2010

reviews 287
The complete translation and commentary of five important theological texts from the Persian
period in Egypt marks a seminal contribution to the understanding of the histories of language,
writing, religion, and theology of that era. The author has succeeded in enlightening previously
unclear or misunderstood text passages, and in establishing relations heretofore unseen; he has done it
by considering numerous text sources from a wide range of corpora.
From the reviewers point of view, a synthesising interpretation of all analysed texts, with regard to
their position in (and importance for) the histories of religion and theology, is still required. While the
various intertextual relations are pointed out by the author (e.g. p. 19), the suggested overall theological
concept behind the hymns, namely Adoration of the Ram, remains rather ill defined. The elaboration
of the iris motif, as well as the eye metaphors for the concept of divine transcendence and earthly
effectivity (Chapter 7), are very deserving. However, one hesitates to identify this important aspect of
the Amun-Re theology as the fundamental concept underlying all the texts.
Furthermore, the reader looks in vain for arguments addressing the original dating of the theological
and religious attitudes represented by the Hibis hymns. Rather incidentally, the term Ramesside
appears (e.g. p. 176), whereby the adoption of the concept of the ramessidische Weltgott-Theologie,
developed by Assmann,13 is indicated. This assumption is substantiated by the fruitful, although
problematic, discussion of the several additional text sources; problematic, since the method is
carried out quite unhistorically, not simply diachronically. By this means, Assmann was already able
to reconstruct the Ramesside Weltgott-Theologie, lasting from the late New Kingdom through
the Persian period until the Hellenistic and Roman era. There is no doubt that the New Kingdom
theology influenced the development of subsequent centuries; however, to therefore minimise the
importance of religious and textual processes during the Libyan, Persian, and Ptolemaic periods,
is wholly inappropriate. One can only guess that the author assumes some theological development
in the post-Ramesside millennium (cf. p. 180: This quotation adds a new dimension to the hiding
within the iris theme ). Possible considerations of literary and redactional criticism regarding
the examined texts are left completely unmentioned; this oversight is surprising, as the author works
by means of numerous text parallels from different times and arranges them synoptically. That the
hymns of the Persian period, and indeed those from Libyan times, are not purely Ramesside period
copies, is easily established.14
The author should be encouraged to continue his promising work, by using his important and
fruitful observations concerning philology and the contents of the analysed texts in order to undertake
an overall interpretation. This, then, can mark a substantial contribution to answer the crucial questions
surrounding the theology, its circumstances, the handling of sacred texts, and their adaptation and
reformulation in times of political and cultural troubles such as the Persian period in Egypt.

Carsten Knigge Salis

Zur Palographie der Srge aus Assiut. By Rainer Hannig. Hildesheimer gyptologische Beitrge 47.
Pp. xxvii + 930. Hildesheim, Gerstenberg, 2006. ISBN 978 3 8067 8569 2. Price not stated.

Although coffins are among the most typical expressions of Egyptian culture, and decorated
examples are highlights of even small collections with Egyptian objects, the number of studies
on coffins is surprisingly limited. For the Middle Kingdom, Harco Willems1 and Gnther Lapp2
developed typologies for Old to Middle Kingdom coffins, and both were able to date at least roughly
the coffins of this period, although precise dating of a single coffin can still be quite problematic, since
different coffin types were in use at about the same time. The Middle Kingdom coffins found at Asyut
have always been a problem. Willems did not discuss them in detail, and Lapp treated these coffins
in one chapter. Coffins from Asyut are different in style to most other Middle Kingdom examples.
They are often decorated on the outside with double or even triple bands of hieroglyphic inscriptions,
while coffins from other places have single lines. Furthermore, the texts on the coffin outside often
13
E.g., J. Assmann, gypten: Theologie und Frmmigkeit einer frhen Hochkultur (2nd edn; Stuttgart, 1991),
26782.
14
Cf. Knigge, Lob der Schpfung, 258, 2623, 2713.
1
H. Willems, Chests of Life: A Study of the Typology and Conceptual Development of Middle Kingdom Standard
Class Coffins (MVEOL 25; Leuven, 1988).
2
G. Lapp, Typologie der Srge und Sargkammern von der 6. bis 13. Dynastie (SAGA 7; Heidelberg, 1993).
288 REviews JEA 96
bear formulae, not attested at other places, except for Rifeh which is close by. On the whole, the Asyut
coffins appear at first glance quite uniform showing few signs of development. Few of these coffins
come from more recent excavations with proper recording, so that there is little support in dating them
via associated finds. The situation is especially awkward as the Asyut coffins form the largest corpus of
Middle Kingdom coffins coming from one site (Hannig lists 217 coffins or coffin fragments). Hannigs
study is devoted to the palaeography of the inscriptions on the outside of the coffins, but also takes
into account other details, such as the shape of the wedjat eyes, and the depictions of gods. Hannig
collected all available material and photographed or filmed digitally all coffins accessible to him. The
result is a detailed, comparative study.
The first part of the book is reserved for the study of the palaeography itself, and is divided into
different chapters (AD). Chapter A is a theoretical discussion of palaeography in general, and in
particular in Ancient Egypt. The author worked for several years in China and has therefore in-depth
knowledge of Chinese calligraphy, which is an important art in the Far East but is not so fully developed
in Europe. In Ancient Egypt, calligraphy was certainly regarded as essential, as can be seen from the
many carefully painted hieroglyphic texts. In Chapter B, Hannig provides a list, and a discussion of
the terminology used in this book; many of his terms employed are not familiar to Egyptology and for
studies on coffins. In this chapter the author also describes his methods.
Chapter C presents his evaluation. It starts with different types of wedjat eyes, painted or carved on
the coffins, followed by a discussion of depictions of deities often shown on the short ends. Finally,
most coffins are arranged into groups and sub-groups. These groupings are based on similar or almost
identical writings of specific signs and other observations. Most of these coffin groups are rather small,
sometimes only consisting of one example, especially for those coffins dated to the First Intermediate
Period (p. 88, 131, 135), while there are several groups of the late Old Kingdom and early Middle
Kingdom (p. 79, 100) with up to six coffins.
The datings of the single coffin groups are most often only briefly discussed. Indeed, the only more
or less securely datable monuments from Asyut are the tombs of the governors, such as that of Djefa-
Hapy with the names of Senusret I. However, this is to date inadequately published. The inscriptions
are only available in hand copies, and it is therefore not possible to compare the palaeography of the
tomb with those of the coffins. Although a considerable number of the Asyut coffins derive from official
excavations, they were often unearthed early in the history of archaeology. As a result, the recording
of the related finds, especially of the pottery, but also of the position of the tombs in the cemetery, is
imprecise or absent. Several of these early excavations (Hogarth, Schiaparelli) are still unpublished.
Therefore it is almost impossible to date the coffins via other finds, which the author does not attempt,
even in the cases where it would be possible, for example with the coffins of the treasurer Nakht,
found in his undisturbed tomb with several statues (pp. 78794). Here future researchers may find
opportunities for refining the datings. In general his datings seem plausible, but metholodical problems
arise where not all evidence is presented. The main criteria for dating the coffins are particular signs,
such as the book roll without ties (Gardiner Sign List Y2), or the use of certain terms such as ior after
the name. For dating inscriptions on these grounds I remain sceptical, and several of these datings are
based on observations made by Wolfgang Schenkel, almost fifty years ago.3 In particular cases, new
evidence necessitates revision of these datings. Here one might mention the writing of the tongue
(Gardiner Sign List F20) for overseer (imy-r), which was for Schenkel an important criterion for
dating monuments to the reign of Senusret I or later; recently it has been shown that this sign is used
for imy-r already under Mentuhotep II.4 Another case (p.141) is the adjective ior behind the name,
sometimes employed in Egyptology for dating within the First Intermediate Period, but perhaps used
from the end of the Old to the beginning of the Middle Kingdom.5 Furthermore, it might be asked
whether these dating criteria developed for monuments at different sites all over Egypt, are also valid
for Asyut and whether certain writings differed in the Middle Kingdom from region to region.
As Chapter C is the most important part of the book, at least some references would have been
useful. Students not familiar with the period might easily become frustrated, as the author provides
3
W. Schenkel, Frhmittelgyptische Studien (BOS 13; Bonn, 1962).
4
J. P. Allen, Some Theban Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom, in P. Der Manuelian (ed.), Studies in
Honor of William Kelly Simpson (Boston, 1996), I, 6 n. 14.
5
For the Eleventh Dynasty, see H. G. Fischer, Dendera in the Third Millennium b.c. Down to the Theban
Domination of Upper Egypt (New York, 1968); for the Sixth Dynasty, see N. Kanawati, The Rock Tombs of El-
Hawawish, I: The Cemetery of Akhmim (Warminster, 1980), 13.
2010 reviews 289
the dating criteria without citing the evidence. For example on p. 85 the red crown on neb sign
(Gardiner Sign List S4) is used as evidence that the coffin type A, group c, dates to Amenemhat II
or later. However, the sign is already attested under Senusret I.6 Another example appears on p. 86,
where the author notes the filiation referring to a mother with iri.n instead of msi.n as typical for the
time of Senusret I to about Senusret III.7
The author uses the term Werkstatt (workshop) to define certain groups within the coffins which
belong together (pp. 789 and 14650). He discusses the term and he is fully aware that we have little
idea how the coffin production was organised. For the late First Intermediate Period and early Middle
Kingdom, he sees one or several workshops operating. Sometimes he can distinguish at least two
craftsmen working on one coffin (S8L); one of them he identifies on two other coffins (S19L, S24L,
see page 1467).8 For the other periods, the number of coffins preserved is not very high, but he
assumes that in one case two coffins were made by the same craftsmen (p. 139). I wonder whether there
was only one workshop and whether groups of coffins might reflect different craftsmen and artists
involved. In the First Intermediate Period, at Akhmim there is attested one carpenter who claims that
he produced 180 coffins.9
Chapter D contains more than 250 pages of photographic images of single signs found on the
coffins. This is an extremely useful tool to check the palaeography and the core evidence for grouping
the coffins.
The second part (pp. 425917) of the book provides a list of the coffins with a bibliography and
further images, sometimes with the reproduction of type set inscriptions from old publications. A high
number of the coffins have never been published before and are here presented for the first time. The
book ends with two indices, for coffins and for names.
The pictures for this study were made in the nineties of the last century, when the technology of
digital photography was not yet so well developed as today. Many pictures are slightly out of focus
or not as clear as we might now expect. However, given the amount of material presented and the
technical restrictions, the whole collection of images is simply overwhelming. The volume shows
clearly how digital technology can be used as inexpensive and easy tool for the publication of objects;
many of them in a poor condition and therefore in quick need of any available documentation.
A high number of coffins are dated by the author to the early Middle Kingdom, with only a few
to the middle and late Twelfth Dynasty. Most likely the later parts of the cemeteries were never
excavated, or do not have good preservation conditions for organic materials. A remarkable feature of
coffins from Asyut is the lack of owners administrative titles. Coffins found at other places such as
Meir, Beni Hasan, or el-Bersheh provide most often the owners titles and supply us with the social
and administrative profile of the people buried. These titles appear much rarer at Asyut. This might
relate to the dating of the coffins to the early Middle Kingdom. In many places, at the end of the
Eleventh and beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty titles were not placed on the surviving monuments.10
This observation might be another indication in favour for dating the bulk of the Asyut coffin corpus
to exactly this period.
In sum, this monumental volume is in many ways innovative and will hopefully be a prototype for
further research on coffins, and indeed other object categories.11

Wolfram Grajetzki

6
D. Frank, Das Heiligtum des Heqaib auf Elephantine: Geschichte eines Provinzheiligtums im Mittleren Reich
(SAGA 9; Heidelberg, 1994), 22 n. 72.
7
C. Obsomer, di.f prt-xrw et la filiation ms(t).n/ir(t).n comme critres de datation dans les textes du Moyen
Empire, in C. Cannuyer and J.-M. Kruchten (eds), Individu, socit et spiritualit dans lEgypte pharaonique et
Copte: Mlanges gyptologiques offerts au Professeur Aristide Thodorids (Ath, 1993), 1667.
8
S8L needs to be added in box a7 on p. 147.
9
A. Roccati, La stele di un falegname, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Anno CCCLXXXII (8th
Series): Rendiconti (Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filogiche) 40 fasc. 56 (Maggio-Giugno, 1986), 22533, pls
iii.
10
Compare the stelae dated by R. E. Freed to the late Eleventh and early Twelfth Dynasty, on most of which
the stela owner and other people do not bear titles: R. E. Freed, Stela Workshops of Early Dynasty 12, in Der
Manuelian (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson (Boston, 1996), I, 299307 (workshop nos. 1 and 2).
11
This review was written before the appearance of M. Zitman, The Necropolis of Assiut: A Case Study of
Local Egyptian Funerary Culture from the Old Kingdom to the End of the Middle Kingdom (OLA 180; Leuven,
2010), and so does not take into account its findings.