I would like to thank Jan Moje very much. I also would like to thank the Director of the Ägyptisches Museum, Friederike Seyfried, very much for allowing me to publish the fragment and the documentation pertaining to it. 3 On this person, to whom many acquisitions of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin as well as some others are due, see Köpstein (1994: 18–19, 41, 47; the list of his squeezes of Berlin material with dates: 60), also online under http://edoc.bbaw.de/volltexte/2011/2091/pdf/MittWb3_a.pdf, and especially Köpstein (1996: 13–58), also online under http://edoc.bbaw.de/volltexte/2011/2133/pdf/MittWb5_a.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2013). 4 Not inv. no. 14476 as indicated by Borchardt (14476 is a NK clay vessel showing a mother with a child). Apart from the museum inventory still in existence today, the object featured also in the Accessionsbuch 5 from 1900 and in the documents on acquisitions kept by the Generalverwaltung, Aktenzeichen 149/99. Unfortunately, both these documents burnt in 1945. 5 As the squeezes are often dated to the exact day, it is in principle possible that they could give indications on common provenances. I checked through the material to ascertain which squeezes had been effected the same day, but no other object might have come from the Amenemhet tomb for reasons of content and style. Alexandra von Lieven 208 Waren in Mecklenburg.6 In April, 1945, the castle found itself in the midst of heavy fighting and was apparently blown up on retreat. As a consequence, most of the museum objects perished or were at least heavily damaged by the ensuing fire. The remains were only able to be retrieved in 1947.7 Of the Amenemhet inscription only a small fragment comprising barely more than the utmost end of the tail of the -owl in col. 3 and the cartouche of Ahmose in col. 4 had survived and was noted as still extant on Museum Island in 1972. It was restored in 2002 by Restaurierung am Oberbaum, who also made the photograph published here (fig. 1). Thankfully, however, the squeeze survived the war completely unharmed and is today kept under the squeeze inv. no. 1193 in the archives of the former Wörterbuch-Project, now “Akademienvorhaben Strukturen und Transformationen des Wortschatzes der ägyptischen Sprache” of the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (fig. 2; Köpstein 1994: 60).8 From the squeeze and the remains of the stone relief as well as from the measurements given for its original state in the museum inventory, it is clear that each text column had a width of approximately 7–7.5 cm, with the dividing lines between the columns having a width of approximately 8– 9 mm. Thus, the whole inscription of 16 columns must originally have been approximately 1.30 m long. The maximal length judging from the maximal measurements on the squeeze for the column widths and the dividing lines would be 1.36 m. With a slightly greater margin for insecurity, the original height of the inscription can be extrapolated from the height of the cartouches (11.5 cm for Ahmose and 11.8 cm for Amenhotep) as ca. 1.05–1.10 m. From the note “A queste colonne non dovrebbe mancare molto, supponendo che la tomba avesse una altezza normale” on the upper right hand corner of Schiaparelli’s copy, it is to be inferred that the inFirst dividing line 8 mm Col. 2 7 cm Second dividing line 8 mm Col. 3 7.4 cm lower part 7.6 cm upper part scription ran up more or less to the ceiling of the tomb but that the ceiling itself was not preserved in this part. It does not mean, however, that the inscription started immediately at the bottom. The squeeze clearly indicates a raised framelike line at the lower end. Despite its sorry state of preservation, the fragment is very valuable because it shows that the inscription was carved in high relief in sandstone, which can explain some of the problems Schiaparelli and Golenischeff encountered when trying to copy the text. If worn away, in the worst case, an inscription in high relief does of course not leave any trace of a particular sign. To the naked eye, there are no remains of any paint visible either on the original or on the squeeze, nor were there any noted in the museum inventory. Noteworthy is the material – sandstone. It is also noted in the inventory. Of course, the natural stone in Sheikh Abd el-Qurna and indeed in the whole Theban area is exclusively limestone, not sandstone.9 Thus, it is clear that Amenemhet must have inserted a sandstone wall panelling into his rockcut tomb, the extent of which is unfortunately unclear. Perhaps it covered just one wall, but it could just as well have extended over several or all the walls. This practice is also by no means unique.10 In most cases, however, the panelling was done with limestone. Limestone panelling was, for example, very frequent in the Saqqara necropolis.11 In the tomb of Maya and Meryt at Saqqara, the walls of the three underground chambers were completely covered with carved and painted limestone slabs (Martin – van Dijk – Frazer 2012: 11–12, pl. 99–115, col. pl. 1–2; Martin 1991: 178–183). In the tomb of Ramose only one wall of the burial chamber had a limestone revetment, but here the slabs are undecorated, probably because it was unfinished (Martin et al. 2001: 4 and pl. 3B [D]). In the tomb of Pay and Raia, the original burial chamber was also furnished with an undecorated limestone pan- Third dividing line 8–9 mm Col. 3 7 cm Fourth dividing line 8 mm Col. 5 7.3 cm Fifth dividing line 9 mm According to the documentation, it was kept in Harraß (a wooden box open at the front used for the storage of stone objects) no. 68 and stored in the “Jagdhalle” on wall “c”. 7 For more details on the fate of the evacuated pieces from the Berlin Museum see Anthes (1952: *1*–*4* [after page 186], Sophienhof is discussed on p. *4*). 8 For the permission to study and photograph it and to publish the photograph here, I would very much like to thank them. Special thanks are also due to the keeper of the squeeze archive, Silke Grallert, for providing access to the material. 9 I would like to thank R. Klemm for having discussed the geology of the Theban region with me and thus substantiated my suspicions. 10 The following references were kindly provided by several colleagues either in response to my request for examples of wall panelling on EEF discussion list of October 15, 2013, or in personal communication. I would like to thank all of them very much. 11 The following references to Saqqara are due to J. van Dijk and L. Franke. 6 The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet 209 Fig. 1. The remaining fragment of the inscription in the Ägyptisches Museum Berlin, inv. 14470 (Photo by Restaurierung am Oberbaum 2002, courtesy of Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin/SPK Berlin). Fig. 2. The Reinhardtsqueeze showing the fragment in its original state in 1899 (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Archiv Altägyptisches Wörterbuch, Abklatsch A. 1193, photograph: A. von Lieven, 2013). elling on all four walls (Raven et al. 2005: 19 and pls. 2–3, 12). However, van Dijk writes:12 “These blocks are so roughly shaped that one wonders if they were perhaps merely intended to strengthen the structure of the room rather than to be decorated. Alternatively, they may have been put in by Pay’s son Raia when he usurped this room 12 E-mail of 15 October 2013, to EEF discussion list. for his own burial. The rough shape of the slabs and the liberal amount of plaster used to fill the gaps between them looks more like Ramesside work than the generally much more careful work of the late 18th Dynasty.” A similar technique is to be found in the rock tombs of Amarna, but there only small parts of the walls were pro- 210 vided with inserted slabs, supposedly in places where flint nodules and the like had been removed before (Arp 2012: 15–17).13 In the Theban necropolis itself, there are also several examples to be found.14 The technique was still in use in the Late Period, for example in the 26th Dynasty tomb of Nespaqaishuti (TT 312).15 In most cases limestone, not sandstone, was used for panelling, probably because it could be painted more easily and not just carved. However, there are also a few examples of the latter, which in fact just concern the Theban region. A case at least close to Thebes is the burial chamber of Sobekmose from er-Rizeikat from the reign of Amenhotep III.16 Here however, the panels are not thin slabs like the ones in Saqqara, but heavy, almost square blocks. They were carved in sunken relief. Somewhat similar and well within Thebes is the tomb of Puiemre (TT 39) from the reign of Thutmose III (Davies 1922: 13).17 There, the walls of the burial chamber were covered with thin sandstone slabs and a plaster wash. As the room had thus barely enough space for the sarcophagus, the sandstone slabs were not decorated in this case. As this technique was of course expensive, there even existed a cheap variant. In the Ramesside tombs in Deir elMedina the mediocre quality of the rock sometimes led to a covering of the walls of the rock-cut chamber with a brick wall, which was then covered in stucco and painted (Hoffmann 2004: 67–70 and fig. 88).18 The chapels built in brickwork from the start were sometimes not simply painted, but were also lined with carved limestone slabs. Usually, this kind of enhancement of rock-cut tombs with stone slabs as wall panelling or other built-in elements of either lime- or sandstone is due to the bad quality of the original stone, particularly in view of bearing a relief decoration. Interestingly, in her study on the Theban Necropolis, Friederike Kampp proposed identifying TT C. 2 with a tomb numbered by her as –20–, which is a Middle Kingdom saff tomb reused in the New Kingdom (Kampp 1996: 139, 618, 632–634). Its inner rooms are today inaccessible due to the Alexandra von Lieven amount of rubble, thus one cannot really see the later decoration except for the remains of a kheker-frieze. Apparently, its owner was a “Great One at the head of the populace” Amenemhet. In col. 3 of Amenemhet’s autobiography, the title [...] “Official at the head of [...]” is mentioned, which is quite suggestive in view of the graphic similarity of and if written simply ideographically. According to Kampp, this tomb is carved into very bad conglomerate stone.19 Even if tomb –20– is not TT C. 2, but simply one in its close proximity, this could provide an explanation why Amenemhet would also have panelled at least one wall of his tomb, if not more, with sandstone. Schiaparelli presented the new find at the 8th International Orientalist’s Congress in 1889 (Schiaparelli 1892: 221–208). Amazingly, he did not even bother to record the owner’s name and titles, which are lacking in the inscription. He does however, as already mentioned, give a short description of the tomb.20 There is no indication that it was a reused saff tomb, but in view of the general dearth of useful information given, that does not mean it could not have been one. Apparently, it was originally quite sizable (“ragguardevole”). It possessed two transversal halls and a corridor in between. Of the decoration of the left wall of the first hall and of the ceiling of the corridor almost nothing remained, but of the right wall there were some parts still preserved. These were apparently never finished, as they showed preparatory traces of offering bearers in black and red ink. The decoration of the second hall was slightly better preserved, but Schiaparelli mentions only two subjects which he deemed the most noteworthy. He also does not say in which position on which wall they were, which would be of interest in determining for example how much of the inscription might be lost at either the beginning or the end. One of the two mentioned decorative highlights was a relief “di stupendo lavoro”, showing the seated tomb owner watching a bull fight (“il defunto seduto nell’ atto di assistere ad una lotta di tori”). Nevertheless, he did not copy it, despite his assertion of its supposed uniqueness in Egyptian art. In reality, however, such scenes are not as rare as Schiaparelli thought.21 The other highlight Reference thanks to M. Fitzenreiter. For this information, I would like to thank F. Seyfried. 15 PM I, 387–388, many of the limestone blocks used for the panelling are now in the Metropolitan Museum, the Brooklyn Museum and the Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago (information thanks to W. H. Peck). 16 Hayes (1939: esp. 23–24, 35 with notes 171, 172, pl. I–VI). The sandstone blocks are now in the collections of the Metropolitan Museum in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. A new study by E. Russo is under way (reference thanks to J. van Dijk and E. Russo). 17 Reference thanks to E. Russo. 18 Reference thanks to C.-B. Arnst. 19 “Die Gesteinsschichten, in die das Grab hineingearbeitet wurde, sind ausgesprochen schlecht. Das gilt vor allem für die Innenräume des Grabes, wo es sich hauptsächlich um ein bröseliges, nicht sehr widerstandsfähiges Konglomeratgestein handelt” (Kampp 1996: 643). 20 This description occupies only the first half page of his exposition, and in the following I paraphrase all the information given for the sake of making this tomb better known. 13 14 The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet 211 Fig. 3. Schiaparelli’s printed copy of the inscription (after Actes du 8me congrès international des Orientalistes tenu en 1889 à Stockholm et à Christiania, 4me partie, Leiden 1892: 204–205). was the biographical inscription, which was also executed in relief. This formed the main part of Schiaparelli’s exposition (fig. 3). His copy of it was rather faulty, though, and he himself did not understand it correctly. Thankfully, Golenischeff ’s hand copy was much better, although there is of course no guarantee for its absolute correctness. Apparently, the text was already very much abraded on discovery and thus difficult to read. One can only speculate why Golenischeff himself never published his superior copy. The reason is probably that this would have automatically implied criticism of his friend for his mediocre work, an act from which he politely refrained. However, Golenischeff let Kurt Sethe copy his version in 1910.22 Already in 1898, Sethe had inventoried the Reinhardtsqueezes for the Wörterbuch (Köpstein 1994: 39), and it was probably in the course of this work that with his phenomenal memory for texts he noticed the identification of the small fragment with the text published by Schiaparelli. A copy of the Berlin fragment with its correct inventory number and a seemingly secondary note mentioning the squeeze number, all in Sethe’s characteristic hand, can be found in the Wörterbuch’s Mappenexemplar on sheet 81.23 Sethe pointed the inscription out to Ludwig Borchardt, who then published the current standard edition in printed type in his classic study on Egyptian clocks in 1920 (Borchardt 1920: pl. 18). Thankfully, it is possible to reconstruct A list of attestations is given by Galán (1994: 81–96), see further on this subject Kanawati (1991: 51–58), and Seidlmayer (1999: 73–75). The attestation in TT C. 2 is not mentioned in any of these papers, though. 22 An enquiry in Göttingen, where many of Sethe’s papers are kept, unfortunately could not locate this copy. My thanks for having searched for it go to Heike Behlmer and Waldemar Wolze. 23 Online under DZA 50131610Mappe, see http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/servlet/DzaBrowser. 21 212 the sequence of events quite well, as the relevant letters by Sethe are still preserved in the Borchardt archive kept by the Schweizerisches Institut für Ägyptische Bauforschung und Altertumskunde in Kairo.24 These two letters contain Sethe’s extended – and occasionally rather critical – comments on the proofs of Borchardt’s study on the clocks, a fact to which Borchardt explicitly refers on p. 60 of his book. In the letter from March, on page 3, Sethe comments on the water-clock of Amenhotep III: “Ist Deine Berechnung der Uhr Amenophis’ III. richtig, so kann ich nur auf einen Schluß kommen: die Uhr ist die mechanische Kopie einer älteren Uhr aus der Zeit Amenophis’ I., vielleicht der Uhr, die es damals allein gab, und von der in der Inschrift Actes du 8me congrès int. des Oriental. à Stockholm 1889 (Schiaparelli) die Rede war: ...” While Sethe quotes Schiaparelli as a reference, he clearly does not give his text. While in the second quote from col. 8 there is no difference, in the first quote from col. 16, the text given by Sethe is substantially superior to the one published by Schiaparelli. Without a doubt, Borchardt’s interest must have been roused, which is indicated by the fact that he marked this passage in the margin with red pencil. Apparently he asked Sethe where he had obtained this better text and whether he could give him the complete improved copy. Sethe’s reply to this request is to be found in the second letter from April in a wider discussion of Borchardt’s interpretation of the text: “Ich möchte meine Kopie der Inschrift, d.h. eine Abschrift von einer Kopie Golenischeffs, die offenbar besser ist, als die publizierte von Schiaparelli, nicht gern der Gefahr des Verlorengehens aussetzen; daher schicke ich sie Dir nicht, möchte Dich nun aber doch auf den Text hetzen und will Dir im Folgenden die Abweichungen von G., soweit sie belangreich sind, mitteilen: ...” (fig. 4). He then gives several improved readings and afterwards adds his own tentative translation. From these letters it is clear that Borchardt never saw the actual Golenischeff copy. However, one could also easily gain the impression that he also did not see Sethe’s copy of Golenischeff ’s copy, an impression which is apparently erroneous, for why see below. Apparently, it was intended to include the text of Amenemhet’s biography in Urkunden IV (Urk. IV: 42), but this never came about, probably because Sethe was unable to relocate and collate the inscription. Later, Wolfgang Helck included the complete text in his collection of historical and Alexandra von Lieven biographical inscriptions from the 2nd Intermediate Period and early 18th Dynasty (Helck 1983: 110–112), but his hieroglyphic text is entirely based on Borchardt’s copy, not on any analysis of either Golenischeff’s copy or let alone on the lost original. This is important, as Helck both slightly modifies the text as well as “restores” large parts in brackets, as if there were still remains, yet all of this is entirely conjectural. As the main goal of this paper is to present a new interpretation of Amenemhet’s scientific activities, it seemed imperative to secure the most trustworthy copy of the text available. I therefore asked Christiane Zivie-Coche whether the Golenischeff copy is still extant in the Archives Golenischeff of the Centre Wladimir Golenischeff at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris. Luckily, this is indeed the case.25 The copies from the tomb of Amenemhet occupy pages 452–454 in the respective notebook. On p. 452, there is a drawing of the bull fight (fig. 5). One bull is driven by a man with a stick (the correct position behind the bull’s back is indicated by an arrow) to attack another bull. He throws his opponent down with his horns in a quite dramatic way. On the body of each bull, the colour of his hide is indicated with an abbreviation in Russian. Thus, the aggressive bull to the left was “red”, while the defeated one to the right was “white”, with “grey” patches. To the left, there are notes in Russian, the French translation of which reads “à gauche de cette scène, debout et s’appuyant sur un bâton, le défunt, de taille (relativement) immense. Devant lui, une inscription: ”. And slightly below: “Sheik Abd el Qurna Tombe ”. The next page, 453, because of its position in the notebook, must also refer to the same tomb, despite the lack of any explaining notes (fig. 6). It shows beautiful drawings of two different fishes in a lotus pond in two versions. Apparently, it is a Mormyrus on the left and a Citharinus on the Archiv SIK Sethe_LB 1920_3_19.jpg.pdf and Archiv SIK Sethe_LB 1920_4_12.jpg.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2014). Scans of Sethe’s letters of 19 March and 12 April 1920, with the permission to use and publish the relevant information were most generously provided by Cornelius von Pilgrim, for which I would like to thank him very much. 25 I would like to thank Christiane Zivie-Coche very much for the possibility of publishing these precious documents here for the first time. I am also very grateful for her to have arranged for a Franco-Russian colleague to translate the Russian notes to the text and pictures. 24 The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet Fig. 4a. Excerpt from Sethe’s letter to Borchardt of April 12, 1920 (Archiv SIK Sethe_LB 1920_4_12.jpg.pdf, page 3, Schweizerisches Institut für Ägyptische Bauforschung und Altertumskunde in Kairo, courtesy C. von Pilgrim). Fig. 4b. Excerpt from Sethe’s letter to Borchardt of April 12, 1920 (Archiv SIK Sethe_LB 1920_4_12.jpg.pdf, page 4, Schweizerisches Institut für Ägyptische Bauforschung und Altertumskunde in Kairo, courtesy C. von Pilgrim). 213 214 Fig. 5. The bull fight, Golenischeff notebook p. 452 (Archives Golenischeff, EPHE, Centre Wladimir Golenischeff ). Alexandra von Lieven The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet Fig. 6. Fishes in the river, Golenischeff notebook p. 453 (Archives Golenischeff, EPHE, Centre Wladimir Golenischeff ). 215 216 Alexandra von Lieven Fig. 7. The biographical inscription and some more fishes, Golenischeff notebook p. 454 (Archives Golenischeff, EPHE, Centre Wladimir Golenischeff ). The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet right.26 Between and slightly above them, there is a lotus flower, and a lotus leaf is shown behind and again slightly above the Citharinus’s tail fin. Apparently, Golenischeff tried to do his very best in conveying their forms. Thus, he drew the Mormyrus, whose snout he had already drawn (again, an arrow makes their identity clear) beforehand, and lightly sketched the Citharinus and the lotus also, despite the fact that he had already drawn them in perfect shape above. The fishes also continue in the lower part of p. 454 (fig. 7). Again, they are surrounded by two lotus leaves, a bud and an open flower. One fish swims to the right, another one to the left; moreover, there is a rough sketch of a lone tail fin to the far right. By comparing the shape to the tail of the Mormyrus on p. 453, it becomes clear that Golenischeff intended to indicate by this that the two fishes here were the left hand continuation of those on the other sheet, 453. The fully drawn fish to the right on p. 454 is a Tetrodon fahaqa, the one to the left is a Lates niloticus. The way the animals are copied suggests that originally they were shown in a long stretch of water, one after the other. The original context of their representation probably involved the tomb owner being shown in a boat gliding on a thin body of water inhabited by them. He might have been hunting birds with a throwstick. A very similar scene is the hunt in the marshes in the tomb of Menna (TT 69), where the waters are full of lotus flowers, fishes, ducks and even a crocodile (MaherTaha 2002: pls. LX–LXVIII). Menna and his family are shown symmetrically hunting birds and fish. This type of scene is of course very common in 18th Dynasty tombs, although not always with such a wealth of life within the waters. Above the fishes on p. 454, there is the copy of the autobiographical inscription. The way it is copied could suggest that its upper part was preserved and its lower part was partly damaged, but a line of annotations makes clear that this is a wrong impression: “unten Ende der Inschrift” (and in relation to the undulating line separating the hieroglyphic text from the copy of the fish scene) “diese Linie ist horizontal und gerade, also es fehlt also oben recht viel von den Inschriften cf. die Länge der drei letzten Vertikalzeilen.” Interestingly, these text lines are, indeed, not written in Russian, as are the rest of the annotations, but in German. The most likely explanation for this is that they were added in 217 1910 as an explanation for Sethe, when Golenischeff lent him the copy for his studies. In fact, above the German text, to the left of the line, there is a short note in Russian, saying “end of the inscription”. This had clearly already been put there in 1885 by Golenischeff for his own use. To the right, at a 90° angle, there is again a note on the provenance of the inscription in Russian: “Sheikh Abd el-Qurna tomb again the title ”. Only thanks to Golenischeff do we know the name and titles of the tomb owner at all. Borchardt already quotes them in his study, although only in translation: “Fürst und Führer des königlichen Siegels”, Amenemhet.27 The Golenischeff papers now also give the hieroglyphs and thus the full form of the title “Prince and count, royal sealbearer”. Clearly, Amenemhet was among the highest-ranking court officials of his time, a fact that should not be overlooked in view of his popular Egyptological nickname as “the clockmaker”. As Golenischeff’s copy was effected in front of the original and is thus closest to it, it should henceforth form the basis of any work with the text. It is nevertheless striking how close Borchardt’s printed copy is to this unpublished hand copy, even in minor aspects which were not mentioned in Sethe’s letter.28 It is therefore clear that Borchardt must have enquired further into the issue, probably meeting with Sethe in person to see his copy. However, this is a matter to investigate for those wishing to study the history of Egyptology. The present paper contents itself with finally publishing the Golenischeff copy itself. In the following pages, the text is now to be investigated anew in detail on the basis of the archaeological and epigraphical data gathered so far. In 1920, the text was not only published and studied in detail by Borchardt in the already quoted monograph in view of the question of clocks and time-keeping (Borchardt 1920: 60–63), but also shortly mentioned by Sethe himself in published form (Sethe 1920: 114–115 with n. 3). The former’s treatment has ever since been very influential, while the latter’s observations were usually not cited any more. I will return to the details shortly. Helmut Brunner in the mid-1950’s was only interested in the historical information mentioning Mitanni in the beginning (Brunner 1956: 323– 327), but did not discuss the clock part. Lutz Popko also mainly treats the text as a document of historiography.29 For identification, the plates in Gamer-Wallert (1970) were used. Borchardt points on p. 60, n. 4 to a paper of his (Borchardt 1890), where indeed the title is discussed. On p. 92 of this article, Borchardt discusses the “frequent” title sequence , thus one could already have guessed that these were also Amenemhet’s titles. The presence of the , however, would not have been known without the Golenischeff copy (in fact, one would then have expected Borchardt to write “Fürst und Graf, Führer des königlichen Siegels”). 28 Most noteworthy is the strange “angle” or “hook”-shaped trace in col. 1. I also collated the other columns and found several other instances which make the conclusion inevitable that Borchardt eventually did get to see and meticulously copy Sethe’s copy of the Golenischeff copy. 29 Popko 2006: 179–185, 322. He gives a complete translation of the text which heavily relies on Helck’s version and sadly does not deal with any of the particularly tricky philological points. 26 27 218 Within the last decades, the text has again received some attention from the point of view of the history of science by Ludolf von Mackensen and Marshall Clagett, although the latter basically only paraphrases Schiaparelli’s account of the discovery and Borchardt’s study in English, adding some further free “restorations” to the translation (Mackensen 1978: 13–18; Clagett 1995: 457–462). Anthony Spalinger has considered the changes in time keeping methods in the early 18th Dynasty and proposed that the naming of Mitanni together with the water clock might be taken as an indication that it was taken over from the Near East by the Egyptians (Spalinger 1996: 67–77, esp. 70–73). In the chapter on water clocks in his still unpublished Habilitation thesis on the decans, Joachim Quack comments on some important details which will be discussed below in extenso.30 A full translation and grammatical analysis was recently given by Michel Dessoudeix in a collection of New Kingdom inscriptions intended as a reading book for students learning Egyptian.31 The all-important question is, of course, what is Amenemhet actually talking about? As stated above, since Borchardt, the text has customarily been understood to describe the invention of the classical Egyptian water clock.32 Such a clock consists of a vessel with a scale inside giving the time and an opening from which the water can flow out. So far, this fits well with parts of Amenemhet’s description. But then, there is a major problem. Of the ten columns supposedly speaking about this clock, five describe deities moving around and doing something. Usually, this is thought to describe the outside decoration of the water clock. Now it is true that preserved water clocks are normally decorated, but they are decorated with either the Classical Sky Picture33 or with simple offering scenes. The supposed “decoration” described by Amenemhet is nowhere attested. Also, it is a bit strange that the decoration should occupy so much space and the rest of the construction so little, even if one takes into account that about half of the text is lost in the many lacunae. There is, however, a solution to this problem, which is not even a new idea. The solution is that the deities described are not a graven decoration on the outside of the Alexandra von Lieven water clock, but that they are actual moving figures, thus adding a mechanical element to the clock. This was in principle already clearly seen by Sethe in 1920 both in print34 as well as in his letter to Borchardt.35 His argument for this view in the published treatise was the fact that the text describes movements of the gods with their arms as well as their going up and down. In the letter, there is nothing but the question in the margin. Yet, Borchardt rejected this idea, because in his opinion, Egyptian mechanics was not up to such a task: “Die altägyptische Mechanik scheint mir aber für die Herstellung von Kunstuhren denn doch noch nicht entwickelt genug gewesen zu sein” (Borchardt 1920: 62 with n. 3). Instead, he proposed that it was all just relief decoration, despite the obvious problems with this view. One argument was the speeches of the deities, which in his opinion would speak in favour of a description of a simple picture with accompanying inscriptions. Therefore, and would here not mean “going up” and “going down”, but rather “Entgegenkommen und Mitgehen” in relation to the main figure. However, while “coming forward towards” might be possible for , a meaning “to accompany” for seems extremely unlikely in view of other uses of the word. Yet, Borchardt’s opinion has remained the accepted explanation until recently. Only Quack in his comments on the Amenemhet inscription returned to the idea of actual moving figures. Quack’s first, iconographic argument concerns the difference in decoration of actual water clocks from the description, a fact already noted by his predecessors. However, he goes much deeper with his second argument, which is philological. In particular, he notes the verbal form “then she descends”, which is indeed crucial to demonstrate beyond doubt that a sequence of events, not a static picture is described. Indeed, the grammatical use of a -form is a much more potent argument than Sethe’s lexical argument concerning the verb alone was. Taking both together, however, the conclusion that a real movement must be described is inevitable. In fact, while Sethe did not explicitly voice it, he clearly also translates this verb form in his letter as a consequence “Dann stieg sie herab”. Quack 2002: excursus to chapter 1.2.3.3. I would like to thank him for the possibility to quote from his study in advance. Dessoudeix 2010: 207, 209–220. He gives each text a degree of difficulty on a scale of five stars. Amenemhet gets three. The present writer cannot but feel that Dessoudeix might have somewhat underestimated the challenge. 32 Devauchelle 1986: 1156–1157. 33 I.e. scenes of the type of the famous vaulted ceiling from the tomb of Seti I. The designation was coined by Quack (“Klassisches Himmelsbild”) in his quoted study and seems to me a very adequate designation in view of the long history of tradition of this type of picture, for which see Neugebauer – Parker 1969: 9, fig. 1 (oldest attestation), pls. 1–5, 7–13, 15–16, 18–22, 25–28. Pls. 2, 22 actually show water clocks decorated with this type of picture. 34 Sethe 1919: 115, n. 3. 35 In the April letter, page 4, next to the translation of the relevant passages, there is a note crammed into the margin at a 90° angle to the rest of the letter, saying “Beschreibung eines Uhrwerks?”. 30 31 The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet 36 Popko avoids the problem by simply reading “ ”, “an die <Nase> seiner Majestät der vor ihr niederkniet, während [sie] geht (?)” (Popko 2006: 182–183). He refrains from giving any explanation for his translation. Yet, the verb is never attested with the meaning “to kneel down”. Moreover, even if such a translation was possible, surely the act of reverence should happen * “in front of ”, not “in the vicinity of ” the goddess. In terms of sense, it also seems not too plausible to kneel in front of somebody while that other person is just rushing away. Note that really means “to hasten”, not simply “to walk” or the like, as Popko’s “geht” would seem to suggest. His translation attempt therefore needs to be discarded on several counts. Dessoudeix, who takes great care to present his readers with grammatical explanations for each sentence, clearly was also uncomfortable with the -form, as he must have been fully aware of the interpretative consequences. He tries to solve the problem by instead reading 14/ 37 [participe accompli; progressif “ séquentiel] qui est descendue près d’elle sans s’arrêter 14/” (Dessoudeix 2010: 218). However, this analysis and translation is obviously grammatically impossible – for example, where does the negation “sans” come from? Besides, the meaning of the sentence would not become easier to be reconciled with a graven decoration, even if Dessoudeix’ translation were philologically sound. Thus, there is no way but to accept the -form for what it is, which necessarily implies that some actual movement is described, as seen by Sethe and Quack. In contrast to Sethe,38 Quack does not give a complete translation of the text, though, nor does either of the two provide an explanation of how it would have worked. Nevertheless, Quack’s answer to Borchardt’s objection regarding the supposedly insufficient state of Egyptian mechanics is worth quoting: “Derartige Argumente sind grundsätzlich 219 ohne sonderlichen Wert – wer hätte z.B. vor der Entschlüsselung des Mechanismus von Antekythera den Griechen derart komplexe Zahnradgetriebe zugetraut?”39 This is a very fitting answer to Borchardt’s argument, which was basically ex silentio, i.e. taking the apparent absence of evidence as evidence for the absence of advanced mechanics in New Kingdom Egypt. However, the question of how it is supposed to have worked is nevertheless a vital one. It is basically this question to which the present paper is supposed to give an answer. Therefore, a new look at this fascinating text as a whole seems to be in order:40 (1) […........................................]41 42 […........................................], Mitanni. It is called “[...]”. The enemies It is a great pity that neither Schiaparelli nor Golenischeff noted the exact placement of the inscription on the respective tomb wall or whether there was any space before or after the columns copied by them which could originally have contained more text than preserved on discovery in 1885. In the unfortunately much damaged beginning, Amenemhet apparently related some political event, mentioning several geographical names including Mitanni and possibly a royal military campaign there. Brunner had already noted the fact that this was actually the first time Mitanni was ever mentioned in any Egyptian text (Brunner 1956: 323–327). While he clearly states that the text presented a chronological sequence, Helck had a completely different reconstruction to offer.43 Instead of associating the Mitanni episode with Ahmose, he thought that the beginning was an introduction set in the time of Thutmose I: “[Im Jahr X Thutmosis’ I., als er zurückkam aus dem] Fremdland, das Mitanni genannt Sic, despite the clear presence of the in Borchardt’s copy. Sic, where this ayin is supposed to come from remains unclear, in the hieroglyphs he restores the walking legs determinative D 54 at the beginning of col. 14. It is most likely just a typo. 38 Actually, Sethe’s translation in the letter also starts only with col. 4. 39 Textually, of course, mechanical devices are well attested from antiquity, see e.g. Amedick 2003: 9–47. 40 The following translation is based on the hieroglyphic text as given by Golenischeff. The comments on the translation by Borchardt 1920: 60–63 are also taken into account. For the first six lines, Brunner 1956: 324 proposed some restorations, which are all very plausible in view of the remains and the phraseology to be expected from an autobiography. Therefore, I have followed them here as well. Later on, however, I have rather refrained from restoring any lost words, as this part of the text is so unique that one cannot argue with any “normal” phraseology. 41 The first preserved sign is the determinative . Usually this is interpreted as an explanation of the following name Mitanni as a “foreign country”. In view of the continuation (see n. 42), it is by no means to be excluded that the determinative is in fact the end of the name of another country or other geographical designation and not the simple word . 42 It is “text-critically” fascinating to see what a “career” the trace at the beginning of the lacuna made through the different modern copies of Borchardt’s indirect copy of Golenischeff ’s copy. On Golenischeff ’s original drawing it is clear that this is not a sign per se, but rather a vague attempt at conveying some abraded contours. It was possibly the determinative to be expected after the name Mitanni. After that, there follows a lacuna which probably terminates with another foreigncountry determinative. At any rate, it now becomes clear that one cannot simply translate it as “a foreign country, which is called Mitanni”, but that the name by which Mitanni is called is actually lost completely in the lacuna. 43 Helck 1969: 281–327, the relevant part on p. 302. 36 37 Alexandra von Lieven 220 wird, wobei der Feind [........ Es gelangte der König nach] Theben und es zog S.M. herauf aus diesem Fremdland, nachdem er es (d.h. die ‘Vernichtung’) getan hatte als Vergeltung für das Böse, [das sie gegen Ägypten getan hatten o.ä.]”. Needless to say, this reconstruction is not corroborated by any evidence. However, Borchardt had already stated that Amenemhet lived under Ahmose I, Amenhotep I and Thutmose I, although the text mentions only the former two. He extrapolated Thutmose I from the simple fact that Amenhotep I is twice called , which is often – although erroneously – thought to denote that somebody is already deceased.44 However, in this case it fits well with the statement in col. 5 that Amenemhet lived 21 years under Amenhotep I, who is known to have reigned for 20 years and 7 months according to Manetho. It is true that a biography should follow a chronological order. However, this part could have been just a frame for the actual biography starting only in col. 4. One wonders about the function, though, and why a detailed account of the historical-political situation45 under the current king should be given. What to make of this supposed beginning in the framework of a biography of the early New Kingdom? Despite its unquestionable originality, it is still to be expected that it followed the conventions of the time at least in its most basic structures. If Brunner (and implicitly already Borchardt) was right in restoring in col. 4, this would have been the beginning of the autobiography strictly speaking, with an appeal to the living. Sethe also had this restoration in mind. And indeed the remains of the text from col. 3 onwards would fit this very well. The most likely explanation for the preceding story about Mitanni is that it is part of the background of the speaker. This could imply that perhaps Amenemhet’s father had risen in rank due to some major feat accomplished during Ahmose’s military campaign there. In the contemporary biography of Ahmose, son of Ibana, there is a similar frame and the actual biography also starts by mentioning the father’s role within the army, which the son inherited.46 This inscription, by the way, also covers more than just one wall, a possibility, that should also not be excluded for Amenemhet – and might simply have been overlooked by Schiaparelli and Golenischeff. (2) […........................................]47 48 […........................................]. The reproach(?)49 of his majesty in (i.e. against) this foreign country, he did it in retribution for the wrong[s(?)] (3) […....................................... […........................................ great] in his office, important in his rank, an official at the forefront (4) […........................................]. […........................................]. earth, I completed 10 years under king (Nebpehtetre)| As already mentioned, Sethe, Borchardt and Brunner restored “those on earth”, making this an appeal to the living. Helck went even further and restores half the text in the first columns. While some of it sounds plausible in view of the usual phraseology, it is still mere conjecture, wherefore I refrain from following it here. Just as an alternative possibility, it can at least not be excluded that the plural ending here could have belonged to a completely different word than what previous scholars thought. The only secure information in this column is that Amenemhet spent 10 years under Ahmose I. As Ahmose reigned much longer than that, it is clear that Amenemhet must have been born in his reign and was 10 years old when Amenhotep I succeeded his father as king. To the contrary, whether the information on the high rank in col. 3 already concerns himself (if the continuation contained an appeal to the living) or still concerns his father (if the frame was constructed similar to the one in the biography of Ahmose, son of Ibana), is entirely open to debate. This is later the line of argument Brunner (1956: 323–327) uses to date Amenemhet’s lifetime. For the historical background in the Near East at the time see e.g. Astour 1972: 102–109. He cites the text on p. 104 after information from Helck. 46 Urk. IV: 1–11, especially relevant here is the introduction mentioning his titles and his success in general as well as the part on his youth, which starts by mentioning the father (Urk. IV: 1–2). 47 Schiaparelli indicates at the beginning a vertical sign with a forked lower end which looks like the lower part of a -sceptre with a damaged top part. After that, he shows the city determinative. This was taken over by Borchardt and subsequent authors who always read “Thebes”. Golenischeff, however, does not give even the slightest trace of a -sceptre, only a very clear city determinative. In conjunction with the fact that the text is still concerned with the military activity abroad, it seems best to drop the reading “Thebes” here and be content with the fact that some city was mentioned in the beginning. 48 The lost continuation of the word would of course have already stood at the beginning of the next column. 44 45 49 Among the different possibilities, the orthography indicates the meaning “to reproach, to blame”. The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet Note that here as well as in col. 5 the writing for the year plus the respective number are written retrograde, a feature that is lacking in both Schiaparelli’s copy as well as in the published version by Borchardt. It is, however, noteworthy, and as it occurs twice, it is clearly the lectio difficilior to be taken seriously, not a mere blunder by Golenischeff. Its significance unfortunately eludes me. (5) […........................................ […........................................ I [comp]leted 21 years under the Horus Who curbs the lands, the lord of the two lands (Djeserkare)|. As Amenhotep always gets a after his name when the cartouche happens to not sit at the bottom of a column, it is also to be expected after Ahmose’s name. The remaining space in col. 5 was likely taken up by a statement that he was a child in this phase. Then he grew into a youth and, as the ruler meanwhile changed, he states that he lived altogether another 21 years under Amenhotep I. This means of course that he actually survived this king. His time under Thutmose I is never mentioned anywhere in the preserved text, which must raise doubts about its completeness at the end. Instead, the text now moves on to a more detailed account of the years under Amenhotep. (6) […........................................ […............................................] the first [ti]me of (my) praise by (lit. with) the Majesty of the King of Upper- and Lower Egypt (Djeserkare)| There is probably a year date or a statement of his age at the time, which was lost in the lacuna. At any rate, Amenemhet was now old enough to make a career and distinguish himself by his exploits. This is where the part on his scientific work starts in col. 6, running unto col. 16. Sadly, up to col. 13, more than half of each column is missing entirely, and for the last three columns, there is still considerable damage, which can only partially be restored. Note in particular that this is the first time of praise – and another one is never mentioned, a further argument against the completeness of the text. (7) […........................................] […........................................…] (I) studied(?) by reading in all writings of the god’s words. 50 Therefore, left out by earlier translators. 221 The word at the beginning is problematic.50 Because of the -sign, a reading “to enter, to traverse” seems possible, although this word should rather be determined with the walking-legs determinative (D 54) instead of the book roll (Y 1). However, no alternative reading suggests itself, and it is, therefore, likely that the word is here used in a figurative meaning of “studying” or the like, which would explain the determinative. For words like “enter” and “swallow”, such figurative meanings are well attested, thus it seems at least a plausible solution to assume a similar use here as well. It certainly would suit the context – by extensive reading in the priestly writings, Amenemhet realized an important fact, which he then explains in detail. (8) […........................................] […........................................…] 14, while the night in Summer consists of 12 hours (9) […........................................] […........................................…] month by month, mutilation month by month Columns 8–9 seem to contain an elaboration on his findings with the help of studying the scholarly writings. How could Amenemhet discover that the length of the night was different during different times of the year by studying texts? Of course, he could simply have found a note to that effect already in the books, but then it would be somewhat strange that he should pride himself so much on it. Rather, he must have come to this realization by himself and probably for the first time. This has of course the implication that the writings he studied were some sort of astronomical diary, which clearly noted when the night started and when it ended on a specific day and surely also which stars and constellations were to be seen at which time. Such diaries are known to have existed in Mesopotamia and there is no reason why they should not also have existed in Egypt. In fact, it would be rather astonishing if they had not existed. Without such diaries, it would for example have been impossible to calculate the rising of Sirius in advance, as is known to have already been done in the Middle Kingdom (Borchardt 1899: 89–103; Luft 1992: 54–57). Only by watching the heavenly phenomena for a long time and by noting down their movements could such calculations be effected. The same holds true for the realization that the planets sometimes move backwards, as indicated for Mars in 222 the Classical Sky Picture.51 Thus, the existence of astronomical diaries and similar notes within the temple libraries must also be assumed for ancient Egypt. It was such texts from which Amenemhet likely gathered his information on the length of the nights during the course of a year. As they were the special knowledge of priest-scholars, it is understandable why Amenemhet would have called them “writings of the god’s words”, in other words, sacred texts. (10) […........................................ […........................................…] (I) [represent]ed(?) the movements of Re, the leader of the hour priests(?), by their52 speech(?). The presentation Unfortunately, of the first partially preserved sign in this column only traces remain. It could have been the book-roll . The obscure sign group behind Re was left untranslated by Sethe,53 but is interpreted by Borchardt with some question marks as “und des Mondes (??)”. Consequently, Helck presents it in his edition as without any question marks. This is taken over by Popko and Dessoudeix, although Popko himself mentions the fact that no writing of the moon god with a star is attested (Popko 2006: 180 with note 89). Dessoudeix moreover reads instead of (Schiaparelli has ) and restores in the beginning, thus arriving at a translation “J’ai observé les mouvements de Râ et de Iâh dans leur conjonction”. While this particular reading might sound very seductive, and the restoration of a form of a verb determined with the book-roll Y1 is indeed the best possibility to make sense of the beginning, it needs to be kept in mind that the TLA54 collocation analysis does not give a single other example for with the sense of “at the conjunction”. Of course, this interpretation further depends on the reading “moon” as well, which is orthographically clearly to be rejected. Unfortunately, taking the problematic group as makes things much easier than they actually are. In Golenischeff ’s copy of the text, only the square sign on the right is presented as damaged. The sky, as well as the star, is shown without any damage. This is identically shown also by Schiaparelli, who, however, also has an undamaged sitting man Alexandra von Lieven with hand-to-mouth (A2) instead of the square. The star is not even disputed by Helck. But if it is correct, the word cannot be read as , as the name of the moon or moon god is never written with the star. If it is determined with something else other than the divine determinative, it is for good reason always a disk or crescent, never a star. This also holds true for the secure attestation of “moon” here in col. 16 (there interestingly not treated as a divine name, but just as a normal noun). Only the word “month” can be written with the crescent above and a star below, probably because the concept of month included both the idea of the lunar month as well as the idea of decanal ten-day intervals. At any rate, the reading “moon” here is clearly to be rejected, and the reading “month” does not make any sense in the context, besides not being determined either with a seated god or any other square object. Moreover, the Golenischeff copy shows a clear distinction between the lunar crescent, attested several times in this text, and the sky hieroglyph present here. The least problematic way is probably to take the signs simply at face value: “leader of the hour priests”, determined indeed with the seated man as Schiaparelli indicated (but probably without hand-to-mouth). If Golenischeff ’s copy is to be taken seriously in its proportions, it is indeed the man A1 or A2, not the slightly taller seated god A40, which is to be restored in the damaged part. Between the star and the man, a above stroke might have been lost entirely – which is the way the word “hour” is written in col. 8. As the word for hour is usually written identically to the word for hour-priests, except for the person determinative in the latter case, this reading would fit the remains well. The complete group would thus likely have been . Unfortunately, this title is otherwise never attested for Re. Thus, the reading proposed here tentatively is still likely to be wrong. Indeed, this column is the one which remains the most problematic (also in relation to the discussed below). If the tomb is ever rediscovered, this is the part in direct need of collation. However, one fact is nevertheless secure, namely that the reading as “moon” favoured up to now is definitely not possible, unless the published copies got the traces (particularly the star sign) completely wrong. For the sign , compare the form above in col. 7. While the reading there seems almost inevitable, it should Neugebauer – Parker 1969: esp. 179, 181. The fact that the Classical Sky Picture only states this for Mars, although it would be true for the other planets as well, indicates that despite its long history of attestation, this composition reflects the situation during its original composition, which was frozen in time during its transmission. For more on its history, see Quack 2002. 52 Dual. 53 He did, however, also interpret the as referring to sun and moon. 54 http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/index.html (accessed on 13 October 2014). 51 The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet be noted that the sign from both Schiaparelli’s printed version as well as Golenischeff ’s hand copy is clearly , not . Here in col. 10, Golenischeff apparently copies the same sign, while Schiaparelli has . A reading as is not likely from either form. Because of the following book roll, a reading as is more likely than , unless of course the sign in reality showed something different of simply a vaguely similar shape. Due to the loss of almost two thirds of the column, it remains unclear to whom the dual suffix refers. Up to now, it was always understood as referring to the sun and moon. As shown above, the moon is not mentioned in the whole preserved part of the inscription except once in col. 16. Thus, it is by no means secure that the sun is meant either. Rather, it will be seen in col. 14 that more than one goddess is also involved, and one of them according to col. 12 is Nekhbet. The logical pairing would be with Wadjet, which would perfectly explain the dual form here. The final word in the column here should be a noun derived from the verb “to extend (the arm), to present”, as already seen by earlier scholars. Probably something like “the presentation of the ankh happens like this:” is to be restored, as in the following columns, the moving deities are described in detail. If this interpretation is correct, it would be a bit strange if Amenemhet had still been talking about his discovery and then had moved abruptly to the deities interacting with each other. It seems more likely that the sense is something like “I represented the movements of Re, the leader of the hour priests, by their speech (i.e. dialogue)”. “Representation” in this interpretation would not mean a two-dimensional graven image as hitherto thought, but rather three-dimensional, moving figures. “Their dialogue ( )” would not mean actual words, but rather the interaction of the divine figures by the action of presenting and receiving the ankh and was symbols as described in the following columns. Such an interpretation would tie in well with the fact that the gods seemingly were always imagined as saying something of relevance. How else would it be explainable that the name tags next to divine figures in e.g. any Egyptian temple relief are not just *NN but rather “Words spoken by NN”? Another intriguing possibility would be that would here not to be translated as “their speech”, but rather “their noise”, a use well-enough attested as well. In that case, the clock might even have indicated the hours with a sound, 55 223 not unlike certain modern ones – and indeed already Hellenistic clocks. Unfortunately, as there is no further hint in that direction, this must remain open.55 (11) […........................................…] e[q]ual [...]g in front of him, ankh and was in her hand as it befits(?). As stated above, the sign used for always looked rather like up to now . Here, to the contrary, Golenischeff presents a sign which looks much more like . He was apparently himself puzzled by this and thus drew it another time with more detail in the inter columnium between cols. 10 and 11, adding a little “sic”. Schiaparelli completely leaves out this sign. Sethe, in his letter of April 12, 1920, copies the form as given by Golenischeff and adds in brackets “lies ”. Strangely, Borchardt did not follow him in this and put instead a clear into his hieroglyphic text. He also translates it as “Rede”. However, Sethe was certainly correct. Actually, the sign in question looks very much like the in in col.14 and the lower end of the one in in col. 15. Here, even more of it is preserved, except the curled upper part. Thus, instead of an enigmatic reference to a deity speaking, it is the grammatical ending of a feminine pseudo participle, most likely a stative. Apparently, the goddess paused in front of the figure of Re. A restoration “[her(?)] e[q]ual, [who is standin]g in front of him” would fit the available space quite well. Unfortunately, it has to remain open whether the sentence really ends with “as it befits” or whether it would have continued, thus calling rather for a translation “as it is the rule [for ...]”. (12) […........................................… […........................................… R]e, when [he] moves close to Nekhbet. She goes opposite Re on The traces secure a restitution of the name Re, but the continuation causes trouble. Borchardt wanted to read it as “Re gibt [es] der (Mondgöttin) Nechbet”, but aside from the fact that Nekhbet is not a lunar goddess, to give something to someone would need to be constructed with the preposition , not with . If anything, Re could “give” him- If a moving figure made its way past a rattling device, it is at least easily imaginable how a tinkling sound or the like could have been produced without much extra effort. Even less sophisticated and thus likelier, the goddesses might have worn metal bracelets which made a noise when they lifted their arms to present “life” and “wellbeing” to the figure of Re, as described in col. 13. Alexandra von Lieven 224 self into the vicinity of Nekhbet, i.e. move closer to her. The lost word would then be the reflexive pronoun , and, depending on the construction of the whole sentence, most likely also the suffix before. The size of the lost space in Golenischeff ’s copy would fit this restoration. For the translation of the see the commentary on col. 13. (13) […........................................…] […........................................…] which is in her hand to the nose of his majesty. Then she descends on two(?) strings The present column is the most crucial of the whole text for understanding how the mechanics worked. Borchardt translates as “Sie geht herab (d.h. auf ihn zu), indem sie ....”. Now, first of all, as Quack has already noted, there is no way that a simply describes a static picture. It is typically a verb form denoting a progressive action, an action that results in some desired effect. Thus, it is e.g. the typical verb form in procedure texts like medical or mathematical treatises, which advise the reader “and then you should do X”. Secondly, for Borchardt (and previously Sethe), the here and similarly in col. 12 seemed to be part of the verbal form and to denote that the agent is in the course of doing something. However, it is relevant that in both cases another verb, namely a verb of movement, already precedes the . Of course, the goddess in each case could move while doing something, but grammatically, nothing speaks against the interpretation that she instead could move above or on something, thus taking the not as part of a circumstantial expression but as a simple preposition. Unfortunately, in col. 12 the continuation is lost, as that is the end of the column, and the beginning of col. 13 is entirely lost as well. However, the end of col. 13 with the second instance is not. There, the is followed by the word . Borchardt did not translate the group . Indeed, there are not many words which would fit these signs. Helck apparently thought the best match for a type of movement to be “hasten”, although no determinative ascertaining this interpretation is preserved. Sethe had already thought in this direction, but only postulates so in brackets and with a question mark: “Dann stieg sie herab, indem sie (vorübereilte?).” Helck to the contrary unflinchingly “restored” the walking-legs determinative at the beginning of col. 14, although this is entirely based on the a priori interpretation of the word as “hasten”, not on any evidence. He is followed 56 Cf. Gardiner 1957: 537: “In hieroglyphic in this by Popko and Dessoudeix. Indeed one has to wonder what sense “hasten” should make here. If it was the description of a graven image, how would it look? Goddesses are not normally shown in a running position, making this interpretation rather unlikely. There is, however, another possibility if one accepts that this is not a description of a static depiction, but rather the description of a mechanical clock with moving figures, as Sethe and Quack thought. If one is to accept this interpretation, it even solves the thorny question of how the mechanics would have worked. The solution is the rare word “string, cord”, otherwise only attested in the Old and Middle Kingdoms. In the copy of the inscription, there is of course no -ending. One possibility is that the copy of the inscription is faulty. Another possibility is that the word could already have lost its -ending by the beginning of the New Kingdom. The seeming would make good sense if it actually were the rope determinative Gardiner sign list V 1 . In fact, all other definitive -signs in this inscription are written with the quail chick G 43 and never with the “small ” Z 7 derived from hieratic.56 The two strokes could be a dual ending or even a number 2. Unfortunately, a bit of uncertainty remains. Still, translating this as “she moves on a/two string/s” would all of a sudden explain the secret of the mechanics. Two strings would even give better sense in view of the fact that the figures are not only said to simply move forward, but also to extend their arms to offer another figure something (presumably the life sign mentioned earlier) to his nose. Of course, a translation as “hasten” would also fit a mechanical piece better than a graven image. However, the fact that in cols. 12 and 13 the verbs of motion are twice combined with a following would make good sense if indeed both times the movement by (“on”) strings was mentioned. In col. 14, it is missing because by then it was self-evident how the mechanics worked. The principle seems not too complicated even for ancient Egypt in ca. 1530 BC. Thankfully, there is even some archaeological proof for this assumption, although admittedly most examples are not as sophisticated as the device described here. Yet, the oldest datable proof for mechanical figures from Egypt is even about 400 years older than Amenemhet. Already in the Middle Kingdom, the Egyptians actually did delight in moving mechanical devices, and the movement was effected – by pulling strings! Proof for this is the famous group of dancing dwarves from Lisht.57 It consisted of a base, into which three carved ivory figures were inserted, showing does not really become common until the reign of Akhenaten.” The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet a dwarf with bent legs and upward reaching bent arms. This is clearly supposed to show a dancing posture. Each figure had a spool at its lower part, which was hidden inside the base. There were channels inside the base in which the strings originally attached to each spool would have been hidden. By pulling at them, the dwarves would have rotated, performing their “dance”. The whole device was originally even more complex, probably being inserted into a wooden frame which had rotted away. At least that is suggested by the fact that there was a fourth figure, the base of which also seems to show holes on the photo in the publication. This base is square, and it does not have a place in the ivory base of the other three figures, although it clearly also belongs to the general ensemble. That it had a special position is not too surprising, though, as it also shows a different hand position – here the arms are not raised, but the hands are joined in front of the chest in a way that suggests clapping. The likely idea is that this figure was supposed to be the leader of the dancing troupe.58 Moreover, there indeed exist several other examples for figures with movable parts, which could have been worked via strings. There is for example a wooden figure showing a servant grinding grain. The figure as such is quite rough, but the string-operated mechanism which moved the upper body and the arms simultaneously is simple but effective.59 While these are cases of human figures with moving parts similar to those described by Amenemhet, there are also a number of animal figures of this type. A beautiful ivory dog, which stylistically is likely to be dated to the late 18th Dynasty,60 has a mouth which can be opened with a handle. Apparently, there is an additional hole in the nape, for which it has been proposed that there might have been a string attached to regulate the opening of the mouth. Supposedly, the mouth was modified shortly after production. The tail is missing today and the publication only indicates that it was made separately and inserted. It might perhaps be useful to study this piece again in view of its original mechanics. Perhaps originally the tail could also wag? 225 A somewhat similar figure of a frog or toad with a movable lower jaw can be moved just by a string, which exits through the animal’s head. It is also dated to the New Kingdom, although here I find the dating stylistically much more difficult.61 Like some of the other high quality pieces it is also carved from ivory. The catalogue entry mentions “other examples of animals with moving parts”, unfortunately without giving any details. A wooden cat with a movable mouth as well as a clay mouse with movable tail are cited in particular, but without giving any further information as to the date, provenance, details of the mechanics, current whereabouts or even simply mere literature. The cat and mouse, at least, seem to be the ones in the British Museum.62 Supposedly, a monkey with movable arms, again from ivory, was also found in the tomb of Tutankhamun, but provenance and use are problematic.63 Most importantly, Nicholas Reeves has recently in a series of lectures in America drawn attention to the wooden female statuette, New York MMA 58.36.64 According to his findings, this is a naked figure which shields her genitals from view with her right hand. The left arm probably once covered the breasts as well. However, the arms, of which the right one is still preserved, could be made to lift and thus reveal her private parts by pulling a string attached to an axle inserted into the body. It linked the two arms, the pulling string descended via a small channel through her left foot. This figure thus illustrates perfectly how one would need to imagine how the mechanism of Amenemhet’s goddesses with moving arms would have worked. Interestingly, Reeves presents compelling evidence that the Metropolitan Museum figurine also had a religious background of sorts, as the figure’s movements suggest Hathor. This piece has been dated by C14 dating to a time between the 22nd and 25th Dynasties, which also fits stylistically. In his commentary, Reeves was able to adduce many more examples of figures with movable body parts, particularly of humans, but also of animals, some of which have already been mentioned here. His study is now the best source of Lansing – Hayes 1934: 4–41, the dwarves are described on pp. 30–36 with figs. 28, 31–33. For a remarkably similar ivory figure of a dwarf with a different hand position see BM EA 58409 (for this and the following objects from the British Museum, photos and essential information are available under http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx [accessed on 3 October 2014]). It also clearly exhibits a base to be fit into a socle, however, it lacks a hole, and the base is also not round, but square. 59 Leiden inv. no. I 492, Brunner-Traut 1987: 94, figs. 27–28, http://www.rmo.nl/collectie/zoeken?object=AH+84 (accessed on 3 October 2014). 60 MMA, Rogers Fund, 1940 (40.2.1), see Arnold (ed.) 2010: 92, no. 100. The proposal that it could be a magical object originating from the tomb of Amenhotep III seems a bit daring, though. 61 Cairo CG 68182, Hornung – Bryan (eds.): 2002, 157, no. 71. 62 BM EA 15671 (cat), Brunner-Traut 1987: 94, fig. 27 e, BM EA 65512 (mouse). 63 Cairo JE 62068, no. 1218 of the Tutankhamun Collection, index card no. 620(13)2. However, it seems to have been only added to the index in 1956 (see http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/tutankhamundiscovery.html [accessed on 2 October 2013]) and there is no photo. A photo supposedly showing it can be seen under http://www.egyking.info/2012/03/toy-monkey-from-tomb-of-tutankhamun.html (accessed on 2 October 2013), but the correctness of the information could not be verified (the present writer has some stylistic reservations about the piece illustrated in said photo). 64 Reeves 2015: 42–61. I would like to thank N. Reeves very much for having sent me his manuscript in advance. 57 58 Alexandra von Lieven 226 information on this type of Egyptian “automata” and should definitely prove what Ancient Egyptian mechanics actually was capable of. Something very similar to New York MMA 58.36 is likely behind the moving deities of Amenemhet, only that here they seem to have performed not only such movements as presenting symbols with their arms, but also descended (and ascended, see col. 14) as a whole within a given space, apparently also via a pair of strings. (14) [Re is] rejoicing when he sees these goddesses going up and down in front of him. I made a Merkhet counted (i.e. precise) in the year. It seemed beautiful to the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, (Djeserkare)|, vindicated. (15) [It was cou]nted in view of each of [its] seasons. Never before had something like it been made since the primeval time of the land. I made this august measuring vessel in the favour [of ] the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, (Djeserkare)|, vindicated, parted into half Borchardt restores the last sentence of col. 14 and the beginning of col. 15 as the following “Sie war für den ... König ... schöner [als alles andere. Sie war richtig (?)] zu jeder Jahreszeit.” Accordingly, in Helck’s hieroglyphic edition, the beginning of col. 15 is given as . While the end is certainly correct in view of the traces given by Golenischeff/Borchardt,65 how is supposed to fit into the tiny gap above remains a mystery. Even the alternative in its shortest possible orthography would seem slightly crammed, although it is of course difficult to assess how big the damaged part in the beginning of the column really was. At least the note to the length of the last three columns by Golenischeff gives the impression that only very little of these columns had been lost. The same is also shown by Schiaparelli. Thus, the likely missing part is just . Instead of a lengthy comparative, there was only a matter-of-fact statement that the king liked the device. After all, there is a comparative just following which emphasizes the novelty of the object, rendering another comparative superfluous. From this, it is possible to also restore the beginning of col. 14. Owing to the available space, the sense and the syn- 65 tax, the restoration of end) is virtually secure. (written as in col. 12 at the (16) [and th]ird(?). [It was correct] when entering Summer, during Harvest, in the phases of the moon, who arrives at his hour, each hour according to its day. The water comes out via one pipe. This column is still mostly concerned with the correctness of the clock. Unfortunately, the beginning is again destroyed. Borchardt wanted to restore “geteilt in Halb [und Drittel. Es war richtig (?)] beim Eintreten in die Erntejahreszeit, in die Winterjahreszeit”, noting “Ein r, das man zu ‚Drittel‘ ergänzen könnte, ist in Zeile 16 oben erhalten”. His restoration would of course make good sense. The necessary other signs would also perfectly fill the space deducible from Golenischeff’s copy. At any rate, it is quite obvious that this part of the text points back at the findings related in cols. 8–9. The time periods and are here apparently not understood as two of the three classic seasons of Egypt, but following Quack in the sense of “Summer and Winter” as two halves of the year. At the end, the waterspout is mentioned. As the copies of Schiaparelli and Borchardt end here, this seems to be the end of the text, but this is far from sure (see below). If the inscription was not as destroyed as it is, it might be easier to understand. Yet it is still possible to get a glimpse of the underlying principle. It is worthwhile now to look again at the whole description of Amenemhet’s engineering exploits to get a better understanding. All relevant information about the actual construction is highlighted: (6) […............................................] the first [ti]me I was praised by (lit. with) the Majesty of the King of Upper- and Lower Egypt (Djeserkare)| (7) […........................................…] (I) studied(?) by reading in all writings of the god’s words. (8) […........................................…] 14, while the night in Summer consists of 12 hours (9) […........................................…] month by month, mutilation (i.e. decrease of length) month by month (10) […........................................…] (I) [represent]ed(?) the movements of Re, the leader of the hour priests(?), by their speech(?). The presentation The first small stroke is the lower part of the high , the second is the lower end of the reed-leaf for |, the slightly rounded vertical sign at the end is the lower part of the -sign. is almost completely preserved except for the upper end and The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet (11) […........................................… her(?)] e[q]ual, [who is standin]g(?) in front of him, ankh and was in her hand as it befits. (12) […........................................… R]e, when [he] moves close to Nekhbet. She goes opposite Re on (13) […........................................…] which is in her hand to the nose of His Majesty. Then she descends on two(?) strings (14) [Re is] rejoicing when he sees these goddesses going up and down in front of him. I made a Merkhet counted (i.e. precise) in the year. It seemed beautiful to the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, (Djeserkare)|, vindicated. (15) [It was cou]nted in view of each of [its] seasons. Never before had something like that been made since the primeval time of the land. I made this august measuring vessel in the favour [of ] the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, (Djeserkare)|, vindicated, parted into half (16) [and th]ird(?). [It was counted (i.e. correct)] when entering Summer, during Harvest, in the phases of the moon, who arrives at his hour, each hour according to its day. The water comes out via one pipe. Taking seriously what the text says, it seems that there was a figure of Re moving horizontally, probably in a circle, as would befit the sun. The circular base might have been inscribed with the words supposedly spoken by the deities. During this circular movement, the figure of Re would have drawn nearer to other figures, who represented goddesses. There were at least two of them, one of which is identified as Nekhbet. The logical assumption if there had been two would of course be that the other one would have been Wadjet. They could have stood for the two geographical parts of Egypt and similarly for north and south. As the sun moves during a day from the east to the west via the south, drawing near to Nekhbet in the south would fit well. Of course, the sun is never to be seen in the north, so this could have been the start and end point of the movement, where Re would not have actually moved through. At the same time, it could have been thought to be the place were Re stayed invisible during the night. This view could explain why in Taharka’s temple at the Sacred Lake the praise to the setting sun is on the north wall of room D and why similarly on the ceilings in the tombs of Ramesses VI and Shoshenk III, the Book of the Night can be shown on the north side instead of the west (von Lieven 2007: 21–24). Similarly, in the Demotic commentary on the Fundamentals of the Course of the Stars in pCarlsberg 1, the figure of the goddess whose behind is in the east and whose head is in the west is herself declared to be the northern sky (von Lieven 2007: 47, 373 [§ 0], pl. 8). If she swallowed the sun in the evening and he traversed her body during the night, 227 this is logical, as he had already been in the three other cardinal directions all day long. Of course, it is not clear whether there were just two or even more goddesses. For example, the goddesses of the hours would also be imaginable. However, an argument against the latter possibility would be that they had been at least 12 in number, thus the mechanism would have been very complicated to operate and the space on the device would have been very crowded as well. Moreover, the dual “their (two) speeches” in col. 10 corroborates the assumption that there were only two goddesses and Nekhbet is explicitly mentioned by name in col. 12. At any rate, it seems that the goddesses moved in a vertical direction, as the text speaks about their going upwards and downwards. While could indeed also just mean “to go forth” in a linear direction, as Borchardt assumed, for a descent seems the most plausible explanation, as seen by Sethe. At any rate, it is clear that these goddesses themselves moved from one place to another. But that is not all, they also – or at least one of them – paused in front of another figure and extended her arm, offering the ankh sign in her hand to the nose of “his majesty”, i.e. either Re or yet another figure representing the king. Perhaps the former is more plausible, but the latter cannot be excluded. All these movements were apparently effected by having the figures mounted on some operable support – the preposition is preserved twice, once in connection with the likely word for strings that would have to be pulled. The final question is what all of this has to do with the water clock usually understood to be described here. Moreover, Amenemhet uses two different words to refer to the objects he made. One is , which can also be used as the name for a corn measure. Its form is indicated by its determinative and it clearly means the water container of a water clock. This part is later said to have a tube ( ) for letting the water flow out. The metal determinative suggests that this tube was made of metal, although apparently Borchardt thought this determinative would simply derive from a similar word used for the melting pot. The other word used is , literally “means to know”. This word is commonly understood to denote rather the shadow clock and not a water clock. Borchardt circumvented this problem by stating “so dass man versucht ist, einfach mit ‚Uhr‘ zu übersetzen”. While that sounds elegant, it is still a bit troubling in view of the fact that the word is otherwise always attested with a different specific meaning. Apparently, in Amenemhet’s inscription, it was determined with a sign showing a horizontal line and an up- Alexandra von Lieven 228 ward protrusion to the right side, which was copied by Golenischeff and Schiaparelli as the arm . Normally, the word is determined with or similar forms.66 A sign form like could very well have been misunderstood as the arm, particularly in view of the fact that it was apparently already slightly damaged. As said, normally, a Merkhet is a shadow clock and thus clearly different from a water clock. Accordingly, Anthony Spalinger has already stated that the text cannot only mention a water clock, but that two different types of clocks were made by Amenemhet. Joachim Quack even proposes that Amenemhet constructed three different objects: the mechanical clock with the moving figures, the Merkhet and the water clock. His main argument apart from the obviously different terms used is the text-linguistic marker used both to introduce the Merkhet as well as the water clock. Moreover, he says, the statement “Never before had something like that been made ...” at the end of the description of the Merkhet is a typical closing remark in a text like this. While these observations are all certainly valid, there remains a little problem which Quack brushed a bit too quickly aside, namely the fact that the water clock is introduced as “this august measuring vessel”. Now, the use of the demonstrative implies that the object in question should already have been introduced before. Sethe clearly realized the importance, doubly underlining the pronoun “dieses herrliche Maß”. As stated, it cannot possibly be the same thing as the Merkhet. The fact that, moreover, it is called “august” further implies that it was splendid in one or the other way. A reason for this could be its correctness in view of the different time intervals mentioned in col. 16. This must recall the statement in cols. 8–9 about Amenemhet’s findings on the different lengths of the nights in different seasons. This fact is mentioned just at the beginning as the starting point for all his constructions, yet it would not stand in any direct relation to the mechanical clock if three completely different constructions were being described. This is all the more worrying as Borchardt already correctly saw that the 14:12 ratio mentioned in the beginning is corroborated by actual preserved Egyptian water clocks. Why should Amenemhet have mentioned a decisive element for the correct construction of a water clock, then moved on to describe two other completely unrelated clocks and finally returned to the water clock? The only possible way to reconcile this feature with the equally valid observations by Spalinger and Quack that in- 66 Some examples in Borchardt 1920: 52–53. deed different types of clocks are involved is to assume that Amenemhet did not invent any of the simple clock types, but actually built a sort of super-clock including elements of different already existing clock types amalgamated with each other. In fact, Quack has already proposed that Amenemhet did not invent the water clock from scratch, but just ameliorated and further developed it. Thus, the text should be reconstructed as follows: first, Amenemhet talked about his studies in the scholarly literature of the priests, which led him to the realization concerning the length of the night during different seasons. He then started to construct his clock, which should represent all his findings, including the movements of the gods. It consisted of the vessel of a water clock, the round form of which implied at the same time the circular “movements of Re”. As the god moved along it, it was also inscribed with “their words”, namely the speeches by the two goddesses Nekhbet and presumably Wadjet. Then he went on to describe “the presentation”, namely of the ankh and was by the goddesses to Re. In this part he described the different figures of deities and their movements with the help of strings. The upward and downward movements of the goddesses would also nicely fit with the idea that these figures were somehow connected to a water clock, because it opens the possibility that Amenemhet was even exploiting basic hydraulic principles. With the outflowing water and the help of some weights, a figure could have descended, while another figure somehow linked to it would have ascended. The link could have been effected either again by strings attached to the two figures or, alternatively, the outflowing water could have been caught in another vessel, in which then the water table would have risen, taking upwards with it any figures floating inside. Another, non-hydraulic way this up-and-down movement could have been effected would of course have been simply with weights attached to the strings. After this wonder of engineering had been described in terms of the figures, Amenemhet describes the Merkhet and the water clock. In both cases, what is emphasized is their correctness, a fact especially stressed in connection to the shadow clock, for which it is stated that this was never before achieved. Otherwise, they are not described in much detail, which clearly indicates that neither of the two as such was a novelty in this period. As the Merkhet is mentioned before the vessel of the water clock is referred to again as “this august vessel”, we must assume that the shadow clock was also somehow a part of this super clock. As the loss of at least half of the description has deprived us of the exact details of the construction, this must remain conjectural. Thus, it is The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet impossible to know whether, for example, the ensemble was designed in such a way that the mechanical figures would have come to life when the shadow of the Merkhet had fallen on them at a significant moment. In view of the possible use of weights to effect the upward and downward movement of the goddesses, it might also be worthwhile to keep in mind that the hieroglyph for usually also comprises a little weight attached to the instrument, which might not be coincidental here. Perhaps the Merkhet was simply used to calibrate the water clock and thus underlined the spectacle of its amazing correctness. A text attested several times on actual preserved water clocks shows that they were intended to be used when observation of the decans was not possible because of a cloudy sky.67 Therefore, the idea to link both techniques of timekeeping – via the sun as well as via water – in a single instrument is less eccentric than it might seem at first. In view of his pride in correctness, Amenemhet’s motivation for this might thus well have been that the two types of clocks should have controlled and affirmed each other. Nevertheless, this part is still the most difficult to make sense of in the context in which it occurs. The text ends with the statement that the water vessel had one tube for outflowing water. The fact that the text explicitly says “one tube”, not just “a tube” led Borchardt to assume that earlier attempts at producing water clocks would have had several spouts of different sizes. However, I cannot help but feel that somehow the text ends very abruptly. Therefore, I wonder whether it would originally have continued. Maybe not even the sentence mentioning the tube is complete, despite its appearance. A continuation could already have been destroyed in 1885. As said before, it might not even have been on the same wall, but on an adjacent wall, thus maybe not noted by Schiaparelli and Golenischeff. Another possible explanation for the complete disappearance of a potential continuation is furnished by the discovery detailed above that the inscription was not carved directly into the rock into which the tomb was built but onto a wall panelling consisting of sandstone slabs. This also is the most likely explanation for the loss of the upper part of the first 13 columns. The interesting question in case the tomb should ever be rediscovered is of course whether those missing slabs were stolen or whether they just fell to the ground, their inscribed faces downwards. If so, there would even be a chance of recovering the lost two thirds. At any 229 rate, the maximal length of the inscription calculated above of ca. 1.30 m at the utmost, rather less, seems relatively short for a text spanning one complete wall, especially in a tomb said to have been “spacious”. Of course, there could have been other, unrelated texts or pictures adjacent to it on the same wall, but considering the fact that by its very material this wall was highlighted as a focus of attention, it seems likely that it was completely covered by the autobiography which explains how Amenemhet reached such a high status. But the clearest indication for the assumption that something is missing is the fact that the construction of the clock was presented as the first instance of receiving favour with the king. If something is the first instance, then that necessarily calls for at least a second instance, which, however, is never narrated.68 As the subject of the clock is never changed in the whole text as it stands, it is unlikely that this second time was mentioned in the lost upper half of the inscription as it was copied in 1885. Moreover, as this part is preserved, it also cannot have concerned either the Merkhet or the water clock. Therefore, the logical assumption would be that the text originally continued with at least one other feat for which Amenemhet was honoured by the king. Whether this would have been as spectacular as the construction of the clock is another matter, though. If this hypothesis is correct, that means of course that one should refrain from reading too much into this last statement about the single spout. On the other hand, while can indeed mean “single, unique”, it can also be constructed in a pairing together with “another”. Thus, the text could theoretically have gone on to describe a hydraulic mechanism, mentioning “one pipe” from which the water flows ( ) somewhere, and another, from which it would have flown elsewhere (note that the movement of the goddesses was also indicated by the opposite pair and ). Any more speculation on the details is of course futile in view of the preserved text. To sum up, it could be demonstrated that the autobiography of Amenemhet, usually understood to relate the invention of the water clock, is actually much more complex and interesting. Surely, this is not the normal type of water clock as is preserved in stone in several examples.69 Rather, it is in part a mechanical clock with divine figures moving on strings and lifting their arms to present symbols of life to another figure. Yet, there is also a shadow clock and a water clock mentioned, and the description seems to imply a link between the moving figures and the water clock. The Examples of this standard text are already cited in Borchardt 1920: 8–9. The “favour” in col. 15 is clearly connected with the “this august vessel”, thus it must also refer back to the first instance of favour mentioned in col. 6, which was already linked to the water clock’s vessel. 69 In fact, there is no compelling reason why the entire vessel could not have consisted of metal, as clearly the spout did. 67 68 230 likely explanation is that the outflowing water had a role to play in getting the figures to move. Thus Amenemhet not only made important discoveries about the length of the night and managed to construct a more accurate shadow and water clock accordingly, but he also perfected the use of strings in mechanical devices attested already from the Middle Kingdom, and he likely used some simple hydraulics as well. More than a millennium after Amenemhet, Heron of Alexandria also devised automata, some of which still used strings among other things.70 He experimented with hydraulics, as well. Interestingly, in his introduction to the Pneumatikon, he notes that to him this seemed to be a logical continuation of his work on water clocks in four books.71 Sadly, of the latter, there is almost nothing preserved.72 In fact, a closer study of the Hellenistic writers on the subject might help to understand some of the features of Amenemhet’s text better. In this respect, it is useful to compare the recent findings of Anette Schomburg on the history of water clocks from Ancient Egypt via Heron and Philon of Byzantium until the medieval Arab tradition.73 Heron and Philon, of course, were Hellenistic Greeks, so their scientific exploits do not cause much astonishment in modern scholarship. To the contrary, Amenemhet was an Egyptian of the early New Kingdom, who are commonly assumed not to have had much advanced scientific knowledge or mechanic abilities. In view of Amenemhet’s biography, this view likely needs to be revised a bit. Rather, it seems, he was a worthy forerunner of the famous Alexandrians. BIBLIOGRAPHY AMEDICK, R. (2003) “Wasserspiele, Uhren und Automaten mit Figuren in der Antike”, in: K. Grubmüller – M. Stock (eds.), Automaten in Kunst und Literatur des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit [Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien 17], Wiesbaden, 9–47. ANTHES, R. (1952) “Über das Ägyptische Museum zu Berlin während der Jahre 1939/1950”, ZDMG 102, 1–4. ARNOLD, D. (ed.) (2010) Falken, Katzen, Krokodile: Tiere im Alten Ägypten, Zürich. Alexandra von Lieven ARP, J. (2012) Die Nekropole als Figuration. Zur Methodik der sozialen Interpretation der Felsfassadengräber von Amarna [Göttinger Orientforschungen IV 50], Wiesbaden. ASTOUR, M. (1972) “Hattušiliš, Halab, and Hanigalbat”, JNES 31, 102–109. ˘ ˘ ˘ BORCHARDT, L. (1890) “Ein Rechnungsbuch des königlichen Hofes aus dem Ende des Mittleren Reiches”, ZÄS 28, 65–103. (1899) “Der zweite Papyrusfund von Kahun und die zeitliche Festlegung des mittleren Reiches der ägyptischen Geschichte”, ZÄS 37, 89–103. (1920) Die Altägyptische Zeitmessung, Berlin – Leipzig. BRUNNER, H. (1956) “Mitanni in einem ägyptischen Text vor oder um 1500”, MIO IV/3, 323–327. BRUNNER-TRAUT, E. (1987) Die Alten Ägypter. Verborgenes Leben unter Pharaonen, Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln – Mainz am Rhein (4th edition). CLAGETT, M. (1995) Ancient Egyptian Science, II. Calendars, Clocks, and Astronomy [Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 214], Philadelphia. DESSOUDEIX, M. (2010) Lettres Égyptiennes. La naissance du Nouvel Empire de Kamosis à Thoutmosis II, Arles. DEVAUCHELLE, D. (1986) “Wasseruhr”, in: LÄ VI, 1156–1157. GALÁN, J. M. (1994) “Bullfight Scenes in Ancient Egyptian Tombs”, JEA 80, 81– 96. GAMER-WALLERT, I. (1970) Fische und Fischkulte im Alten Ägypten [Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 21], Wiesbaden. GARIS DAVIES, N. DE (1922) The Tomb of Puyemrê at Thebes I [Robb de Peyster Tytus Memorial Series 2], New York. GARDINER, A. H. (1957) Egyptian Grammar, Oxford (3rd edition). HAYES, W. C. (1939) The Burial Chamber of the Treasurer Sobk-mosĕ from er Rizeik.āt [The Metropolitan Museum of Art Papers 9], New York. See e.g. the interesting description of figures dancing in the round via strings in Pneumatikon I 16–17 (Schmidt 1899: 392 – 397). Schmidt 1899: 2–3. 72 Schmidt 1899: 456–457. 73 Schomberg 2010. I would very much like to thank A. Schomberg for having provided me access to her study in advance of official publication and for having discussed the issue of mechanical clocks with me. Of particular interest is the clock description by al-Gazarî (1206) quoted by her (p. 294, n. 1554 in the PhD version) which combines a clepsydra similar in form to the Ancient Egyptian ones with a swimmer indicating time. The figure on the swimmer furthermore comprised a spool (quoting Wiedemann – Hauser 1915: 1–272, esp. 136 [non vidi]). 70 71 The Movement of Time. News from the “Clockmaker” Amenemhet HELCK, W. (1969) “Überlegungen zur Geschichte der 18. Dynastie”, OA 8, 281–327. (1983) Historisch-biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie [Kleine ägyptische Texte 6,1], Wiesbaden (2nd edition). HOFMANN, E. (2004) Bilder im Wandel. Die Kunst der ramessidischen Privatgräber [Theben XVII], Mainz am Rhein. HORNUNG, E. – BRYAN, B. M. (eds.) (2002) The Quest for Immortality. Treasures of Ancient Egypt, Munich – London – New York. KAMPP, F. (1996) Die thebanische Nekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie, 2. Teil [Theben XIII], Mainz am Rhein. KANAWATI, N. (1991) “Bullfighting in Ancient Egypt”, BACE 2, 51–58. KÖPSTEIN, S. (1994) Das Abklatscharchiv beim Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache 1 [Mitteilungen Wörterbuch der ägyptische Sprache 3], Berlin. (1996) Das Abklatscharchiv beim Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache 2 [Mitteilungen Wörterbuch der ägyptische Sprache 5], Berlin. LANSING, A. – HAYES, W. C. (1934) “The Egyptian Expedition. The Excavations at Lisht Part 2: The Egyptian Expedition 1933-1934”, BMMA 29, 4–41. LIEVEN, A. von (2007) Grundriß des Laufes der Sterne. Das sogenannte Nutbuch [The Carlsberg Papyri 8, CNIP 31], Copenhagen. LUFT, U. (1992) Die chronologische Fixierung des ägyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun [Veröffentlichungen der Ägyptischen Kommission 2], Wien. MACKENSEN, L. von (1978) “Neue Ergebnisse zur ägyptischen Zeitmessung. Die Inbetriebnahme und Berechnung der ältesten erhaltenen Wasseruhr”, Alte Uhren 1, 13–18. MAHER-TAHA, M. (2002) Le tombeau de Menna [TT. No 69], Le Caire. MARTIN, G. T. (1991) The Hidden Tombs of Memphis, London. MARTIN, G. T. et al. (2001) The Tombs of Three Memphite Officials. Ramose, Khay and Pabes [EES Excavation Memoir 66], London. MARTIN, G. T. – VAN DIJK, J. – FRAZER, K. J. (2012) The Tomb of Maya and Merit I. The Reliefs, Inscriptions and Commentary [EES Excavation Memoir 99], London. 231 NEUGEBAUER, O. – PARKER, R. A. (1969) Egyptian Astronomical Texts III [Brown Egyptological Studies 3, 5–6], Providence – London. POPKO, L. (2006) Untersuchungen zur Geschichtsschreibung der Ahmosiden- und Thutmosidenzeit [Wahrnehmungen und Spuren Altägyptens. Kulturgeschichtliche Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 2], Würzburg. QUACK, J. F. (2002) Beiträge zu den ägyptischen Dekanen und ihrer Rezeption in der griechisch-römischen Welt, Habilitation thesis, Berlin. RAVEN, M. J. et al. (2005) The Tomb of Pay and Raia at Saqqara [EES Excavation Memoir 74], Leiden – London. REEVES, N. (2015) “A Rare Mechanical Figure from Ancient Egypt”, MMJ 50, 42–61. SCHIAPARELLI, E. (1892) “Di un’iscrizione inedita del regno di Amenofi I.”, in: Actes du 8me congrès international des Orientalistes tenu en 1889 à Stockholm et à Christiania, 4me partie, Leiden, 201–208. SCHMIDT, W. (1899) Heronis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt omnia I Pneumatica et Automata. Herons von Alexandria Druckwerke und Automatentheater Griechisch und Deutsch, Leipzig. SCHOMBERG, A. (2010) Von hellenistischer Innovation zu arabischer Tradition. Studien zur antiken Wassertechnik, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Göttingen. SEIDLMAYER, S. J. (1999) “Kämpfende Stiere. Autorität und Rivalität unter pharaonischen Eliten”, Gegenworte 4, 73–75. SETHE, K. (1920) “Die Zeitrechnung der alten Aegypter im Verhältnis zu der der andern Völker III”, Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 1920/2, 97–141. SPALINGER, A. (1996) “Some Times”, RdE 47, 67–77. VERNUS, P. (1995) Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Égypte pharaonique [Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Historiques et Philologiques 332], Paris. WIEDEMANN, E. – HAUSER, F. (1915) Über die Uhren im Bereich der islamischen Kultur [Abhandlungen der Kaiserlich Leopoldinisch-Carolinischen Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher, Nova acta 100/5], Halle. 232 Alexandra von Lieven