The unusual writings of the name of the god Duamutef in the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom

The unusual writings of the name of the god Duamutef in the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom Illia Semenenko– Dinara Hereikhanova АBSTRACT The First Intermediate Period and the beginning of Middle Kingdom witnessed many important changes in almost all areas of ancient Egyptian reality. One of the most important innovations is the introduction in the provinces of avast and diverse corpus of ritualistic texts known as Coffin Texts. Nearly acentury ‑long inde‑ pendent development of the provinces and the Memphite region caused some important differences in their funerary culture. Re ‑unification of Egypt by Mentuhotep II quickened the process of the cultural exchange between the provinces and the Memphite region. The study based on the 67 items from the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom reveals the development of various writings of the name of the canine god Duamutef. The two major writings are highlighted– one normal including the sign, and another cryp‑ tographic, in which the sign is being replaced by the hand ‑signs and later . For the sake of com‑ parison, the evolution of the name of Iunmutef is considered, which performs the similar phenomenon. The paper sets forth the possible reasons for it and traces the subsequent standardization of the divinity’sname during the reign of Senwosret III up to the reign of Autibre Hor Iin the early Thirteenth Dynasty. KEYWORDS Coffin Texts– Duamutef– Four sons of Horus– coffins– First Intermediate Period– Middle Kingdom– burial customs– Senwosret III ىطسولا ةلودلاو لولأا لاقتنلاا رصع للاخ فأ توم اود هللإا مسلا ةفولأملا ريغ تاباتكلا افوناخيريه ارانيد – وكنينيميس ايليإ صخلملا .اًبيرقت ميدقلا ىرصملا عقاولا تلااجم عيمج ىف ةمهملا تارييغتلا نم ديدعلا ىطسولا ةلودلا ةيادبو لولأا لاقتنلاا رصع دهش صوصنلا كلت ،ةروهشملا تاعطاقملا قطانم ىف ةيرئاعشلا صوصنلا نم ةعونتمو ةعساو ةعومجم لاخدإ وه تاراكتبلاا مهأ دحأ ةقطنمو تاعطاقملا ىف نامزلا نم نرق نم برقي امل رمتسا ىذلا لقتسملا روطتلا ببست ثيح .تيباوتلا صوصن مساب ةفورعملا كلملا دي ىلع ةميدقلا رصم ىرطق ديحوت ةداعإ تدأ امك .امهنم لكل ةيزئانجلا تافاقثلا ىف ةمهملا تافلاتخلاا ضعب ىف فنم 67 ىلع دنتست ىتلا ةساردلا هذه فشكت .فنم ةقطنمو ميلاقلأا قطانم نيب ىفاقثلا لدابتلا ةيلمع عيرست ىلإ ىناثلا بتحوتنم زييمت مت .فأ توم اود هللإا مسلا ةفلتخم تاباتك لكش روطت نع ىطسولا ةلودلاو لولأا لاقتنلاا رصع ةرتف نم اًرصنع ديلا تاملاعب ةملاعلا لادبتسا متي ثيح ،ىزمر رخلآاو ، ةملاعلا كلذ ىف امب ىداع امهدحأ - مسلال نييسيئرلا نيلكشلا ددحت .ةلثامملا ةرهاظلا ىدؤي ىذلا فأ توم اود مسا روطت ىلإ رظنلا متي ،ةنراقملا لجأ نمو . ةملاعلاب اًقحلاو ىربيوأ روح دهع ىتح ثلاثلا ترسونس كلملا دهع للاخ هللإا مسلا قحلالا ديحوتلا عبتتو كلذل ةلمتحملا بابسلأا ةساردلا .ةرشع ةثلاثلا ةرسلأا لئاوأ نم لولأا ةلادلا تاملكلا تاداع – ىطسولا ةلودلا – لولأا لاقتنلاا رصع – تيباوت – ةعبرلأا سروح ءانبأ – فأ توم اود – تيباوتلا صوصن ثلاثلا ترسونس – نفدلا PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022, 122–150 123ILLIA SEMENENKO– DINARA HEREIKHANOVA INTRODUCTION The First Intermediate Period and the early Middle Kingdom were beyond doubt the era of remarkable changes in almost all areas of ancient Egyptian reality (Franke 2001; Oppenheim 2015). One of the most important innovations in the sphere of religion is the introduction of avast and diverse corpus of ritualistic texts, which are nowadays usually referred to as Coffin Texts (Lesko 2001). Although having their roots in the assemblages of texts found on the walls of the substructures of the several Old Kingdom royal pyramids (Hays 2006; Allen 2001 and 2015b), they do form acollection distinct from the Pyramid Texts (Hayes 1978: 315). These spells or sets of spells seem to be provincial inventions (Lesko 2001; Willems 1988: 247–248; Lapp– Niwiński 2001: 281). During the First Intermediate Period, when the cen‑ tralized governmental system was rapidly losing complexity and the king’sauthority and legitimacy demised (Bárta 2017), several local centers of power emerged in the Nile valley (Bárta 2020: 367–371). These centers were ruled by influential families who combined their power with that of local temples (Bussmann 2020: 463). In such political circumstances, some provincial centers situated far from the capital lost access to the mortuary literature existing in Memphite region (Willems 1988: 246–247). So aslightly new collection of the religious texts emerged in some of the local necropoleis over time, built up on the earlier Pyramid Texts tradition but interspersed with new ideas related to everyday desires of the ordinary people (Hayes 1978: 83). Re ‑unification of Egypt by Mentuhotep II quickened the process of the cultural exchange between the provinces and the Memphite region, which can be seen in the emergence of the Coffin Texts on the Lower Egyptian monuments, the area where the Pyramid Texts should be expected to appear (Willems 1988: 248–249). However, Harco Willems notes that “adifference was clearly recognized by the Egyptians themselves who, when they began to combine the two genres on single monuments, often kept them strictly apart” (Willems 1988: 248–249). Despite the fact that the distinctions between the Coffin Texts and the Pyramid Texts re‑ mained, the cultural exchange process led to the development of numerous new orthographies for various religious phenomena. The names of the deities, mentioned in the spells found on sarcophagi, coffins and other funerary equipment (cf. Lesko 1979), are especially diverse. This is the effect of amerge of different traditions on asingle monument– the result of approxi‑ mately ahundred years of independent development of the central region and the provinces. The present paper focuses on the variations of the writing of the name of acanine ‑headed god Duamutef and demonstrates that the same divine name written on asingle piece of funerary equipment can perform more than five different writings. Examination of the development of these writings reveals some very important matters in the religious and political sphere of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom Egypt, such as the north ‑south dichot‑ omy of the funerary texts (Willems 1988: 248) or the rise and development of the nomarchal families of Middle Egypt (Newberry 1893a; Franke 1991). The authors offer close examination of several writings, which can be labelled either as “cryptographic”, or as “creative”. Some thoughts on the intentions behind the writings are presented and an attempt is made to build up ahypothesis concerning their origin and evolution. For conceptual clarity, it is necessary to briefly refer to the extensive discussion on cryptog‑ raphy in Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. Ascholar whose works on cryptography are especially 124 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 numerous is Étienne Drioton (Stauder 2020: 2).1 In the 1930s he used the term “cryptography” as asubstitution for the much earlier term “enigmatic writing” (Stauder 2020: 2 and foot‑ note12), which was used to denote unusual orthographies. Drioton’swork of deciphering the uncommon writings was based on the extensive use of two methods, according to which the hieroglyphic sign is able to acquire anew meaning. These are the consonantal principle and acrophony. The consonantal principle is based on the process of reducing weak consonants in phonetic value(s) of the sign, with the preserved strong radicals giving the sign anew value. Acrophony implies that acertain poly ‑consonantal sign becomes mono ‑consonantal by the selection of the initial consonant. Since then some of Drioton’smethods were criticized, espe ‑ cially his unreserved use of the acrophony (Fairman 1943: 132–138; for further discussion see Stauder 2020: 3, footnote 13). This discussion stimulated anew interest in the term “enigmatic writing”, and the term re ‑emerged in modern scholarly literature, particularly in the works of JohnC. Darnell (2004 and 2020). One of the advantages of the term “enigmatic writing” is that it is technically more correct, since the writings which are considered “cryptographic” do not intend to hide2 their meaning or to make themselves undecipherable (Darnell 2020: 17). However, in the modern discourse, which can be labelled as “post ‑Driotonian”, the term “cryptography” is still widely used (Stauder 2020: 2–3), often in ageneral sense, as formulated by Alexandra von Lieven: “every writing system, deviating from the normal orthography and creating major difficulties in the reading and interpretation of atext, is considered within Egyptology as cryptographic”.3 There is yet another narrower aspect of the term “cryptography” that must be mentioned here. It is best explained in comparison with acertain class of inscriptions, which Ludwig Morenz (1998: 246–249) called “creative writings”. These inscriptions include atypical signs, which are either combination of two or more typical signs (Fischer 1977b: 9; Morenz 1998: 242) or are completely invented anew (Morenz 1998: 243; Rabehl 2013: 372–373). Their purpose is to imbue the hieroglyphic text with additional layers of meaning conveyed by the pictorial aspect of the signs (Morenz 1998: 244–246; Rabehl 2013: 374–375; Stauder 2020: 3), and also to show the skillfulness and “creativity” of the scribe (Morenz 1998: 248–249; Espinel 2020: 121). Contrary to these, the writings which might be labelled as “cryptographic” in the narrow sense include typical signs without significant alterations, but acquire new layers of meaning and/ or new phonetic values by means of various substitution principles (Roberson 2020: 142–143). Their purpose was diverse and varied from case to case, often with different purposes closely overlapping (Espinel 2020: 122–130; Fischer 1977a: 1196). The authors do not use the term “cryptographic writing” for every writing deviating from the typical orthography to avoid the confusion, inevitable when writings of adifferent nature and purpose are examined. Two main variants of atypical hieroglyphic writings are considered instead. One of them is denoted by the term “cryptographic writing” used in its narrow sense, meaning writings that use typical signs imbued with atypical values. Another 1 Some of the most important works of Étienne Drioton on cryptography are mentioned in Darnell (2020: 42), Klotz (2020: 95), and Roberson (2020: 146). 2 “Cryptography” is derived from Ancient Greekκρυπτός“hidden” andγράφειν “to write”. 3 “Qrsw ‑Coffins as Cosmograms. Development of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Cult in the 25th and 26th Dynasty” online conference organized by Universität Heidelberg, 2nd December 2021. For the similar idea see also Fischer (1977a: 1196) and Faulkner (1981: 173). 125ILLIA SEMENENKO– DINARA HEREIKHANOVA variant of atypical hieroglyphic writing is “creative writing” which uses atypical, significantly altered signs. Several atypical writings of the name of the canine ‑headed god Duamutef are examined in the paper one by one. Most of them can be described as “cryptographic writing”. The nature of the writings is explained, as well as probable intentions behind them. DISCUSSION Duamutef is one of thefour funerary deities which bear the collective name Sons of Horus4– msw ¡rw (DuQuesne 2005: 426–430; Wilkinson 2003: 88–89). Alongside with three other Sons of Horus– Imsety (with the head of ahuman), Hapi (with the head of ababoon) and Qebeh‑ senuef (with the head of ahawk), this canine ‑headed deity had to protect the mummified in‑ ternal organs of the deceased placed in the canopic jars. Duamutef’spersonal mission was to protect the stomach. As adeity of lesser importance, he himself was under the protection of the goddess Neith (Wilkinson 2003: 156–157). Of the four cardinal directions, he was associated with the east and, according to this his name was placed in avertical column on the eastern side of the coffin (Wilkinson 2003: 88). The deity’sname means “He who adores his mother” and was written in two major variations– and . There were several other writings, normal, cryptographic or creative. They will be dealt with in chronological sequence. The earliest mention of the name Duamutef can be found in the substructures of several Old Kingdom royal pyramids. The name is inscribed on the walls of the burial chamber (PT 215, 5 PT 338, 6 PT 670 7 ), antechamber (PT 688, 8 PT 690–691Е 9 ), the passage between them (PT 35910), ascending corridor (PT 52211) or, in late pyramids of the Sixth Dynasty, on avesti‑ bule’ssouth wall (PT 541,12 PT 545,13 PT 573,14 PT 580,15 PT 767,16 PT 768–769,17 for the writings see Allen 2013). These walls mostly perform the long, complete writing of the name– . This might be seen as a“classical” variant of the divinity’sname, for every sign is typical and performs its usual phonetic values. It seems that the choice of signs in this writing is not determined by anything other than their usual phonetic values. It is worth noting that in some of the pyramids of the Sixth Dynasty18 the writing is sometimes replaced by its shorter varia‑ tion . The change is evidently neither very important nor meaningful, the probable reason behind it being the lack of space on the wall. Keeping in mind the devotion of the 4 Horus the Elder, son of Geb and Nut. 5 Allen 2015b: 34–35. 6 Allen 2015b: 78. 7 Allen 2015b: 263–64. 8 Allen 2015b: 286. 9 Allen 2015b: 287–289. 10 Allen 2015b: 80. 11 Allen 2015b: 167, 227. 12 Allen 2015b: 175. 13 Allen 2015b: 176. 14 Allen 2015b: 183–184. 15 Allen 2015b: 188. 16 Allen 2015b: 197. 17 Allen 2015b: 199. 18 For example, the pyramid of Pepi Iin South Saqqara (see Allen 2013: PT 522). 126 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Type Front Head & Foot ends Reign Type I From the late Old Kingdom to the end of the reign of Amenemhat I Type IIa The middle of the reigns of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I Type IIb Type IIIa Senwosret I – Amenemhat II Type IIIb Type IVa Amenemhat II (end of the reign), Senwosret II and Senwosret III Type IVb Type Va Amenemhat II, Senwosret II and Senwosret III Type Vb Type VI Senwosret III and later Tab.1 The classification system of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom coffins exterior (after Willems 1988) 127ILLIA SEMENENKO– DINARA HEREIKHANOVA Type Front Head & Foot ends Reign Type I From the late Old Kingdom to the end of the reign of Amenemhat I Type IIa The middle of the reigns of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I Type IIb Type IIIa Senwosret I – Amenemhat II Type IIIb Type IVa Amenemhat II (end of the reign), Senwosret II and Senwosret III Type IVb Type Va Amenemhat II, Senwosret II and Senwosret III Type Vb Type VI Senwosret III and later 128 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 ancient Egyptians to shorter writings, one can easily understand this writing as just an ab‑ breviated version of the previous one. This Old Kingdom writing is specific for Pyramid Texts and is found almost exclusively as apart of Pyramid Texts utterances, wherever they can be found. Afine example of this writ‑ ing outside the substructures of the royal pyramids of the Old Kingdom is the middle coffin of nomarch Amenemhat (Cairo 28091, B9C) from Deir el ‑Bersha,19 which performs the same writing 20 of the deity’sname on the coffin. Here it is apart of PT 690. The coffin was presumably manufactured in the second half of Senwosret I’sreign, or soon after his successor’saccession. The date is supported by the pattern on the coffin’sexterior. The present paper uses aclassification system of the First Intermediate Period and Middle Kingdom coffins exterior created by Harco Willems (1988: 118–166). Tab.1 shows the basics of this classification system. There are several very rare coffin types that were not included in tab.1 due to their extremely uncommonness. For example, Willems (1988: 165) distinguishes Type VIII which performs amixture of Type IV and Type III features. Several other Egyptolo‑ gists made asignificant contribution to the matter. The most prominent of them are Wolfram Grajetzki (2016), James K. Hoffmeier (1991), Jochem Kahl (1994) and Günther Lapp (1993), to mention but afew. The latter developed own coffin classification system. However, the present study is based on Willems’sclassification system due to its usefulness and clearness. The impetus for the research that formed the basis of the present paper was the obser‑ vation that coffins of the different types systematically perform the various writings of Duamutef’sname. Tab.2, arranged in achronological order, reveals these variations among the coffin types. It also includes some other funerary equipment, such as chests for canopic jars or canopic jars themselves, which were recognized by the authors as important for the paper. The table shows that during the First Intermediate Period the “classical” variant of the Duamutef’sname, where every sign performs its usual phonetic values, was still viewed as the major one both in Memphite region (see tab.2: 1, 2) and in provinces (tab.2: 3, 4, 5, 7). The major difficulty in finding the proof for this statement lies in the fact that there are very few such early coffins preserved, and only some have the divinity’sname inscribed inside of them as part of the utterances of the Pyramid Texts. It should be noted that most of the coffins from Assiut form aseparate group, which is significantly different from the comparable funerary equipment from the rest of Egypt. Unfortunately, at the present stage of research, it is not possible to make conclusions on the development of the coffins and the inscriptions found on them. Their very date is debatable (Willems 1988: 102–104). Several coffins from Assiut are included in tab.2 (6, 8, 9) in order not to underrepresent the region completely. However, the detailed discussion on them is absent in the present paper due to the fact that the paper follows the classification system of rectangular coffins by Willems, where almost all the coffins from Assiut are labelled just as “Siutian” (Willems 1988: 27–30). Amore detailed discussion on the funerary equipment from the necropolis of Assiut can be found in Zitman (2010), where the classification system for coffins from Assiut is presented. 19 For this rectangular coffin, see tab.2: 25. Texts are published in Lacau (1905: 37–51). 20 Only the ending ‑t is missing. This deviation is of aminor importance and probably represents the scribe’serror. 129ILLIA SEMENENKO– DINARA HEREIKHANOVA One can observe the development of different writings of Duamutef’sname throughout Egypt only at the end of the First Intermediate Period and the beginning of the Middle King‑ dom. This coincides in time with the intensification of the cultural exchange between Mem‑ phite region and the provinces and with the emergence in Middle ‑Egyptian Nomes 15 and 16 (Willems 1988: 159–160) of the Type III coffins with both Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts in‑ scribed inside them. The earliest examples of the new writing of the name of Duamutef can be seen on Type Icoffins from these areas (see tab.2: 9, 11, 12, 15). The new writing has in it acompletely alien sign, which was not used during the Old Kingdom– (D37). The presence of sign in the name _wA ‑mwt=f cannot be explained on its own, as it typically bears phonetical value rdj or dj– “to give” (Gardiner 1957: 454). However, this pho‑ netical discrepancy can be solved by considering the interchangeability of the signs D37 and D38. The main phonetical value of sign, which bears aclear ideographic conno‑ tation, is jmj, shortly mj or m– “give!” (the imperative, see Gardiner 1957: 454). The earliest occurrences of this replacement are found no later than in Pyramid Texts (Gardiner 1957: 454). From this we can infer that the writing and other similar writings featuring the signs D37 and D38 can be labelled as “cryptographic”, for they consist of typical signs, one of which bears atypical value. Furthermore, the use of the hand ‑signs imbues the writing with several additional layers of meaning with ideographic connotations. First of all, the hand ‑signs and presenting an offering have clear funerary connotations of securing offerings for the deceased in the afterlife. The hand ‑signs also represent the aspect of protec‑ tion (Rummel 2003: 2, footnote 16) which was equally important for the deceased. The “seated god” sign is sometimes added as adeterminative (see tab.2: 12, 13, 14, 15). All these coffins are belonging to late Eleventh Dynasty– early Twelfth Dynasty and come from Deir el ‑Bersha or Assiut. An even more interesting writing can be seen on the inner coffin of Sokaremhat from Beni Hasan (Cairo J 37564a, BH1C, see tab.2: 19) from the first half of the reign of AmenemhatI. This Type Icoffin has aPT 690 inscribed inside, containing an inter‑ esting variation of Duamutef’sname– . It can be seen as an attempt to reproduce an old “classical” writing of the deity’sname in anew manner, avoiding the sign. The roots of the practice of avoiding the vulture ‑sign G14 can possibly be sought in the fact that the vulture is acarrion ‑eating bird and though can be extremely harmful to the corpse of the deceased (Rummel 2003: 2, footnote 16). The similar evolution can be traced in another dei‑ ty’sname– Iunmutef. Iwn ‑mwt=f (“The Pillar of his Mother”) is ahypostasis of Horus in his nature of the loving son. The oldest attestations of Iunmutef date to the end of the Fifth Dy‑ nasty and are written as , with the sign (Rummel 2010: 1–2). However, with the emergence of the Coffin Texts another writing gains in importance– (Rummel 2010: 2–3). In other words, the same phenomenon as with Duamutef can be observed– the sign is being replaced by the hand ‑signs and . An interesting variation of Duamutef’sname can be found on the outer coffin of Amenem‑ hat21 (Cairo 28092, B10C, tab.2: 24) from Deir el ‑Bersha. This coffin forms aset of outer and middle coffins with B9C (tab.2: 25). One of the variants of the name of Duamutef is included in along Pyramid Text utterance 215 inside the coffin and is written in acurious way– . This writing is unique, as it seems to contain three signs which were used mistakenly by the 21 Texts on this rectangular coffin are published in Lacau (1905: 52–64). 130 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 No. Coffin number & owner’s name Catalogue number and location Provenance Type of coffin Date/reign Writing of the name of Duamutef (Gardiner›s sign list sigla) Writing of the name of Duamutef (hieroglyphs) 1Ab1Le – outer sarcophagus of Herishefhotep Leipzig – Inv. 4,3 Abusir Type I Dynasty 9–10 PT215 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 PT215 2Ab2Le – inner sarcophagus of Herishefhotep Leipzig – Inv. 4,3 Abusir Type I Dynasty 9–10 PT215 N14‑G17‑X1‑I9 PT215 3TT240 – tomb chamber of Meru in situ Deir el‑Bahari x Mentuhotep II N14‑G14‑X1‑I9‑Z1 4TT319 – tomb chamber of Queen Neferu in situ Deir el‑Bahari x Mentuhotep II N14‑G14‑X1‑I9‑A40 5T1L – outer coffin of Iamu British Museum 6654 Deir el‑Bahari early Type I Mentuhotep II – Mentuhotep IV PT215 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9‑A40 CT761 D46‑V4‑G1‑N14‑G14‑I9‑A40 PT215 CT761 6S2P – inner coffin of Nakhti Louvre E 1136 Assiut Siutian late First Intermediate Period Outside D46‑N14‑D37‑[X1]‑I9 Spell 1126 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9‑A40 Outside Spell 1126 7T1C – tomb chamber and coffin (of limestone) of Horhotep Cairo 28023 Deir el‑Bahari Type I Mentuhotep II – Mentuhotep IV PT670 D46‑V4‑G1‑N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 CT397 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 PT670 CT397 8S6L – coffin of Ankhef British Museum 46631 Assiut Siutian late Dynasty 11 – early Dynasty 12 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9‑A40 9 coffin of an unknown woman Brooklyn Museum, 1995.112 Assiut Siutian late Dynasty 11 – early Dynasty 12 N14‑D37‑X1‑I9‑A40 10 B1Bo – outer coffin of Governor Djehutynakht Boston 20.1822 Deir el‑Bersha (Tomb 10, shaft A) Type I late Dynasty 11 – early Dynasty 12 CT525 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 CT525 11 B2Bo – inner coffin of Governor Djehutynakht Boston 21.962a Deir el‑Bersha (Tomb 10, shaft A) Type I late Dynasty 11 – early Dynasty 12 CT751 N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 CT751 12 B4Bo – inner coffin of Lady Djehutynakht Boston 21.966 Deir el‑Bersha (Tomb 10, shaft A) Type I late Dynasty 11 – early Dynasty 12 PT215 N14‑G14‑I9‑A40 Spell 158 N14‑D37‑X1‑I9‑A40 PT215 Spell 158 Tab.2 Variations of writings of the name of the god Duamutef on the funerary equipment from The First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom 137ILLIA SEMENENKO– DINARA HEREIKHANOVA No. Coffin number & owner’s name Catalogue number and location Provenance Type of coffin Date/reign Writing of the name of Duamutef (Gardiner›s sign list sigla) Writing of the name of Duamutef (hieroglyphs) 30 M8C – coffin of Wersenefer Cairo 28038 Meir Type IVba Amenemhat II or later N14‑D38‑X1‑Z1‑I9 31 BH11 – inner coffin of Lady of the House Henu British Museum 32051 Beni Hasan Type IVaa/Vaa Amenemhat II N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 32 M1NY –сoffin of Ukhhotep, son of Hedjpu The Metropolitan Museum of Art 12.182.132a, b Meir Type IVaa Amenemhat II N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 33 сanopic chest of Ukhhotep, son of Hedjpu The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 12.182.133a, b Meir x Amenemhat II N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 34 B6 – coffin of Nakht‑ankh from Deir el‑Bersha British Museum EA35285 Deir el‑Bersha Type Vaa Amenemhat II or Senwosret II N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 35 BH1Liv – coffin of imy‑rA pr Keki World Museum of Liverpool 55.82.113 Beni‑Hasan (Tomb No. 3 of Khnumhotep II) Type VI Amenemhat II or Senwosret II N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 36 B5C – inner coffin of Djehutyhotep Cairo J 37566 Deir el‑Bersha Type VI Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT404 N14‑G14‑A40‑X1‑I9 CT404 37 Ḳ1Bol – coffin of Irienamunpu Archaeological Museum of Bologna, EG 1958 of unknown origin, probably Thebes (from Palagi Collection) Type VI Senwosret II or Senwosret III N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 38 B2P – outer coffin of imy‑rA pr Sepi Louvre E 10779A Deir el‑Bersha (Shaft 15) Type IIIbb Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT466 & CT158 N14‑D40‑X1‑I9‑A40 CT466 & CT158 39 B1C – coffin of imy‑rA mSa Sepi Cairo 28083 Deir el‑Bersha (Shaft 14) Type IIIba Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT158 N14‑D37‑X1‑I9‑A40 CT466 N14‑D40‑X1‑I9‑A40 CT1126 [N14?]‑G14‑I9 CT158 CT466 CT1126 40 B2C – canopic chest of imy‑rA mSa Sepi Cairo 4977 Deir el‑Bersha (Shaft 14) xSenwosret II or Senwosret III CT522 N14‑D40‑X1‑I9‑A40 (thrice) & N14‑G14‑I9‑A40 CT522 (thrice) & 41 B5L – coffin of imy‑rA mSa Sepi British Museum 55315 Deir el‑Bersha (Shaft 14) Type IVba Senwosret II or Senwosret III N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 42 BH15 –coffin of Lady of the House Neby Boston 04.2058 Beni Hasan Type IVba Senwosret II or Senwosret III N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 43 B1L – inner coffin of Gua British Museum 30840 Deir el‑Bersha Type IVab Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT466 & CT158 N14‑D36‑X1‑I9‑A40 CT466 & CT158 138 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 No. Coffin number & owner’s name Catalogue number and location Provenance Type of coffin Date/reign Writing of the name of Duamutef (Gardiner›s sign list sigla) Writing of the name of Duamutef (hieroglyphs) 44 B2L – outer coffin of Gua British Museum 30839 Deir el‑Bersha Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 45 M1C – inner coffin of the daughter of nomarch Reret Cairo J 42949 Meir Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT405 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 (twice) CT405 (twice) 46 M2C – coffin of Khnumhotep (usurped by Henen) Cairo J 42947 Meir Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III Outside N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 CT215 N14‑[G14]‑X1‑I9‑M17‑Z1 Outside CT215 47 B17C – outer coffin of Nefery Cairo 28087 Deir el‑Bersha Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III Outside N14‑X1‑D37‑I9 CT158 N14‑D40‑X1‑I9‑A40 Outside CT158 48 B18C – canopic chest of Nefery Cairo 4980 Deir el‑Bersha x Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT522 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 & N14‑D40‑[I9]‑A40 CT522 & 49 B3L – inner coffin of Sen British Museum 30842 Deir el‑Bersha Type VIIIba Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT466 N14‑D36‑X1‑I9‑ A40 CT466 50 B4L – outer coffin of Sen British Museum 30841 Deir el‑Bersha Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III Outside N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 CT158 N14‑D40‑X1‑I9‑A40 Outside CT158 51 B6L – outer coffin of Sat‑Ipi British Museum 34259 Deir el‑Bersha (Shaft 17) Type IV Senwosret II or Senwosret III N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 52 canopic jar of princess Sathathoriunet The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 16.1.48a El‑Lahun x Senwosret III or later N14‑D38‑X1‑I9 (twice) (twice) 53 Sq1C – coffin of Sat‑Bastet Cairo 28034 Saqqara Type VI Senwosret III or later CT397 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 CT397 54 coffin of the “draughtsman” Userhet Fitzwilliam Museum E.67.1903 Beni Hasan (Tomb 117) Type VI Senwosret III or later N14‑D37‑X1‑[I9] Tab.2 Variations of writings of the name of the god Duamutef (continuation) 139ILLIA SEMENENKO– DINARA HEREIKHANOVA No. Coffin number & owner’s name Catalogue number and location Provenance Type of coffin Date/reign Writing of the name of Duamutef (Gardiner›s sign list sigla) Writing of the name of Duamutef (hieroglyphs) 44 B2L – outer coffin of Gua British Museum 30839 Deir el‑Bersha Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 45 M1C – inner coffin of the daughter of nomarch Reret Cairo J 42949 Meir Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT405 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 (twice) CT405 (twice) 46 M2C – coffin of Khnumhotep (usurped by Henen) Cairo J 42947 Meir Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III Outside N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 CT215 N14‑[G14]‑X1‑I9‑M17‑Z1 Outside CT215 47 B17C – outer coffin of Nefery Cairo 28087 Deir el‑Bersha Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III Outside N14‑X1‑D37‑I9 CT158 N14‑D40‑X1‑I9‑A40 Outside CT158 48 B18C – canopic chest of Nefery Cairo 4980 Deir el‑Bersha x Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT522 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 & N14‑D40‑[I9]‑A40 CT522 & 49 B3L – inner coffin of Sen British Museum 30842 Deir el‑Bersha Type VIIIba Senwosret II or Senwosret III CT466 N14‑D36‑X1‑I9‑ A40 CT466 50 B4L – outer coffin of Sen British Museum 30841 Deir el‑Bersha Type IVaa Senwosret II or Senwosret III Outside N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 CT158 N14‑D40‑X1‑I9‑A40 Outside CT158 51 B6L – outer coffin of Sat‑Ipi British Museum 34259 Deir el‑Bersha (Shaft 17) Type IV Senwosret II or Senwosret III N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 52 canopic jar of princess Sathathoriunet The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 16.1.48a El‑Lahun x Senwosret III or later N14‑D38‑X1‑I9 (twice) (twice) 53 Sq1C – coffin of Sat‑Bastet Cairo 28034 Saqqara Type VI Senwosret III or later CT397 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 CT397 54 coffin of the “draughtsman” Userhet Fitzwilliam Museum E.67.1903 Beni Hasan (Tomb 117) Type VI Senwosret III or later N14‑D37‑X1‑[I9] 140 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 No. Coffin number & owner’s name Catalogue number and location Provenance Type of coffin Date/reign Writing of the name of Duamutef (Gardiner›s sign list sigla) Writing of the name of Duamutef (hieroglyphs) 55 M2NY – outer coffin of Hapiankhtifi The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 12.183.11a Meir Type VI Senwosret III or later N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 (twice) (twice) 56 M3NY – canopic chest of Hapiankhtifi The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 12.183.14a‑c Meir x Senwosret III or later N14‑D38‑X1‑I9 57 Ri1 – outer coffin of Nakhtankh Manchester Museum, 4724.a‑b Deir‑Rifeh deviant Senwosret III or later N14‑A176‑X1‑I9 58 canopic chest of Nakhtankh Manchester Museum, 4726 Deir‑Rifeh x Senwosret III or later N14‑G1‑A176‑X1‑Z1‑I9‑Z1‑A40 59 Ri2 – outer coffin of Khnumnakht Manchester Museum, 4725.a‑b Deir‑Rifeh deviant Senwosret III or later N14‑G14‑X1‑I9‑A40 60 T1Be – outer coffin of Mentuhotep Berlin ÄM no. 9 Thebes Type VI Senwosret III or later Outside N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 CT397 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9‑M17‑Z1 Outside CT397 61 Sq2C – coffin of Heperkare Cairo 28036 Saqqara Type VI Senwosret III or later N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 62 BH10Liv – coffin of Nakht‑ankh World Museum of Liverpool 55.82.112 Beni Hasan Type VI Senwosret III or later N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 63 L3X –outer coffin of Senebtisi ??? (in a very bad condition) Lisht North “Court Type” late 12 Dynasty – early 13 Dynasty N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 64 L11NY –model coffin of Wahneferhotep The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 14.3.69a, b Lisht South (Senwosret I pyramid complex) xlate 12 Dynasty – early 13 Dynasty N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 65 T8NY –coffin of Entemaemsaf The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 32.3.428a‑b Thebes, Asasif provincial Theban style 13 Dynasty N14‑Z2‑D37‑I9 66 S6NY – coffin of Khnumnakht The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 15.2.2a, b probably from Meir Type XIII 13 Dynasty N14‑D38‑X1‑I9 67 canopic jar of Autibre Hor I (13 Dynasty) Cairo 4021 Dahshur (pyramid complex of Amenemhat III, Tomb 1) xAutibre Hor I (13 Dynasty) N14‑D38‑X1‑I9 scribe. Firstly, the sign might represent acorrupt writing of , which is acommon deter‑ minative for the verb dwA (Erman– Grapow 1971: 426–428). Secondly, should be probably replaced by or and, thirdly, the sign depicting aseated woman22 may stand for the 22 This probably mistaken use of the sign B1 should be distinguished from its use as adeterminative for one of the components of Duamutef’sname– the word mwt “mother”, as is definitely the case Tab.2 Variations of writings of the name of the god Duamutef (end of table) 141ILLIA SEMENENKO– DINARA HEREIKHANOVA No. Coffin number & owner’s name Catalogue number and location Provenance Type of coffin Date/reign Writing of the name of Duamutef (Gardiner›s sign list sigla) Writing of the name of Duamutef (hieroglyphs) 55 M2NY – outer coffin of Hapiankhtifi The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 12.183.11a Meir Type VI Senwosret III or later N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 (twice) (twice) 56 M3NY – canopic chest of Hapiankhtifi The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 12.183.14a‑c Meir x Senwosret III or later N14‑D38‑X1‑I9 57 Ri1 – outer coffin of Nakhtankh Manchester Museum, 4724.a‑b Deir‑Rifeh deviant Senwosret III or later N14‑A176‑X1‑I9 58 canopic chest of Nakhtankh Manchester Museum, 4726 Deir‑Rifeh x Senwosret III or later N14‑G1‑A176‑X1‑Z1‑I9‑Z1‑A40 59 Ri2 – outer coffin of Khnumnakht Manchester Museum, 4725.a‑b Deir‑Rifeh deviant Senwosret III or later N14‑G14‑X1‑I9‑A40 60 T1Be – outer coffin of Mentuhotep Berlin ÄM no. 9 Thebes Type VI Senwosret III or later Outside N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 CT397 N14‑G14‑X1‑I9‑M17‑Z1 Outside CT397 61 Sq2C – coffin of Heperkare Cairo 28036 Saqqara Type VI Senwosret III or later N14‑G14‑X1‑I9 62 BH10Liv – coffin of Nakht‑ankh World Museum of Liverpool 55.82.112 Beni Hasan Type VI Senwosret III or later N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 63 L3X –outer coffin of Senebtisi ??? (in a very bad condition) Lisht North “Court Type” late 12 Dynasty – early 13 Dynasty N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 64 L11NY –model coffin of Wahneferhotep The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 14.3.69a, b Lisht South (Senwosret I pyramid complex) xlate 12 Dynasty – early 13 Dynasty N14‑D37‑X1‑I9 65 T8NY –coffin of Entemaemsaf The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 32.3.428a‑b Thebes, Asasif provincial Theban style 13 Dynasty N14‑Z2‑D37‑I9 66 S6NY – coffin of Khnumnakht The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 15.2.2a, b probably from Meir Type XIII 13 Dynasty N14‑D38‑X1‑I9 67 canopic jar of Autibre Hor I (13 Dynasty) Cairo 4021 Dahshur (pyramid complex of Amenemhat III, Tomb 1) xAutibre Hor I (13 Dynasty) N14‑D38‑X1‑I9 “seated god” sign which is expected to serve as adeterminative for Duamutef as adeity. It is important to note that in this very Pyramid Text spell 215 Duamutef’sname is written two more times– and . The variation is similar to that of on T9C– the coffin of Mentuhotep/Buau, and probably B6Bo– the outer coffin of Satmeket (see tab.2: 18 and 16). Texts on the former are published in Lacau (1903: 66–74). 142 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 the coffin of Sokaremhat mentioned earlier. Their comparison provides evidence that the sign should indeed be considered as mistaken writing of (Gardiner 1957: 455). The variation performs no atypical values for the signs and seems to derive directly from the “classical” variant of Duamutef’sname found in the Old Kingdom royal pyramids. When ana‑ lyzed in complex, the set of outer and middle coffins of Amenemhat demonstrate almost all possible variations of Duamutef’sname. However, variations with sign deriving from the old tradition of the Pyramid Texts predominate, which quite clearly shows the spread of ideas from the central region to the provinces in the first half of the Twelfth Dynasty. In addition to the use of other hand ‑signs in the cryptographic variations of the name of Duamutef was also not uncommon. Occurrences with are easily explained, as the sign performs its usual phonetic value of jmj or m– “give!”. Although this value is typical for , these variations should still be labelled as cryptographic, for they imbue the writing with additional layers of meaning which were described above. Agood example of writing with is afinely decorated coffin of Khnumnakht.23 It belongs to the so ‑called Type XIII and can be dated back to the Thirteenth Dynasty. The practice of using the sign is less common and may possibly be explained as or signs written by mistake (see tab.2: 23, 43, 49). Other probably mistaken writings are found not only on the coffins of this period, but also on coffins of an earlier date. The fine example is an already mentioned inner coffin of Heri‑ shefhotep from the Ninth or Tenth Dynasty (see tab.2: 2)24 where the god’sname as apart of the same PT 215 is erroneously written , with owl G17 instead of vulture G14 (Allen 2013). On the two canopic chests from Deir el ‑Bersha25 and on the coffin of Mentuhotep/Buau from Deir el ‑Bahri26 we observe avariation of Duamutef’sname, written with asign A166 (Grimal– Hallof– van der Plas 2000: 1 A–3) in place of usual N14– . 27 The sign was apparently unknown to Sir Alan H. Gardiner when he was preparing his famous Sign list, as it has not been included there. It depicts aman harpooning afish. This sign has awell‑ ‑attested phonetical value dwA (Waitkus 2003: 454) and thus phonetically repeats the signs and . However, the use of the sign adds another layer of meaning to the inscription. Asimilar sign was used to denote acelestial hawk ‑headed deity labelled by ancient Egyptians as spearing the msxtjw constellation (see Neugebauer– Parker 1964: pls. 2 and 7).28 The hawk ‑headed deity was equated with Horus and the msxtjw constellation with Seth, thus indicating the mythical victory of Horus over Seth (Waitkus 2003: 464). There is good evidence for identification of the deceased with Horus from the Twelfth Dynasty (Willems 1997: 367–368), and the writing with asign could have represented another cryptographic aspect to this identification. On the chests B5Bo and B19C the sign is apart of the CT 522, while on coffin 23 For this coffin, probably from Meir, see tab.2: 66, and Allen (2015a: “Coffin of Nakhtkhnum”). 24 For this Type Icoffin from Abusir (Leipzig Inv. 4.3, Ab2Le) (see Schäfer 1908: 42–81). 25 For these canopic chests, see tab.2: 13 for B5Bo (note amistaken writing of G29– ba ‑sign instead of ) (Willems 1988: 70–74), and tab.2:14 for B19C (Willems 1988: 79). 26 T9C (see tab.2: 18.) 27 The T9C variation represented here is longer than those found on the canopic chests and is similar in structure to the “classical” variant of Duamutef’sname. 28 For an extensive discussion on the identification of this constellation and possible equation of it with Ursa Minor, see Waitkus (2003: 453–454). 143ILLIA SEMENENKO– DINARA HEREIKHANOVA T9C it is included in the PT 670. In both cases, it is clearly associated with phonetically.29 The coffin T9C dating to the first half of Amenemhat I’sreign performs an early Twelfth Dy‑ nasty use of this writing. The sign can also be compared with astanding figure of aharpooner from the northern side of awest wall of Tomb 17 belonging to nomarch Hety in Beni Hasan (Newberry 1893b: pl. XI, late Eleventh Dynasty). The cultural environment of the great nomarchal tombs of Beni Hasan or Deir el ‑Bersha30 is especially abundant of unusual writings, which should be labelled as “creative”. These inscriptions include atypical signs, which imbue the hieroglyphic text with additional layers of meaning conveyed primarily by the pictorial aspect of the signs. Among the finest examples of such “creative” writings are composite hieroglyphs for wp.t rnp.t in Tomb 3 belonging to Khnumhotep II (Morenz 1998: 246, footnote 58), an inscription mentioning the social term mrt on the north wall of the already mentioned Tomb 17 belonging to Hety, son of Baquet III (Newberry 1893b: 51–62, pl. XIV)31 and an unusual sign for snsn in Tomb 14 belonging to Khnumhotep I(Rabehl 2013: 372–380). There is an example of writing the name of Duamutef of asimilar nature, i.e. the one which should be considered “creative”. It can be found on two pieces of funerary equipment from the so ‑called Tomb of the Two Brothers. The tomb was situated in the cemetery of Deir Rifeh in the 11 th Upper Egyptian nome (Murray 1910: 9–10; David 2007: 7–20) and contained two rectangular coffins of the late Twelfth Dynasty date (tab.2: 57, 59), acanopic chest (tab.2: 58) and other funerary equipment. One of the coffins and the canopic chest both belonging to one Nakhtankh perform aremarkable writing of the name of Duamutef– (outer coffin) and (canopic chest). These writings’ peculiarity lies in the fact that they include the sign A176 (Grimal– Hallof– van der Plas 2000: 1 A–3). This sign is absent in the Gardi‑ ner’sSign list as well as . However, it has astrong connection with the hand ‑sign , since it represents the man holding the sign X8 representing the conical loaf of bread (Gardiner 1957: 533). The sign probably has the same phonetical value as . However, it was graph‑ ically altered to imbue the whole inscription and in particular the deity’sname with an addi‑ tional aspect of securing the funerary offerings for the deceased. The man with the conical loaf who was represented by the sign might have been responsible for making offerings for the deceased Nakhtankh for eternity. An additional explanation for this writing might be provided by the fact that Nakhtankh had financial means to commission for himself acano‑ pic chest, while Khnumnakht had not. Therefore we can suggest that Nakhtankh had financial means for the scribe to demonstrate his “creativity” on the coffin and canopic chest, while Khnumnakht had not. We can conclude that the writings of the name of Duamutef with the sign are one of the best examples of the so ‑called “creative writings”. With the rise of the Twelfth Dynasty the development of the exterior decoration of the coffins is observed. Harco Willems states that “At most sites, Type IV coffins seem to be almost the direct successors of TypeI. The intervening Type III is only known from Bersheh and Meir, while Type II and some other experimental designs are very exceptional” (Willems 1988: 159–160). Thus, Type IV coffins can be considered as aprogressive development of those of 29 For PT 670 on T9C, see Allen (2006: 423), and for CT 522 on B5Bo and B19C, see Buck (1956: 113). 30 For these tombs and their owners, see Newberry (1893a); Brovarski (2010: 51); Willems (2014: 64–73). 31 For the discussion on this inscription, see Berlev (1972: 115–117). 144 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 TypeI. This design was already common during the reign of Amenemhat II (see tab.1). One of the key features of this coffin type is the emergence of the names of msw ¡rw in vertical col‑ umns containing the imAxy ‑formula on the coffins’ exterior (Willems 1988: 139–140). The reason of this evolution can be found not only in the evolution of religious beliefs, but also in eco‑ nomic growth noted in the Nile valley in this period. Economic prosperity led to the growing complexity of the coffin decoration programs (Hayes 1978; Dodson– Hilton 2004). The major‑ ity of coffins from this period show some kind of standardization in writings of the name of Duamutef. Very demonstrative are coffins BH11 and M1NY (see tab.2: 31, 32). They respective‑ ly perform short writings and which are typical for the period. Lengthy writ‑ ings with atypical signs so frequent at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty are now rare, although several deviations from the two abovementioned writings can still be found.32 The coexisting Type Vcoffins– amixture of Types III and IV (Willems 1988: 161) show the same pattern (for example tab.2: 31, 34, 35). The T2L coffin of the same type33 is slightly earlier, but has the very same writing of the deity’sname on it. During the reign of Senwosret III, one of the most important rulers of the whole Middle Kingdom (Delia 1980; Dodson– Hilton 2004: 90–94) the coffin decoration and the very coffin ‑producing industry experienced profound changes. The provincial coffin ‑manufacturing workshops ceased, and the coffins started to be produced exclusively in the Memphite region or in areas with the strong royal influence, such as Abydos (Grajetzki 2016: 37–38). These coffins had their easily distinguishable appearance from the exterior, characterized by the false doors placed between the vertical text columns. On the other hand, their interior usually remained uninscribed. This coffin type, known as Type VI (Willems 1988: 161–164), probably developed from the so ‑called Twelfth Dynasty “court style” (Hoffmeier 1991), afine example of which is agranite sarcophagus of treasurer and possibly vizier of Senwosret IMentuhotep, son of Asenka (tab.2: 27; Arnold 1992). Analyze of the writings of the name of Duamutef from these coffins allows to conclude that the above‑ mentioned unification present on the earlier coffin types is intensified, keeping in use only two major writings– (tab.2: 51, 53, 55) or (tab.2: 62, 63, 64). This phenomenon, especially astonishing in the comparison with the abundance of the variations of the dei‑ ty’sname in earlier periods, can possibly be explained as aresult of apossible orthographical verification of Pyramid Text and Coffin Text spells, conducted in royal workshops where the manufacture of “court style” and Type VI coffins under royal patronage (Grajetzki 2016: 37–38) took place. Scribes responsible for the coffins’ decorative program supervised the coffins production in king’sworkshops. There royal craftsmen created the whole series of coffins, and only two versions of the name of Duamutef were kept in use– the first, with G14– , ashortened variant of the Old Kingdom writing from the Pyramid Texts, and the second, with D37– , a“cryptographic” writing. The latter also had some additional layers of meaning that might have been useful for the deceased.34 Mass production of the Type VI coffins did not leave place for any scribal creativity or even other “cryptographic” variations except . Later the tendency for text verification continued, altering the “cryptographic” version to the original phonetic value of jmj, or m– “give!” using its distinctive hand ‑sign (Gar‑ 32 For example, on M8C, see tab.2: 30 and Lacau (1905: 116–122). 33 BM EA6655 (see tab.2: 29 and Budge [ed.] 1924: 46–47). 34 See the discussion on the possible meaning of the hand ‑signs in the “cryptographic” variations of the name of Duamutef. 145ILLIA SEMENENKO– DINARA HEREIKHANOVA diner 1957: 454). Abrilliant example of this writing is an already mentioned coffin of Khnum‑ nakht ( , see Allen 2015a). The coffin’sdate early in Thirteenth Dynasty is suggested by the depiction of Isis between the text columns on the head end and by the presence of many vertical text columns (10 on the front and 13 on the back end) on the coffin. The writing can be observed throughout the early Thirteenth Dynasty up to the reign of King Autibre Hor I (Dodson– Hilton 2004: 102–105; Ryholt 1997). One of his canopic jars found in Dahshur also features awriting of the name of Duamutef with the sign (tab.2: 67; Reisner 1992: 13). CONCLUSION The study based on the 67 items from the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom including sarcophagi, coffins, canopic chests and canopic jars revealed the development of various writings of the name of the canine god Duamutef. It displayed the abundance of un‑ usual writings, most of which should be labelled as “cryptographic”, on the rectangular Mid‑ dle Kingdom coffins and canopic chests from the late Eleventh Dynasty to the middle Twelfth Dynasty– the era when the coffins were manufactured and decorated in local funerary work‑ shops by provincial scribes. The abundance of different writings of the name of Duamutef may demonstrate the spread of ideas from the central region to the provinces in the first half of the Twelfth Dynasty and their subsequent development. On this basis, some assumptions were made concerning the origins and meaning of “cryptographic” writings of the divini‑ ty’sname. The interchangeability of the hand ‑signs (phonetical value rdj or dj – “to give”) and (phonetical value jmj, shortly mj or m– “give!”) demonstrates the phonetical reason of usage of sign in aname _wA‑mwt=f. The signs also have an additional layer of meaning of securing offerings for the deceased in the afterlife and representing aspect of protection. The example of Iwn ‑mwt=f presents aparallel for this line of development of inscriptions, the sign is being replaced by the hand ‑signs and . The reason of avoiding the vulture‑ ‑sign is suggested to lie in the fact that the vulture is acarrion ‑eating bird and can be extreme‑ ly dangerous to the deceased’scorpse. The paper examines the occurrences of the unusual writings of the name of Duamutef during the middle and late Twelfth Dynasty and demon‑ strates that some of them, especially the “cryptographic” one with the sign and “creative” one with the sign, might be connected with the cultural environment of the great nomarchal tombs of Beni Hasan or Deir el ‑Bersha in the 15th and 16th Upper Egyptian Nomes. For every writing the main reasons for choosing the signs are proposed, the “cryptographic” and the “creative” writings are clearly distinguished. The subsequent standardization of the “cryptographic” writings is also traced, starting from the reign of Senwosret III when this phenomenon became the most evident, up to the times of King Autibre Hor Iin the early Thirteenth Dynasty. As adirect result of this process, the variant of the name of Duamutef sign became common on the funerary equipment. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We are grateful to Assoc. Prof.Filip Coppens,Ph.D., Czech Institute of Egyptology,Charles University, Prague,Czech Republic, and Dr.Mykola Tarasenko, Senior Research Fellow, A.Yu. 146 PRAGUE EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES XXVIII/2022 Krymskiy Institute of Oriental Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, for their useful suggestions on the article, though the responsibility for any mistakes remains ours. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, James P. 2001 “Pyramid Texts”, in: Redford, Donald B. (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 95–97. 2006 The Egyptian Coffin Texts. Vol. 8. Middle Kingdom Copies of Pyramid Texts, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago [Oriental Institute Publications 132]. 2013 ANew Concordance of the Pyramid Texts. Vols. 1–6, Providence: Brown University. 2015a “Coffin of Nakhtkhnum”, in: Oppenheim, Adela– Arnold, Dorothea– Arnold, Dieter– Yamamoto, Kei (eds.). Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, pp. 232–233. 2015b The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature [Writings from the Ancient World 38]. Arnold, Dieter 1992 The South Cemeteries of Lisht. Vol. 3. The Pyramid Complex of Senwosret I, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bárta, Miroslav 2017 “Radjedef to the Eighth Dynasty”, in Grajetzki, Wolfram– Wendrich, Willeke (eds.). UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles (http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002kcsx4). 2020 “Egypt’sOld Kingdom. AView from Within”, in: Radner, Karen– Moeller, Nadine– Potts, D. T. (eds.). The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East. Vol. I: From the Beginnings to Old Kingdom Egypt and the Dynasty of Akkad, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 316–396. Berlev, OlegD. 1972 Trudovoye naseleniye Egipta vepokhu Srednego tsarstva [Трудовое население Египта вэпоху Среднего царства], Moskva: Nauka (in Russian). Brovarski, Edward 2010 “The Hare and Oryx Nomes in the First Intermediate Period and Early Middle Kingdom”, in: Woods, Alexandra– McFarlane, Ann– Binder, Susanne (eds.). Egyptian Culture and Society. Studies in honour of Naguib Kanawati. Vol. I, Cairo: American University in Cairo Press [Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte 38], pp. 31–86. Buck, Adriaan de 1956 The Egyptian Coffin Texts VI: Texts of spells 472–786, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago [Oriental Institute Publications 81]. Budge, Wallis E. A. (ed.) 1924 British Museum– AGuide to the First, Second and Third Egyptian Rooms: Predynastic Human Remains, Mummies, Wooden Sarcophagi, Coffins and Cartonnage Mummy Cases, Chests and Coffers, and other Objects connected with the Funerary Rites of the Ancient Egyptians, London: Trustees of the British Museum.