Antecedentes y marco conceptual

for summary execution by the Viceroy [31]. Some local people,

sheltering in Medinet Habu, were taken into slavery [32], and others, like the wab-priest Peison fled, when Panehesy dismissed their

superiors [33].

Panehesy is further attested at Thebes in year 12 of Ramesses XI [34], and was probably still there in year 17 [35], when Ramesses XI addressed a letter to him, and sent the Royal Butler Yenes to convey a shrine and various commodities to the north [36]. The Viceroy had apparently left Thebes by year 19 [37]. The year 12 text gives Panehesy an extraordinary array of titles : Fan Bearer on the right hand of the king. Royal scribe, general. Overseer of the granaries of

[pharaoh], [King's son of] Kush, Overseer of the southern foreign lands, leader of the troops of pharaoh.

The Tomb Robbery Papyri have a number of references to soldiers of the Nubian battalion resident in Thebes in year 17 of Ramesses IX [38] and year 1 of the msvt [39] although it is not entirely clear from the context whether this was some sort of occupying force, or simply a contingent from Nubia.

The campaign against Hardai (Cynopolis, modern esh-Sheikh Fadl) has usually been interpreted as part of the war against the High Priest [40], but Aldred [41] argues that it was most likely part of the campaign by Panehesy, referred to in the texts as mdwt-^n. How far north Panehesy and his force campaigned -and what his intentions were, is unfortubately not known. It seems that this time may have

seen a breakdown in order amongst Kushite troops left in Thebes. Aldred [42] drew attention to the violent destruction of the

sarcophagus of Ramesses VI, and the damage to other royal mummies, which, he argued, indicated activities by a large gang who were not professional tomb robbers. This major looting of the royal tombs possibly took place during the period of Panehesy's campaign in the north. Aldred emphasises a number of texts which attest the presence of Ramesses XI in Thebes [43], possibly to see the destruction

wrought by Panehesy, and his force, and to institute the mswt.

It seems, therefore, that having called Panehesy into Egypt to settle problems, Ramesses XI needed to despatch another army to drive him out. The military head of this campaign was certainly Herihor.

Year 19 of Ramesses XI marks the beginning of the wte mswt ’Repeating of births’, commonly termed ’Renaissance’ era. Kitchen [44] writes that from year 19

all of Egypt and Nubia were divided into two great provinces, each under a chief whose common link and sole superior was the pharaoh. These two powerful officials were Nesubanebdjed (’Smendes’) and

Herihor. Nesubanebdjed, of whom nothing is known before this time, controlled the Delta region, Memphis and Nile the valley as far south as El-Hiba or the entrance to the Faiyum: at some point he assumed the kingship [45]. Herihor bore the rank of Generalissimo, alongside the titles High Priest of Amun at Karnak, and Viceroy of Nubia.

Herihor’s assumption of the title Viceroy of Nubia must have taken place after year 17 of Ramesses XI, when Panehesy is still attested as the holder at Thebes. Herihor [46] was an army General, before being given the offices of High Priest of Amun and Viceroy of Nubia. He also, within the precinct of Amun, assumed the royal style [47].

Herihor, as Kitchen rightly emphasises, was ’ki n g ’ only within the Karnak precinct. For one man to have been invested with the offices of High Priest of Amun and Viceroy of Nubia whilst retaining control of the military, circumstances must have been extraordinary.

However, it should be emphasised, that Herihor*s position as Viceroy can never have been more than titular.

It is only from the beginning of wte mswt and with the appearance of Herihor in Thebes that there are signs of antipathy towards

Panehesy. Wente proposes, surely correctly, that the opposition of Herihor and Piankh to Panehesy, and perhaps also to Ramesses XI, may provide an explanation for the Viceroy's defamation in Renaissance era texts [48].

Panehesy continued to control Nubia, or at least Lower Nubia, and was buried at Aniba. Was it the government of Ramesses XI who

removed Panehesy from office, and sent Herihor, as his successor, with the rescript to make the word fact? Or was Panehesy still loyal

to the delta ruler, against the ambitions of Herihor and his family? The role of Ramesses XI in all of these events is unknown.

Herihor died in year 6 (last attested) or 7 of the Renaissance, his successor Piankh, being called Viceroy of Nubia and High Priest of Amun, General and Army leader in an oracle text of year 7 [49]. Piankh was formerly thought to have been a son of Herihor; he was possibly a son-in-law [50]. Recently, Niwinski and Jansen-Winkeln have proposed that Piankh was the predecessor, rather than successor of Herihor [51].

Active hostilités against Panehesy seem not to have commenced until after the death of Herihor. Kushite produce was being sent to the delta residence in year 17 of Ramesses XI [52], when, it seems, Panehesy was still in Thebes. The Tomb Robbery Papyri of year 19 (year 1 of wto mswt) refer to Panehesy with a determinative

indicating he is regarded as an enemy [53], but the inw was still being paid in year 4/5 of wte mswt [54]. This suggests the

possibility that Panehesy and his troops withdrew, or were forced out of Upper Egypt around year 18 or 19 of Ramesses XI, but that the Viceroy still acknowledged the pharaoh and continued to send the tribute. The correspondence of Dhutmose and Piankh relating to the

Nubian campaign all dates to year 10 of vfam mswt [55], and Panehesy is mentioned by name, apparently as the opponent of Piankh in one of the letters [56]. There is no evidence from the archive, or any other source, to show that there had been military actions against Panehesy before that year. It is perhaps significant that the records of the tomb robbery trials in year 1 of wte mswt contain oaths sworn by the witnesses that they might be sent to Kush, be mutilated and sent to Kush, or sent to the battalion of Kush [57].

The letters of Dhutmose invoke Horus of Kubban and Horus of Miam [58]. It seems likely that the fortress of Kubban was the base of Piankh * s troops, since Panehesy was buried at Aniba [59], which had been a principal seat of the Viceregal administration throughout the New Kingdom. These latest letters date from the end of year 10, when Dhutmose and Piankh were still in Nubia, but the result of the

campaign remains undocumented. At Thebes, a graffito of Butehamun is dated to ”3 shomu day 23” without a year, but is probably 3 days into the following year, 29 of Ramesses XI or 11 of wlm mswt [60]. The text refers to the return of "the General" to Thebes, certainly meaning Piankh. With the death of Ramesses XI, which must have occurred soon after this, Piankh also vanishes, to be succeeded by his son Pinudjem.

A successor of Panehesy in Nubia?

An inscription in the North Temple at Buhen is dated to the reign of Ramesses XI by its cartouches, but seems to belong to a Viceroy other than Panehesy.

The ex-voto is carved on Pillar 7 of the forecourt of the North Temple [61]. The official stands with one arm raised in adoration, the other holding the ÿwi-fan, hkS-sceptre and sash, typical

attributes of a Fan-bearer on the right hand of the king. Two vertical lines of text separate the figure from the object of adoration, two large cartouches of Ramesses XI surmounted by solar disks and feathers. The whole ex-voto is rather crudely carved. The

hieroglyphs in the cartouches are not well-formed, and those of the text are more difficult, resulting in some difficulties of reading.

The official bears a number of titles, r-p*^ h3ty-® i ^ - r pr n Imn s3 nsw n Ks imy-r sn^ wh htpv n ntrw nbw T3-toty [62]. The name is damaged, and Caminos was adamant that it could not be read as the name of Panehesy, as it had been understood by Breasted [63], Reisner

[64] and others [65].

The first sign, a flying goose, is, in Caminos's opinion, either tn or km(3), not the p3-bird. Those following are more difficult. Caminos suggested that the final group designates the official "son of the Overseer of the Storehouse Sethmose". Smith [66] read the name "Kema...", and Kitchen [67] "Tjeni.. . Bohleke [68] tried to emend the damaged word, or name, as the title t3y hw hr wnmy nsw "Fanbearer on the right hand of the king", a usual Viceregal title, proposing that the Viceroy himself was called Sethmose.

It is unknown when Panehesy became Viceroy, and it is possible that the Buhen inscription belongs early in the reign of Ramesses XI. An earlier date might be preferred since Panehesy is attested close to the end of the reign of Ramesses XI, although, on the new model proposed by Jansen-Winkeln, there may be room to accomodate this official after Panehesy.

The Disestablishment of the Viceregal administration.

The disestablishment of the Viceregal administration is suggested to have occurred at the end of the reign of Ramesses XI. Even if

hydraulic crisis had caused depopulation, there must have a point at which the Egyptians decided to quit Nubia, and this issue has never been adequately discussed by writers on the period [69]. Whilst it is perhaps possible that the elites would have gone to Egypt, without severe agricultural disruption in Nubia itself it is difficult to believe that the agrarian proletariat would have moved. O ’Connor

[70] suggested that the intensity of Herihor*s and Piankh*s

campaigning in Nubia was responsible for the de-population, but again it is difficult to see what the Egyptians would have achieved by this, other than the repression of a formidable military opponent who was threatening the security of Upper Egypt. If the titular Viceroys in Thebes were attempting to re-establish Egyptian authority over Nubia there would be little point in driving out its population. In any case, the intensity of the campaigning is hardly likely to have been greater than that of the pharaohs of the early 18th Dynasty who established Egyptian control over Nubia; they did not drive out the population. The disestablishment of the 500-year old administration can hardly have been effected overnight, and the land-holding

officials may not have wanted to abandon their property.

It was the record of Panehesy*s presence in Thebes earlier in the reign of Ramesses XI, and the appearance of Herihor and Piankh with the Viceregal titles later in the reign, which led Reisner [71] to suggest that Thebes had been the Viceregal centre in the late 20th Dynasty, This is fallacious; but has maintained an unwarranted authority in literature [72], Viceregal titles continued to be held by Theban royalties and officials of the 21st and 22nd Dynasties, but opinion has, until very recently, been unanimous that this does not indicate a continued Egyptian control of Nubia, Newly published material identifies more Viceroys of Third Intermediate Period date and combined with the new archaeological evidence from Qasr Ibrim, requires us to reconsider Egyptian activities in, and attutudes towards. Lower Nubia,

The lack of Viceregal monuments in Upper Nubia after the reign of Ramesses IX, although the area is inadequately surveyed and

excavated, suggests that fragmentation may have begun in the late 20th Dynasty, The campaigning of Panehesy in Middle and Upper Egypt during the early years of Ramesses XI, and possibly as early as the reign of Ramesses X, would have presented ample opportunity for new powers to establish themselves in Upper Nubia, Even if he was not resident in Thebes, Panehesy seems still to have been involved with the area as late as year 17 of Ramesses XI, and the political

situation in Egypt possibly distracted him from events in more

southerly parts of Nubia. Certainly, the campaigning of Herihor and Piankh would have preoccupied the Viceroy in Lower Nubia, and

possibly have forced a withdrawal of troops from the southern garrisons, if not an abandonment of the territory south of the 2nd Cataract.

The excavations at Amara suggested the possibility that the site had been systematically closed down, rather than simply abandoned, or destroyed in a period of unrest. Given that the latest work there belongs to the reign of Ramesses IX, it is perhaps possible that the reigns of Ramesses X or Ramesses XI saw a withdrawal by the Egyptians back to the 2nd Cataract in the face of rising Kushite power. This, of course, is speculative, but the later years of the reign of