Askut and the Role of the Second Cataract Forts

Author(s): Stuart Tyson Smith

Source: Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 28 (1991), pp. 107-132
Published by: American Research Center in Egypt
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40000574
Accessed: 02/03/2009 21:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=arce.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Research Center in Egypt is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt.

http://www.jstor.org

Askut and the Role of the Second Cataract Forts*

Stuart Tyson Smith
The fortressof Askut lay on an island in the
Batn el-Hajar, just south of the Second Cataract
(fig. 1), and was one of a chain of fortresses
established in the Middle Kingdom. Until the
excavations of the University of California at
Los Angeles, led by Alexander Badawy from
1962-64, little was known about the site and its
significance.Wheelermentioned it in passing in
1932, characterizingit as "much destroyedand
rebuilt," and noting that it provided a crucial
line of sight between Shalfak and Murshid,thus
ultimately connecting Semna with the Second
Cataract.1It was, however, only after the University of California excavations that Askut's
significance as a major fortress of the Middle
Kingdom was realized.The site was, as Wheeler
observed, extensively overbuilt, but this condition actually served to protect the earlier deposits, not destroy them. Remarkably, Askut
was relatively free of modern disturbancefrom
looters and sebakheen. The consistently deep
cultural deposits reached approximately 1.2 m
in the Upper fort, and 2.6 m in the Southeastern
Sector outside of the main defense wall (fig. 8).2
* The first and much shorterversion of this paper was
presentedat the ARCEmeetingsin Memphis,April 1987.A
substantiallysimilar versionwas submittedin partialfulfillment of the MastersDegreein Archaeologyat UCLA. I am
gratefulfor manyuseful suggestionsfromAntonio Loprieno,
Kent Weeks, Nigel and Helen Strudwick,and Bruce Williams. Any faults which remain are my own. I would also
like to thank the Departmentof Near Eastern Languages
and Cultures,Instituteof Archaeologyand Museumof Cultural Historyat UCLA for their support. Final revisionsfor
this paper were completed when I was recipient of the
Museum'sRalph C. AltmanMemorialFellowship.
1 Noel F. Wheeler, "Excavationsof the Harvard-Boston
Expeditionin Haifa Province,1930-1931,"SudanNotes and
Records,vol. XV (1932),256.
2 AlexanderBadawy,"Askut:An EgyptianIslandFortress
of the Middle Kingdom in Upper Nubia." MS on file,

This excellent preservationis in stark contrast

to the other Second Cataract forts, which are
characterizedby a high degree of disturbance
and erosion.3 The potential for understanding
Askut's role in the chain of fortresses,and thus

Museumof CulturalHistory,Universityof Californiaat Los

Angeles. At this time it is hoped that the Museum will
publish the MS.
3 Only the areaimmediatelySouth of the "Commandant's
Quarters"was denudedat Askut, although the entiremagazine structurewas heavilydisturbedby later,perhapsMeroitic, activity(fig. 8). While therehas been somedisturbanceat
Mirgissa, substantial areas were well preserved,including
the magazineblock and an armory.Still, depositsin a large
portion of the interiorof the main fort were less than 20 cm
deep (or went unexcavated).Most of the interior was preservedto less than 50 cm (Dows Dunham, Uronarti,Shalfak,
Mirgissa.SecondCataractForts,Vol. II [Boston:Museumof
Fine Arts, 1967];Jean Vercoutteret al., MirgissaI. Mission
ArcheologiqueFrangaisau Soudan[Paris,1970];and A. Vila,
"L'armementde la forteressede Mirgissa."Rd'E 22 [1970],
171-99).The inner fort of SemnaSouth had been completely
denuded,but the peripheralareasand enclosurehaveyielded
much informationfrom the Middle Kingdom. Final assessment must await publication, but for a preliminaryreport
see Louis V. Zabkarand Joan J. Zabkar,"SemnaSouth. A
PreliminaryReporton the 1966-68 Excavationsof the Universityof Chicago OrientalInstituteExpeditionto Sudanese
Nubia," JARCE 19 (1982), 7-50. Apart from a section of
Semna, the cultural deposits in the rest of the Second
Cataract forts (Kumma, Uronarti, and Shalfak) were too
heavily denudedor disturbed(or, perhaps,poorly excavated)
to arriveat securestratigraphiccontexts(Dows Dunhamand
J. M. A. Janssen, Semna, Kumma. Second CataractForts,
Vol. I [Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, I960]; Dunham,
op. cit.). Preservationat Buhen was so poor that the excavators concludedthat context was highly unreliable(WalterB.
Emery, H. S. Smith, and Anne Millard, The Fortressof
Buhen. Part 1. The ArchaeologicalReport. Egypt Exploration Society Memoirs,Vol. 49 [London, 1979],93-94). Serra
East to the north was also heavily denuded prior to being
overbuiltby a Christiansettlement(J. Knudstad,"SerraEast
and Dorginarti,"Rush 14 [1966],172ff.,fig. 2).

107

108

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

Fig. 1. The Second CataractFortsand RamesseumListing.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

of assessing the purpose and functional interaction of the entire Second Cataract system, is
therefore greatly enhanced.
Askut occupies an unusual position in the
chain of fortresses.Semna South, Semna, Kumma,
Uronarti, and Shalfak are clustered closely together around the Semna Cataract. Mirgissa,
Dabenarti, Kor, and Buhen are similarly focused
about the Second Cataract. Askut sits by itself in
the midst of these two groupings, almost half
way between Semna and Mirgissa (18.9 km and
22 km respectively), closest to Shalfak (9 km).
Askut has been characterized as a lonely watch
post and signaling station, located in the middle
of one of the most barren stretches of the Nile
Valley.4
There is no reason, however, to relegate the
site to such a secondary role. Although somewhat smaller, Askut compares favorably to Uronarti and even Semna in size. It is actually larger
than Semna South, Kumma, and Shalfak (Table
1). Far from being located on an inhospitable,
barren stretch of river, Askut lies at the northernmost end of the wide Saras Plain (fig. 2), which
contained twenty-five C-Group sites.5 Another
eight C-Group sites were located in association
with cultivable land on the East and West Banks
north of Askut. Additionally, a large pharaonic
cemetery of some 250 graves (ll-L-26) is reported
on the island of Kagenarti, which is actually
connected to Askut.6
Of the sites opposite and lying to the north of
Askut, there are C-Group settlement sites, five
cemeteries, and one of unidentified type. Each of
the C-Group sites had A-Group deposits underlying them, demonstrating the consistent quality
of the resources exploited for subsistence there.
The largest site (ll-M-15) had a surface scatter
of objects over an area of 500 m, and was associated with three structures. Sherds of the
A-Group, C-Group, Kerma Culture, and New
Kingdom were recovered. A stone structure
4 BruceG. Trigger, Nubia Under the Pharaohs.London:
Thamesand Hudson, 1976),72.
5 A. J. Mills, "The ArchaeologicalSurveyfrom Gemai to
Dai-Report on the 1965-1966Season,"Rush 15 [1967-68],
200-201.
6 A. J. Mills and H.-A. Nordstrom,"The Archaeological
Survey from Gemai to Dal. Preliminary Report on the
Season 1964-65,"Rush 14 [1966],1-15.

109

Table 1. Relative Sizes of the Second

Cataract Forts in Square Meters
Site

Intra-Muros Extra-Muros Total

20,000
Mirgissa
(Main Fort)
Askut
2,600
Shalfak
1,800
Uronarti
4,700
Kumma
2,500
Semma
8,500

100,000

120,000

1,200
*

3,800
1,800
8,700?
2,500
8,500

4,000?
*
*

All figuresareapproximate.
* No significantextra-murosbuildings extant.Basedon
Dunham(n. 3), Badawy(n. 2), and Vercoutter
(n. 52).

nearbywith A-group, C-group, and Kermapottery was presumablyconnected with this settlement. Another site (ll-M-7) had extensiverefuse
deposits up to 0.7 m thick, although no evidence
was found of any structures.The largest cemetery held 69 graves (ll-H-5). Of the others only
ll-M-5 with 15 graveshas a count published.7
The C-group habitation sites to the south on
the Saras Plain were substantial, containing up
to 50 cm of cultural deposits, but unfortunately
the excavatorgives no furtherdetails. The cemeteries reportedcontained 65 (ll-Q-36), 30 (11-L12),25 (ll-Q-57), and 25 (11-Q-ll) burials.There
was also a substantial Kermapresence,with ten
sites. An additional two sites were shared with
the C-Group. One of the latter, a cemetery,
contained some 65 C-Group and 255 Kerma
graves (ll-Q-36). Unfortunately, Mills does not
provideenough details about these sites to determine whether their use by the two cultures was
contemporary,or if the C-Group was replaced
by the KermaCultureas at Adindan.8The Kerma
settlement sites typically contained mud-brick
structures(ll-Q-52 and ll-Q-43).9
The Sarasplain also contained a gold mine at
KhorAhmed Sherif (ll-Q-60). This activity represents a substantial expenditure of effort, with
7 Ibid.
8 Bruce Williams, C-Group, Pan Grave, and KermaRemains at Adindan CemeteriesT, K, U, and J. Universityof
Chicago Oriental Institute Expedition, Vol. V (Chicago:
1983).
9 Mills (supran. 5).

110

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

Fig. 2. Settlementat Saras(afterMills and Nordstrom,n. 6, fig. 1; Mills, n. 5, fig. 1).

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

undergroundas well as open pit workings. Associated with this activity were four sets of multiroom workshops,located closer to the river.The
one site illustrated in the report (ll-Q-59) had
over a dozen rooms. The little pottery which
was found there appeared to date to Dynasty
XII. Pounders and grinders, along with tailings of crushed quartz, provide evidence of ore
reduction.10
Clearly, Askut was by no means isolated, but
located at one end of a wide plain capable of
supporting a comparativelylarge population. It
would have been in association with a significant native presence from the Middle Kingdom
through the New Kingdom. Saras was an area
where four cultures, Kerma, C-Group, Pan
Grave, and Egyptian, could, and probably did,
interact on a variety of levels. The shared
C-Group/Kermacemeteryat Saras,and presence
of Kerma Classique and Pan Grave pottery at
Askut (fig. 3, and below) argue for significant
contact, at least in the Second IntermediatePeriod. In fact, this is the southernmost area of
C-group occupation, although a few scattered
C-Group sites are presentas far south as Semna.
Saraswas also the northernmostarea with more
than an ephemeral Kerma presence, even isolated finds being rare north of Wadi Haifa.11
Thus Askut, while not lying on a formidable
natural boundary, may have lain upon a more
significant cultural one.12Still, without details
of the artifacts,and especially ceramics,present
on the C-Group sites, it is impossible to determine whether or not they are contemporaneous
with the Kermaoccupation. Also, KermaClassique style wares do continue into Dynasty
XVIII,13but it would be odd if the Kerman
occupying force had overlooked the substantial
structuresat Askut. Ceramicsare an indicatorof
10Ibid., 204, 206, and fig. 5.
11Torgny Save-Soderbergh,"PreliminaryReport of the
Scandinavian Joint Expedition: Archaeological Investigations between Faras and Gemai, November 1962-March
1963,"Kush 12(1964),19-39.
12GeorgesPosener,"Pourune localisationdu pays Koush
au Moyen Empire,"Kush VI (1958), 50ff.; Vercoutteret al.
(supran. 3), 167;Trigger(supran. 4), 95.
13Manfred Bietak, Studien zur Chronologie der Nubischen C-Gruppe.OsterreicheAkademiezur Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-HistorischeKasse.Denkschriften97 (Vienna,
1968).

111

contact, not necessarily culture. Preliminary

analysis of the Askut pottery indicates that
Kermaand Pan Graveceramicsmake up only a
small portion of the total assemblage (perhaps
10-25%).Thus it is possible that Askut may
haveretaineda SecondIntermediatePeriodEgyptian client of the Kerman king, similar to that
documentedat Buhen.14
Askut was also situated in proximity to an
important resource,namely gold. Neither living
quartersnor settlementswere located in the vicinity of the ore processingworkshops,15and the
paucity of ceramics found at the working sites
suggests a lack of permanent occupation there.
Workersmight have come from the C-Group
villages on the Plain. Yet virtually all of the
pottery found at the workshops was Egyptian,
suggesting that they were staffed entirely by
personnel from either Askut or Shalfak (see below). The most likely administrativecenter for
this activity is Askut, which was the larger establishment, and upriver (and thus in the same
direction as the gold would travel to its final
destination, Egypt).
Askut also shows some evidence of final ore
processingactivity. Badawynoted that pounders
and grindersin the Middle Kingdom deposits at
Askut were suitable for use in ore reduction.16
Some of this groundstonedoes indeed provide a
good parallel to the spherical pounders associated with copper ore reduction at the New
Kingdom workshops of Timna and copper/turquoise production in the Sinai.17At least some
of this groundstone, however, was surely used
for grinding grain (fig. 4).18Small plumb-bobs
from Askut could have been used to balance
14H. S. Smith,BuhenII. The Inscriptions.EgyptExploration SocietyMemoir48 (London, 1976).
15Mills (supran. 5), 206.
16Alexander Badawy, "Askut:A Middle Kingdom Fortressin Nubia,"Archaeology18 (1965),131.
17Beno Rothenberg,"Ancient Copper Industriesin the
Western Arabah," Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 94
(1962), pl. XIII; idem, WereThese King Solomon's Mines?
(New York, Stein ScDay, 1972), 180, pls. 23-24, and W. M.
FlindersPetrie,Researchesin Sinai (London:John Murray,
1906),51, fig. 58.
18Delwen Samuel, "Their Staff of Life: Initial Investigations on Egyptian Bread Making," Chapter 12 in Barry
Kemp,AmarnaReports V (London: Egypt ExplorationSociety, 1989),thanksto MarkLehnerfor this identification.

112

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

Fig. 3. SecondIntermediatePeriod Ceramicsfrom Askut.

scales (fig. 5).19A fragmentarygold weight inscribedwith Snwsrt di cnh 20 was also found at
Askut (fig. 5). By comparison the largest weight
found at Uronarti was of only nine units. Small
uninscribed weights from Askut are typical of
19They are very similar to those found at Kahun (W. M.
Flinders Petrie, Tools and Weapons[Warminster:Aris and
Phillips, 1917(reprint1974)],pl. XLVII,B74-81).Of course,
they could have been used as plumb lines and not on scales,

the gold weights found at Uronarti.Those illustrated fall into the following distribution: No.
772 weighs 13.05 grams (201.4 grains), exactly
correspondingto the averageone unit weight of
the inscribed examples from Uronarti. Number
1717 measuresvery close to two averageunits at
although it is interestingto note that they are much smaller
than the Kahunexamples.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

Fig. 4. Saddle-backedQuern.

Fig. 5. Weightsfrom Askut.

113

114

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

Fig. 6a. Askut "SettlingSystem."

Fig. 6b. Gold Washing Table, Wadi Allaqi (Bellefonds) (afterVercoutter,n. 23, fig. 4).

26.3 grams (405.9 grains). Number 1752, weighing 18.6 grams (287.0 grains), could be a I/2
weight with a unit of 12.4 (191.4grains), falling
at the low end of the Uronarti distribution, or
might have served some other purpose. This is
the beqa standard, which Petrie notes is often
associated with gold weights. The Askut examples illustrated here are all within his Middle
Kingdom "low" range of 12.2-13.1grams.20
20 Dunham (supra n. 3), 35f., pl. XXXV A&B,and W. M.
FlindersPetrie,Ancient Weightsand Measures(Warminster:
Aris and Philips, 1926 [reprint 1974]), 17-19.The range of
both Petrie's Middle Kingdom "high" and "low" beqa is
12.2-14.0 grams (188-215.2 grains), with a median of 13.1
grams,exactly the Uronartistandard.Fractionalweights are
not unknown (Arye Ben-David, "A Scarab-shapedWeightstone," PEQ 106 [1974], 79-82). The style of the Askut
inscribedand uninscribedweights is similar to those illustratedby Petrie(op. cit., pls. VI, VII, X, XI).

The set of "settling basins," located just outside the entranceto the main gateway (fig. 6a),21
might have been used to wash the reducedore.22
The deep tanks at the top (a,b) would simply
provide a source of water, which would be
sluiced over powdered ore placed in the long,
shallow channel (c). The lighter and worthless
matrix would be washed away, leaving the
heavier gold behind. The final deep basin (d)
would serve to catch the water for potential
recycling,and perhapsmore importantlythe ore
residues, which might then be washed again to
retrieveany gold missed the firsttime. A parallel
to this system,recordedby Linant de Bellefonds,
occurs in the desert along the Wadi Allaqi.23
Although differing in some details, it, like the
Askut system, consists of a long, narrow washing table with basins at both head and foot (fig.
6b). Unlike the example from Askut, however,
the supply of water was a major difficulty.The
addition of a channel and shadouf to recyclethe
waterdictatedthat the firstbasin (a) be placed at
a lower level than the washing table (b). Linant
de Bellefonds notes that this waterwork was
associated with gold workings of some importance, as well as a group of ruined habitations,
but provides no details as to their date.24The
shadouf is firstattestedin Egypt in the Amarna
period, as seen in a representation from the
tomb of Neferhotep,25although it may have
come into use earlier.26Whatever its date, the
Wadi Allaqi system provides a good functional
21 See AlexanderBadawy, "An Egyptian Fortressin the
'Belly of the Rock':FurtherExcavationsand Discoveriesin
the Sudanese Island of Askut," Illustrated London News
(July 16, 1964),86-88, fig. 3, upperright hand corner.
22AlexanderBadawy,"ArchaeologicalProblemsRelating
to the EgyptianFortressat Askut,"JARCE5 (1966),25.
23 Linant de BellefondsBey, L'Etbaye.Pays habitepar les
Arabes Bicharieh. Geographie, Ethnologie, Mines d'Or
(Paris: Librairede la Societe de Geographie, 1825), 27-29,
illustration on p. 28, see also Jean Vercoutter,"The Gold of
Rush," Rush 7 (1959), 122f., fig. 4, and William Y. Adams,
"The Vintageof Nubia,"Rush 14 (1966),269.
24 Linant de Bellefonds,op. cit., 27.
25 N. de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Nefer-Hotep at
Thebes.MetropolitanMuseumof Art Egyptian Expedition,
Vol. 1, Publication 9 (New York:MetropolitanMuseum of
Art, 1933),pls. 46, 47.
26 HerbertE. Winlock, The Rise and Fall of the Middle
Kingdomin Thebes(New York:MacMillan,1947),165f.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

Table 2. Magazine Capacity of the
Second Cataract Forts
Site

Capacity (m3)

1,063.69
Mirgissa
Askut
1,632.18
Shalfak
389.28
444.34
Uronarti (Block VI)
Kumma
574.31
Semna
(max. 1000?)
Total

5,103.80

AfterKemp(n. 43):Table 1.

parallel, since the effort required to dig a channel and lower basin would not be justified at
Askut, which had a readysource of water in the
Nile.
The large block of storeroomsis another feature which sets Askut apart. They take up almost half of the interior space, and alone would
practically fill up the interior of Shalfak. In
both proportional and absolute terms, no other
of the Second CataractForts,including Mirgissa,
had a greater capacity for storage (Table 2).
Support of the mining activity might providean
explanation.27Initial processingof the ore, however, took place on site at Saras. By the time it
was furtherprocessedat Askut, it would hardly
require so extensive a focus on storerooms.The
facilities outside the fort should have been able
to account for theseneeds.
Badawysought to explain this featureby arguing that Askut was a major trade and production center.28In supportof this idea, he identified
several structures associated with the Middle
Kingdom occupation as potterykilns.29Kilns do
appear at Mirgissa,30and SerraEast.31Badawy's
only proof for their occurrenceat Askut, how27 Cf. Badawy(supran. 21), 88.
28 Ibid., Badawy(supran. 16), 127, 131, and idem (supra
n. 2), 66.
29AlexanderBadawy,"PreliminaryReport on the Excavations by the Universityof Californiaat Askut,"Rush 12
(1964),51;and idem (supran. 2), 26ff., 54.
30 Vercoutteret al. (supran. 3), figs. 23-24.
31 Bruce Williams, "The Nubian Publication Project,"
The Oriental Institute 1986-1987 Annual Report (1987),
57-60.

115

ever, is the presenceof large deposits of ash and

sherds, which would be equally appropriatefor
an oven or other cooking facility. Additionally,
a real ceramicindustryshould have producedan
abundanceof "wasters,"sherdsand vesselsshowing spalling and a high degree of vitrification.32
Both "wasters"and unfired vessels do occur at
SerraEast.33Badawyalso overestimatedthe importance of metallurgical activity at Askut,
evinced by the presenceof open molds for copper tools (fig. 7), by misidentifying breadmolds
for ingot molds, a common mistakein the literature.34There is thus little evidence to support
the idea that Askut produced a large enough
surplus of goods above its own needs to have
servedas a majorcraftand productioncenter.35
Production, however, is not a prerequisitefor
mercantile activity at a given site, and Askut
could have servedas a center of localized trade.
The Middle Kingdom C-Croup, far from evincing a passion for Egyptian products,is noted for
the retention of native material culture despite
close proximity to Middle Kingdom Egyptian
settlements. The only Egyptian import during
this period36at the Adindan C-Groupcemeteries
are faience beads.37Of course, some of the Egyptian goods may have disappearedwith the extensive looting which is characteristicof their
cemeteries. Yet, copper weapons appear so
abruptlywith the beginning of KermanControl
in the lib phase, that Bietak uses them as a
diagnostic feature.38Williams suggests that this
pattern almost certainly indicates that trade of
this important metal was actually restrictedby
the Egyptians.39 Perishable goods, especially
32 Owen S. Rye, Pottery Technology:Principles and Reconstruction.Manualson Archaeology4 (Washington,D.C.:
Taraxcum, 1981),110,figs. 2, 91-95. Some unfiredvesselsdo
occur at Askut,but neednot representmore than small scale
productionfor internalconsumption(cf., ibid., 97-99). Additionally, at least some of thesedate to the New Kingdom.
33 Williams,op. cit.
34 Helen Jacquet-Gordon,"ATentativeTypology of Bread
Moulds," in Altdgyptische Keramik, edited by Dorothea
Arnold,11-24.DeutschesArchaologischesInstitut,Abt.Kairo
(Mainzam Rhein:Von Zabern,1981),23.
35 Cf. Badawy(supran. 16), 131.
36 Bietak'sHa (Bietak,supran. 13).
37 Williams (supran. 8), 117.
38Bietak,op. cit.
39 Williams,loc. cit.

116

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

Fig. 7. Molds: a. Adze; b. Bread.

foodstuffs, are hard to trace. Mills and Nordstrom,40however, found a distinct absence of
Egyptian ceramic types in the C-Group habitation and cemeterysites in the area. The pattern
at the Adindan cemeterieswas similar, with the
presence of Egyptian ceramics dropping off
sharply with the lib phase (late Middle Kingdom).41Additionally, it has been argued that the
C-group'slack of relianceon Egyptianfoodstuffs
was partly responsible for their independence.42
The patternreflectedin the archaeologicalrecord
is one of aloof contact and limited trading.
A more likely explanation for the magazines
is Kemp's very plausible suggestion that this
40 Mills and Nordstrom(supran. 6); Mills (supran. 5).
41Williams, loc. cit.
42Trigger(supran. 4), 79-80.

kind of room block, found at all of the Second

Cataractforts,actuallyrepresentsa granarycomplex.43Kemp drawsa parallel between these sets
of rooms and the granarymodel from the tomb
of Meketre.In the latter, scribes sit in an outer
room, off of which depend a set of contiguous
square rooms. As each sack is recorded, the
bearerascends a stair leading to the top of the
wall, pouring his grain into one of the chambers
through its open roof.44Each of these features,
the scribe's area, stair, and set of rooms with
43BarryJ. Kemp,"LargeMiddleKingdomGranaryBuildings (and the archaeology of administration),"ZAS 113
(1986),120-36.
44 HerbertE. Winlock, Models of Daily Life in Ancient
Egypt. MetropolitanMuseum of Art Pub. 18 (Cambridge,
Mass.,1955),25-27, 87-88,pls. 20, 62-63.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

limited access,are presentat the Second Cataract
forts, as well as in the mansions of the town of
Kahun. The placement of pillars shows, at least
at Askut and Mirgissa, however, that the rooms
in Nubia were covered. Presumably the grain
was poured in through holes in the roof, as
suggested in Kemp's reconstruction.45Grain
could then be extractedthrough the doorways,
each room emptied in succession. Each of these
structures,excepting those at Kahun, were also
associatedwith granarypeg sealings from doors
and/or boxes (misidentified as bag sealings
by Reisner).46Askut was no exception. Sealings
of the htm snwt Dctntr nfr nb tEwySnwsrt ("Seal

of the GreatGranaryof the PerfectGod, Lord of

the Two Lands Senwosret"),along with that of
the "Granaryof Uronarti,"were recovered.
Kemp estimates the number of yearly rations
that the granaryat each of the forts representsby
dividing the reconstructedmaximum volume at
each facility by an estimate of the average annual per capita ration. According to this analysis, the granary at Askut, when full, represents
the potential to feed 3264 to 5628 individuals for
one year, over three and one-half times the capacity of Uronarti (889 to 1532), and one-third
above that of the huge fortressof Mirgissa (2127
to 3668).47Because the combined total capacity
of all the granariesof the Second Cataractforts
far exceeded the needs of their combined garrisons, Kemp hypothesized that they served as a
securebase of supply for the periodic campaigns
of the Middle Kingdom.48Askut's large proportional emphasis on granaries (22%of its total
area49),coupled with its secure location on an
island well behind the frontier,suggests to Kemp
that its primaryfunction was as a fortifiedgrain
store.50
45 Kemp,op. cit., fig. 5.
46 MarthaH. Weincke,"ClaySealings from Shechem,the
Sudan,and the Aegean,"JNES 35 (1977),127-30.
47 Kemp,op. cit., Table 2.
48These figures do not include Kemp's proposed reconstruction of a granarycomplex at Semna. If that building
filledall of the availablespace,it could have supported3,448
to 2,000individualsfor one year(ibid.). Evensupposing that
this was the case, Askut'sgranarywould exceed its capacity
by one-third. Depending on the size of Semna's granary,
Askut thus accounts for from one-quarterto one-half of the
combinedcapacitiesof Askut,Shalfak,Uronarti,Semnaand
Kumma.
49 Ibid., Table 1.
50 Ibid., 134.

117

It is odd, therefore,that Askut, important in

terms of settlement pattern, natural resources,
and military strategy,goes unnamed in the historical record. One possible name is contained
in the Ramesseum Onomasticon, dating from
the late Second IntermediatePeriod. This document contains a list of the fortressesof Lower
Nubia, running from south to north.51The first
eight of these place names correspond to the
Second Cataractregion. The location of seven of
these names has been determined through the
discovery of inscriptions or seal impressions at
each site. Following the orderof the Onomasticon they are (fig. 1): 1. Ddit sti- Semna South;
2. ShmHckSwRcmSc-hrwSemna;3. ItnwPdwtKumma;4. Hsf Iwniv- Uronarti;5. WcfHlsivtShalfak; 7. ikn - Mirgissa; and 8. Bwhn- Buhen.52 Only a number 6, originally read by
Gardiner as Dr WtiwQ), but better read as Dr
Mtiw(?),53has yet to be assigned. Since the list
follows a strictgeographicalorderfrom south to
north, Dr MtiwQ) must fall between Shalfak
(Number 5) and Mirgissa(number7). Only four
substantial Egyptian sites exist between these
two points, Askut, Murshid, Gemai, and Dabenarti. Murshid and Gemai can easily be eliminated since they were merely small watchposts,
with a few rooms to accommodate the men
stationed there, who were no doubt attached to
the garrisons at Askut and Mirgissa. In his discussion of the list, Gardiner argued that Dabenarti or Mirgissawere the most likely candidates
for Dr MtiwQ) because of their prominence.
Mirgissahas since been identifiedwith Ikn, leaving the large enclosureat Dabenartias the chief
candidate. But Gardiner's argument was made
51Alan H. Gardiner,"An Ancient List of the Fortressesof
Nubia," JEA 3 (1916), 184-92; idem, Ancient Egyptian
Onomastica,3 vols. (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1947),
10-11,263, 266, pl. II.
52 Gardiner,op. cit., 1916;Dunham and Janssen (supra
n. 3); Dunham (supra n. 3); Jean Vercoutter,"La Stele de
MirgissaIM.209et la Localisationd'Iken(Korou Mirgissa?),"
Rd'E 16 (1964), 179-91;Knudstad(supra n. 3); H. S. Smith,
"Kor:Report on the Excavationsof the Egypt Exploration
Societyat Kor, 1965,"Rush 14 (1966),187-243;Louis Zabkar,
"SemnaSouth:The SouthernFortress,"JEA 61:42-44.
53 Vercoutter,op. cit., 186, n. 4. Gardinerhimself notes
that the readingof m is preferableto w (op. cit., 1916, 185),
as an examination of the original confirms(idem., op. cit.,
1947, pl. II, cf. Georg Moller, HieratischePaldographie,3
vols. [Osnabriick:Otto Zeller, 1927(reprint1965)],Number
196).

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

118

before the discovery of a substantial Middle

Kingdom fortress at Askut. Thus we are left
with the dilemma of two fortresses with only
one name to divide between them.54
In the absence of textual material (but see
below), one must turn to more circumstantial
evidence. For either Askut or Dabenarti to correspond with Dr Mtiw(7), the site must fit the
following four criteria, although the last is of
the least importance:
1) The fortress was built in the Middle Kingdom (when, presumably, the list was originally
compiled).
2) The fortress was comparable in size and
appointments to the other sites included in the
Onomasticon.
3) The site was actually occupied during the
Middle Kingdom.
4) The site shows continuity of occupation
through the Thirteenth Dynasty and into the
Second Intermediate Period (when the Onomasticon was actually written).55
Evidence supporting these four points for each
site will be assessed, considering Askut first,
followed by Dabenarti.
Askut
1: A rock inscription (Askut 1, fig. 12a) reads:56

1. rS n(i) hcp rnpt 3 hr hm n(i)

2. niswt bity shmkBRc cnh dt r nhh
3. hft wnn smsw n(i) hkS sbk sd ib
54 Cf. Vercoutter,op. cit., Gardiner,op. cit. (1916), 190,
and for Murshid and Gemai, Mills and Nordstrom(supra
n. 6), 11.
55The date of the Onomasticon is not certain. Gardiner
suggests Dynasty XIII to XIV (op. cit. [1947], 6). A late
Middle Kingdom date is thus possible if the documentfalls
within the earlierpart of the range.
56 Note the difference in Vercoutter'
s translation of the
name and titles ("SemnaSouth Fortand the Recordsof Nile

4. hr ts m mnw ir.n
5. snwsrt mjc-hrw
"Water level, Year 3 under the Majesty of the
King of Upper and Lower Egypt Sekhem-kaRec, may he live forever and ever, when the
royal follower Sobek's son Ib was commanding
in the Fortress which Senwosret, t.v., built."
The king mentioned in this inscription is
Amenemhet-sonebef, the second king of Dynasty
XIII. The measurement of the water level during his reign demonstrates that Askut was still
active at the end of the Middle Kingdom. Additionally, the fortress is described as being built
by an unidentified Senwosret, presumably Senwosret III, who is credited with the construction
of all of the Middle Kingdom forts south of
Mirgissa except Semna South. In any case, the
reign of Senwosret III provides a terminus ante
quern for Askut' s erection, since no king named
Senwosret reigned after him. Additionally, a
sample of wood from one of the transverse reinforcing beams of the northern fortification wall
was dated by Radiocarbon testing to 3610 80
B.P., yielding a calibrated interval of c. 17002100 b.c. (UCLA-1656C).
2: An architectural analysis of Askut confirms
this attribution. In plan it most resembles Uronarti and Shalfak, both of which, like Askut,
were suited to the peculiarities of their locations. It has all of the components of the other
forts, including timber reinforcement of the walls
at regular intervals, a system of towers or supports for an overhanging platform,57 protective
spur walls, a massive entrance gate, a block of
magazines, a "commandant's mansion" very
similar to the "temple" within the walls of
Uronarti, the typical three room "barracks"quarters, and a covered stair providing access to
water in case of siege (fig. 8). Thus, Askut, by no
Levels at Kumma,"Kush 14 [1966], 139). The version presented here is taken from a hand copy of the inscription
included in Badawy,supra n. 2. The title smsw n(i) hk.Dis
certain, both from the copy and a (ratherpoor) copy of the
photographof the original. The readingof the name itself is
less certain.The readinghr ts m, "upon commandingin," is
to be preferredto hi>ty-c
m "foremostin."
57A. W. Lawrence, "Ancient Egyptian Fortifications,"
JEA 51 (1965),75-76.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

Fig. 8. Askut.

119

120

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

Fig. 9a. Vesselstypicalof the MiddleKingdomfrom Askut.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

121

Fig. 9b. Askut MiddleKingdom Cups.

means the smallest of the Second Cataractforts,

includes all of the appointments found at the
other fortresses.In fact, Vercoutterhas already
tentatively identified Askut with Dr Mtiw because of this similarity.58As Kemphas suggested
(see above), Askut may have servedas an important granary depot, supplying the needs of the
armies used in the Nubian campaigns of late
DynastyXII. Clearly,Askutwas eminently suited
for inclusion on the Ramesseum Onomasticon
list.
58Vercoutteret al. (supran. 3), 187,n. 154.

3: The archaeological record at Askut shows

clear evidenceof a Middle Kingdom occupation.
Examples of a varietyof ceramic types restricted
to the Middle Kingdom were recovered(fig. 9a),
along with a large corpus of sealings with types
very similar to those found at Uronarti. The
latterincluded examples of the Middle Kingdom
officialseals of Semna, Uronarti,and Buhen.59
59 Stuart Tyson Smith, "Administrationat the Egyptian
Middle Kingdom Frontier: Sealings from Uronarti and
Askut,"in AegeanSeals,Sealingsand Administration,edited
by Thomas G. Palaima. Aegaeum 5 (Liege: Universite de
Liege, 1990).

122

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

distribution, the presence of these wares does
suggest a Second Intermediate occupation.66

4: Dorothea Arnold has shown that regular

changes in the Vessel Index (Width divided by
Height) of hemispherical cups are a good chronological indicator for the Middle Kingdom.60
The distribution at Askut reflects a strong Dynasty 13 occupation (fig. 9b).61 There is also
good reason to believe that Askut was in use
during the Second Intermediate Period when
Kerma controlled Lower Nubia. A Kerman cemetery with 20 graves (ll-M-19) was located within
6.8 km of Askut. "The graves are mostly eastwest oriented . . . , in most cases, on a bed, the
head to the west, and often accompanied by an
animal sacrifice of a gazelle or a ram."62 The
authors go on to suggest that, since no Kerman
settlements are located nearby, Askut is the most
likely place of habitation. Sherds of Kerma
Classique black topped ware, along with incised
Pan Grave sherds were, in fact, recovered from
Askut (fig. 3), and are associated with contexts
just above Middle Kingdom deposits.63 Larger
amounts of Second Intermediate Period Egyptian style pottery, including combed and Yahudiya wares (fig. 3), also occur in these contexts.
The last is the most complete of two examples
of a type which dates from c. 1710-1650 b.c.64In
light of this evidence, it is more likely that
Askut was occupied at this period by an Egyptian client of the Kerman king, as is well documented at Buhen.65 Although a final conclusion
must await the thorough analysis of the ceramic

The island site of Dabenarti has been examined by L. Borchardt, Noel F. Wheeler, under
the supervision of George Reisner, and Jay Ruby
during the Aswan High Dam salvage campaign.67
The last examination was the most thorough,
and included test excavations.
1 & 2: There is little evidence for the date of
Dabenarti's construction. There are no rock inscriptions, and the site's architecture is atypical
of the Middle Kingdom design both in plan (see
fig. 10), and in construction technique, which
consisted of "Gewoehnlicher Ziegelverband ohne
Matten und Holzeinlagen."68 Borchardt found
"keine Reste von Bauten sichtbar" in the interior,69and does not report the presence of any
artifacts. He concludes by saying: "Die Anlage
weicht vollstaendig von der der uebrigen Festungen ab, nicht nur in der Ausfuehrung, die
weniger sorgfaeltig ist, sondern auch in der all"
gemeinen Anordnung. 70 Hesse's analysis of
brick size indicates that Dabenarti was also atypical in this respect.71
3 8c4: Occupation at Dabenarti cannot have
been more than ephemeral. Borchardt does not report the presence of any artifacts,72and Wheeler's
later survey could recover only four potsherds

60 DorotheaArnold, "Pottery,"ChapterXII in The Pyramid of SenwosretI, edited by Dieter Arnold. Metropolitan

Museumof Art EgyptianExpeditionPublicationXXII (New
York,1988),140ff.
61 Note that this distributionis still preliminary.
62 Mills and Nordstrom(supran. 6), 10.
63 Cf. BrigetteGratien,Les CulturesKerma.Publications
de l'Universitede Lille III (Lille: Pressesde l'Universitede
Lille, 1978), fig. 62; and Barry Kemp, "An Incised Sherd
from Kahun, Egypt,"JNES 36 (1977),289-92. Other sherds
could be from C-Groupdomesticwares.
64 I am indebtedto Dr. Bietakfor this identification(April
30, 1990). The style is Piriform lb, and similar examples
have been found in Egypt, Nubia, and the Levant(Manfred
Bietak, "ArchaologisherBufund und historischeInterpretation am Beispeil der Tell El-Yahudiya-Ware,"
Akten des
ViertenInternationalenAgyptologen KongressesMunchen
1985.Band2 [Hamburg:Helmut Buske],1If., Abb.2, 9).
65 Smith (supran. 14),66ff.

66 Gratien, op. cit., 220ff.; Kemp, op. cit.; and R. S.

Merrillees, "El-Lisht and Tell El-YahudiyaWare in the
ArchaeologicalMuseumof the AmericanUniversityof Beirut,"Levant \0 (1978),95.
67 L. Borchardt,AltaegyptischeFestungenan der zweiten
Nilschnelle. Veroeffentlichungender Ernst von SieglinExpedition, III (Leipzig, 1923);Dunham (supra n. 3); and
Jay W. Ruby, "PreliminaryReport of the University of
California Expedition to Dabnarti, 1963,"Kush 12 (1964),
54-56.
68Borchardt,op. cit., 10.
69Ibid.
70Ibid.
71AlbertHesse, "The measurementof ancient bricksand
its archaeologicalinterest,"in Mathematicsin the Archaeological and Historical Sciences, edited by F. R. Hodson,
D. G. Kendall, and P. Tautu, 432-35 (Chicago: AldineAtherton,1971),433, fig. 1.
72Borchardt,op. cit., 9-10.

Dabenarti

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

123

Fig. 10. Dabenarti[afterRuby (n. 67)].

(of unspecifieddate). The report concludes that

the fort was never fully occupied.73The final
systematicsurveyof Dabenartiby Ruby revealed
only Late Christian sherds on the surface, and
his excavations in the interior of the fort uncovered "no evidence of human occupation."74
He goes on to suggest that this fact implies that
the fortress does not date to the Middle Kingdom at all, since an existing unfinished fortification would at least have been temporarily
occupied during the New Kingdom reconquest
of Nubia.
From the above discussion, it is clear that
Askut meets all of the criteriato be chosen as the
location of Dr MtiwQ). It was (1) built in the
Middle Kingdom, (2) sufficientin size and appointments to be included on the list, (3) occupied during the Middle Kingdom, and (4)
probably in use during the Second Intermediate
Period. Dabenarti,on the other hand, is highly
73 Dunham (supra n. 3), 177.
74 Ruby (supra n. 67), 56.

unsatisfactory.There is no evidence even to attribute its constructionto the Middle Kingdom.

Every archaeologistwho has visited it has concluded that it was neveroccupied. Even if Dabenarti was begun in the Middle Kingdom, the
author of the Onomasticon would hardly be
likely to skip an important and active fortress,
larger than Shalfak,Kumma,and Semna South,
over the memory of a proposed fortresswhich
was neveroccupied.
The list also providesinternal evidencefor the
association of Dr MtiwQ)with Askut. The scribe
occasionally placed the heading mnw n(i) ("fortressof") opposite a group of entries. Since this
occursat uneven intervals,it is not unreasonable
to suppose that each heading representsan administrativeand/or geographical unit. The first
of these headings begins with DSir Sti (Semna
South) and ends with Dr MtiwQ) (fig. 1 nos. 16). The next heading includes Ikn (Mirgissa),
Bwhn, and Ink tlwy (fig. 1 nos. 7-9).75If Dr
75 Gardiner (supra n. 51, 1916), 186.

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

124

a. Askut's Institutional

Seals

c. Sti after Moller

b. Onomasticon
Fig. 11. Askut'sName and the RamesseumOnomasticon.

Mtiw(?) was located at Dabenarti, one would

expect the name to be included in the same
heading as Mirgissa, since the two forts are in
such close proximity. Askut, on the other hand,
is associated with the forts of the first grouping
both by proximity and architecturalsimilarity.
Thus on all counts, Askut provides the best
location for Dr MtiwQ).
Severalseal impressions found at Askut come
from the Upper Fort, Hurt, and Treasuryof the
otherwiseunknown Fortressof Dr Stiw {% )>
"fending off" or "destroyingthe Nubians" (fig.
lla). Such a name would fit in very well with
the other fort names in Lower Nubia. Yetit does
not appearon the Onomasticoneither for Nubia
or the First Upper Egyptian Nome, known as
Tj-Sti, "Nubian Land," where one would expect it. Could Dr Stiw be Askut's real name?
Wereit not for the onomasticon, this conclusion
would have been inevitable, if necessarilytenta-

tive. But can the two names be reconciled?There

are objections. While the papyrus is broken at
this point and the reading is difficult,the critical
part of the name is discernible.The only character in question is the m. It definitelybegins with
dr (S ii)>not dr ( 5> )and the determinative^
is missing on the seal, but present on the papyrus (fig. lib). As Ermanand Grapow note, however, the two words are virtually synonyms, dr
meaning "fernhalten von jem," or "einer Zustand (Hunger u.a.) beseitigen,"and dr meaning
"entfernen"or "vertrieben."Both use the same
determinatives,^ or v-i .76A scribequickly copying a list of names, or especially having the list
read to him, might easily have substituted the
one like-sounding and like-meaning word for
76Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Worterbuchder
dgyptischeSprache,7 vols. (Leipzig, 1927-63),vol. V, 473,
595.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

125

the other. The determinative would have been

omitted on the seal due to the limited space
available. It is also well known that d becomes d
during the Middle Kingdom.77 Earlier, in Dynasty 12, when the fort was founded and the seal
carved, we might still expect dr. By the late
Middle Kingdom, when the Onomasticon was
written, the change to dr could have taken place.
This leaves only the conversion of the m(?) to
sti. In hieratic both the m and sti resemble an 8,
but with the addition of two strokes for the sti
sign (=i)).78 A single fat stroke does indeed appear after the m(?), presumably acting as part of
the following tiw bird (fig. lib). This is an
administrative text, not a carefully written literary exercise. If the scribe were in a hurry,
especially if writing from dictation, he might
have simply subsumed the two strokes of the sti
into one fat stroke with the tiw. This reconstruction, only made possible by the discovery of
the seal impressions, is preferable to that used
formerly. No longer do we have to reconstruct
an unlikely and/or otherwise unattested Mtiw,
Wtiiv or WhStiw. The use of Stiw in the name
is very appropriate considering the other fort
names. The name of Semna South even makes
reference to Sti land. It also explains why no
local name had been previously identified on the
over 250 seal impressions found at Askut, a large
number of which originated from official door
or box sealings.79
The three institutions named in the sealings
are also consistent with conditions at Askut. It
has a clear upper-lower dichotomy between the
main fort and southeast quarters, justifying the
use of an Upper Fort seal (fig. 8). There would
be ample room for a treasury, which might have
stored the gold from Saras. The Hurt was a kind
of labor prison, where criminals, especially those
who had run away from the corvee, might be
sentenced to work for the state. The institution
would have had several branches at various
places in Egypt, with a Great Hurt at Thebes.80

If Askut controlled the gold mining activity at

Saras, then it might have required its own branch
of the Hurt in order to supply labor. The use of
Egyptian forced labor for this activity would
also explain the absence of C-Group ceramics at
the ore reducing sites. These individuals might
have been housed in the southeast quarter where
the sealings were found, presumably under less
than luxurious conditions. Hayes suggests that
the Hurt might have served as a location for
hearing court cases. The Great Hurt held a
criminal record.81It seems likely that each Hurt
would have retained the criminal records for its
local area. Thus Askut might have served as the
administrative center for hnrt-labor and court
documents throughout the Second Cataract Fort
system, at least those forts south of Mirgissa.
Identifying Askut as Dr Stiw places it firmly
within its functional system, the fortresses south
of the Second Cataract. Most of these establishments were probably erected as a strategic unit,
or at least as complements of one another over a
period of years, by Senwosret III. These massive
monuments represent an incredibly large expenditure of man-hours and materiel. Providing for
their maintenance and garrisoning would also
constitute a considerable drain on the royal resources. The primary purpose of these monuments has been the topic of much debate. The
majority argue that the fortresses should be taken
at face value, as the military response to a very
powerful enemy lying to the south. The most
likely candidate is the growing Kerman polity,82
although Trigger has since revised his opinion,
arguing that they were aimed at potentially hostile desert and Nilotic groups which might pose
a threat to the important trade route between the
Second Cataract and Kerma.83Kemp has added a
new dimension to this argument by emphasizing how this system might have functioned as a
military tool to support the periodic campaigns
of the era,84 in addition to serving as a static
defense. Adams has taken an entirely opposite

77Jiirgen Osing, Die Nominalbildung des Agyptischen.

Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut, Abt. Kairo (Mainz am
Rhein:Von Zabern,1974),790ff.
78Moller(supran. 53), vol. I, 41 [#437],see fig. lie.
79Smith (supran. 59).
80 William C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the late MiddleKingdom in the BrooklynMuseum(Brooklyn,1955),37ff.

81 Ibid., 38-39.
82WalterB. Emery,Egypt in Nubia (London: Hutchinson, 1965), A. J. Arkell, A History of the Sudan (London:
Athlone Press,1961),Trigger(supran. 4).
83 Idem, "The Reasonsfor the Constructionof the Second
CataractForts,"JSSEA12 (1982),1-6.
84Kemp(supran. 43), 133f.,fig. 6.

126

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

view.85 He argues that no native polity could

pose enough of a threat to require such massive
fortifications. He sees them as fulfilling two
roles, the Egyptian need for material hypertrophy
in the creation of a symbolic monument far
larger than any practical requirements might
necessitate, as with the construction of the Great
Pyramid in the Old Kingdom and Temple of
Abu Simbel in the New Kingdom, and the need
to police and facilitate trade along a very bad
stretch of river.
These two theories need not be mutually exclusive.86 A more complete picture of the Egyptian activities in Lower Nubia, and especially at
the Second Cataract, can be derived from a synthetic view, in which both the militaristic and
economic roles are represented as a systemic
whole, in which no one trait takes supremacy.
Thus the forts functioned not only as an offensive and defensive military tool, but also economically with respect to natives coming from
the south, the exploitation of local resources,
and control of the local population. Before such
a reconstruction can be proposed, however, one
must consider the location of Hh, the southern
boundary established by Senwosret III in Year 8
of his reign, a border which lasted well into
Dynasty XIII.
The location of Hh has profound implications for the role of Askut, and, indeed, of all
the other Second Cataract Forts. Any theory
regarding the placement of Hh must rely upon
an interpretation of the Semna Stela of Senwosret III. The pertinent parts of this read:87
Southern Boundary made in Year 8 under
the Majesty of KhakauRe, may he be given life
for ever and ever; in order to prevent all Nhsi
passing it in travelling downstream by water
or by land with a ship or with all cattle of the
Nhsiw, except when a Nhsi will come in order
that trading might be done in Ikn or on a
commission. Any good thing may be done
85William Y. Adams,Nubia: Corridorto Africa(London:
Penguin, 1977),183ff.
86 I do reject, however,Adams' idea of "materialhypertrophy."
87 KoeniglicheMuseenzu Berlin, AegyptischeInschriften
aus dem Koeniglichen Museen zu Berlin (Leipzig, 1913),
255f.

with them; but without allowing a boat of the

Nhsiw to pass in travelling downstream by
Hh, forever.
Two sites have been proposed for this boundary
(fig. 1), the Semna cataract (favored by the majority of Egyptologists88), and Abu Sir.89 If the
border was located at Semna, then the main
point of contact would reside there, and Askut
would lie well protected behind the frontier. If
the Nhsiw were allowed to travel by boat as far
as Abu Sir, however, Semna decreases in importance. A Nubian fleet, or even a single ship,
which looked suspicious might be stopped, but
most would no doubt be allowed to continue on
to Ikn for trading. Askut would be located in the
midst of an important area of contact between
the Egyptians, Kermans, and C-Group, and must
have had a significant role in policing the riverine traffic from the south and regulating contact between the C-Group and the southern
Nhsiw.
Circumstantial evidence supports the location
of Hh at the Semna cataract. The Semna complex of forts represents the southernmost Middle
Kingdom military presence, and its cataract forms
a very defensible natural point of control. Additionally, the only mention of it occurs on the
stelae which were placed there.90 Vercoutter,

88 Cf. James Henry Breasted,Ancient Records of Egypt,

vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906), 294,
n. b; Torgny Save-Soderbergh,
Agypten und Nubien (Lund:
Hakan Ohlsson, 1941),76; John A. Wilson, The Burden of
Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 137;
Arkell(supran. 82), 75-76; Emery(supran. 82), 157;Miriam
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature,vol. 1 (Berkeley:
Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1973), 118, 120, n. 1; Trigger
(supran. 4), 67.
89 KarolaZibelius, AfrikanischeOrts- und Volkernamen
in hieroglyphischenund hieratischenTexten. Beiheftezum
Tiibinger Atlas des vordernOrients. Riehe B, Nr. 1 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1972), 147, who follows Vercoutter(supra
n. 52), 187ff.
90Another possible mention of Hh is contained in the
biographicalinscriptionof Sihathor,an officialof Amenemhet II, although Breastedreads the name as hc, near Abu
Simbel (op. cit., 274). The account mentions that Sihathor
had conqueredthe area, and gone around its islands. This
sheds little light on the location of Hh, since both the
Second Cataractand the approach to Semna have islands
which providean obstacleto navigation.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

however, makes several objections to the equivalence of Hh and Semna which cannot be dismissed out of hand.91 As the Middle Kingdom
frontier, Hh would have been an important
place to the Egyptians. One would expect to
find some mention of it in one of the many
private inscriptions recorded at the Semna cataract, and as an epithet of one of the deities
worshiped in the temples there. Yet Hh appears
nowhere other than on the stelae. He also argues, less convincingly, that Hh must, in fact,
be located to the north of ikn, Abu Sir being the
most likely point north of Mirgissa that might
qualify.
At the crux of this disagreement are differing
interpretations of the wording of the Semna
stela. The standard reading of this text has been
set forth by Lichtheim.92 The first clause, beginning "in order to prevent . . . ," sets up an absolute boundary and point of control. The second clause, however, beginning with "except
when . . . ," sets up a special circumstance, exempting Nubians who come either to trade at
Ikn, or upon a commission. The last clause
expands on this point, and adds a further stricture, that no boat of the Nubians (even if its
occupants wish to trade at Ikn or are on a
commission) can travel downstream past Hh.
Thus, anyone from the south wishing to travel
farther north was obliged to either transfer their
goods or themselves onto Egyptian ships, or
mount an overland expedition.
Vercoutter, however, sees an internal contradiction in the text when Hh is equated with
Semna.93 He finds it unlikely that native boats
would be refused access to the principal trading
center, Ikn. The absolute border, at Hh must
necessarily lie beyond that point (Mirgissa), to
allow the merchants and emissaries access. Semna
might still serve to restrict traffic, but those with
legitimate business would be allowed to travel
by land or by boat at least as far as Ikn, but
probably not past the Second Cataract. He therefore suggests the prominent point of Abu Sir,
with its many Middle Kingdom inscriptions of

91 Vercoutter, loc. cit.

92 Lichtheim, loc. cit.
93 Vercoutter, loc. cit.

127

expeditions into Nubia, as the most suitable

alternative to Semna.
In this argument, however, Vercoutter fails to
apply the same test to Abu Sir as he does to
Semna. The absence of Hh in the multitude of
texts at Abu Sir is just as remarkable as its
absence at Semna. Furthermore, as Lichtheim
has pointed out, the wording of the stela is quite
clear. A specific exception is made for Nhsi
going to Ikn to trade or on a commission. They
may travel north, but only by land (or, presumably, on an Egyptian boat). While this might
indeed prove inconvenient to the native merchants, and even to the Egyptians, it is certainly
not beyond the realm of possibility. In fact, this
exception for merchants trading at Ikn actually
supports a location to the south of Mirgissa.94
Hh, however, cannot be made equivalent with
Semna fort itself, as Lichtheim suggests.95Semna,
Kumma, and Semna South already have names
well attested from the Middle Kingdom. If the
frontier were actually defined by a single fortress,
one would expect it to carry the place name,
even as Buhen and Ikn carry local names.
Still, locating Hh directly at the Semna cataract is problematical because of Vercoutter's
objection that the name appears in no other
inscription there. This problem can be overcome, however, if Hh is seen as a more general
geographical term (as suggested by Gardiner96),
covering a comparatively large area extending
from the Semna cataract northward to some
point South of Ikn (fig. 1). That Hh extended at
least as far as Uronarti is implied by Senwosret
Ill's stela of Year 16. Although it does not
specifically mention Hh, being chiefly intended
to commemorate the founding of the fortress
itself, it does include the same poem used on the
almost duplicate stela from Semna, also of Year
16, which commemorates the re-establishment
of the boundary at Hh. Both monuments conclude with "Now as for every son of mine who
will strengthen this boundary which my Majesty
(l.p.h.) has made, he is my son. . . . Now my
Majesty caused that a statue of my Majesty be

94 Lichtheim, loc. cit.

95 Also implied by Breasted, op. cit., 294, n. b.
96 Gardiner (supra n. 51, 1916), 190.

128

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

made upon this boundary, so that you might

prosper for it, and fight for it."97 Janssen, in his
commentary, had some difficulty reconciling the
duplication of the last passage, establishing, in
effect, the same statue at the same border in two
different places. If, however, we understand "this
boundary" (Hh) to include Uronarti, then there
is no contradiction at all, since the statue could
be placed anywhere from Semna to Uronarti
and still be on "this boundary."98 A Hh covering this area would also explain why it was not
mentioned in any other local inscriptions. The
ancient authors would naturally tend to emphasize the specific location over a more general
region.99 It is also not surprising that Hh fails to
appear in the epithet of a deity. The region
between Semna and Shalfak contained little evidence of settlement from any period, thus reducing the likelihood of a syncretistic association of
a local deity with a member of the Egyptian
pantheon such as Horus or Hathor.
The location of Hh in this region, or indeed
at Semna itself, has very specific implications for
the role of the forts. Now that this question has
been settled, we can proceed to place Askut in its
functional context in a reconstruction of each
fort's role in a defensive system devoted to the
regulation of trade, the native population, and
natural resources. This system (fig. 12) is intended to supplement, not replace Kemp's reconstruction, which is largely oriented towards
their role in the offensive policy of the Middle
Kingdom Pharaohs.
Nubians from the south or desert would arrive
at the boundary, encountering a substantial set
of fortifications blocking both the water and
overland trade routes,100and from which issued
regular patrols into the desert. Even small groups
would be stopped, by show of force if necessary,
and questioned. Nhsi not on legitimate business
97 Jozef M. A. Janssen, "The Stela (KhartoumMuseum
No. 3) from Uronarti,"JNES 12 (1953),54, and Koeniglich
Museen(supran. 87), 257f.
98 It was presumably placed at Semna, where it would
necessarilyhave more impact.
99 Most of the inscriptionson the rocksbelow Semnaand
Kummado not mention a place. Those which do referto a
specificlocation use the names of the respectiveforts (Dunham and Janssen[supran. 3], 130ff.).
100Ibid., 2.

would be turned away.101 Any attempt to circumvent the decree would no doubt be dealt
with harshly.102Semna's plan, in fact, is dominated by "barracks" style rooms, giving it the
largest garrison of all the forts south of Mirgissa. Combining these troops with the garrisons
from Kumma and Semna South, the Egyptian
commander could place a large force in the field
(or, presumably, on water if necessary). If the
threat was overwhelming, he could retire into
the safety of the fortifications, and signal directly
for help to Uronarti. Uronarti' s commander
could then send a message to Mirgissa and ultimately Buhen using a pre-arranged visual signal
relayed through Shalfak, Askut, Murshid, and
Gemai.103
The actual size of the garrisons has been subject to some debate. I reject Vila's low estimates
for the manning of Mirgissa.104 He arrives at a
contingent of 35 archers and 35 foot soldiers
based upon several large caches of weapons
found in rooms of a well preserved building at
Mirgissa. Such numbers could hardly effectively
man the extensive inner fortifications, let alone
the walls of the outer fortified town. Inherent in
his analysis is the assumption that the weapons
recovered at Mirgissa represent the entire reserve
stock held there. Considering the poor preservation of much of the interior of the main fort,
this can hardly be justified. One of the other
elite/administrative blocks might originally have
held more arms. Additionally, his argument does
not even consider the fortified town outside the
walls of the main fort, which was not extensively
excavated. Any estimate must be considered as a
minimum, and should be correlated with other
(i.e., architectural) data. Vila also uses overly
generous divisors. It seems highly unlikely that
each archer would require ten bows and eighty
arrows each in reserve. Similarly, approximately
two pikes and nine javelins per foot soldier also
seems excessive. More reasonable numbers might
be 200 or more archers (especially considering
the 300-400 bows), and 150 or more pikemen.
101Paul C. Smither, "The Semna Despatches,"JEA 31
(1945),3-10.
102Trigger(supran. 4), 74-75.
103Wheeler(supran. 1), 255-56.
104Vila (supran. 3), 198-99.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

Fig. 12. Function of the FortressSystem.

129

130

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

Even this assumes that a reserve was kept for

each man. Actual reserves might be less, assuming losses of weaponry were relatively low per
person. If, for example, a reserve was kept sufficient to resupply one-half of the garrison, then
we might reach numbers similar to those suggested by Emery, with 600-800 archers and 800
javelin- and pike-men. A total garrison of 2,000 or
more is not beyond the realm of reason, assuming some losses due to disturbance, etc.105Using
Dunham's estimate of four to ten men per "barrack" style and three-room complex,106 the garrison at Mirgissa might number from at least
600-1500,107Uronarti from 112-280 men, Kumma
approximately 40-100 men, and the West Wing
of Semna alone from 216-540 men (exceeding
Reisner's rather conservative estimate of a maximum of 300 men108). The garrison of Semna
South, which in any case must have been small,
105For example, arrowswith simple wooden points, well
known from military contexts (cf. HerbertE. Winlock, The
Slain Soldiers of NebhepetReDMentuhotpe. Metropolitan
Museumof Art Egyptian Expedition 16 [New York, 1945]),
might have been poorly preservedor overlookedduring the
excavations.The absenceof copper or bronzeweapons does
not necessarilymean that none were used. We would expect
copper to have a high degree of conservationand re-use,
especially during the Middle Kingdom. In case of siege or
abandonment, these would be one of the first items for
retreatingsoldiersor lootersto take.Less costly flint weapons
wereabandoned.Even so, we cannot rule out the possibility
that some of the flint weaponswerealso takenas booty or by
retreatingEgyptians, and that the collection left in place
representsonly a portion of the total originally present.
Shields would be the least well preserved,and the low
numbers are not convincing. In any case, shields would
requiremuch less frequentreplacementand could easily be
fashioned locally, as the Mirgissa lasts for that purpose
demonstrate.Also, the entire building itself and was not
perfectlypreserved,and some weaponrymay have been lost
due to disturbance.
106Dunham (supran. 3), 118.
107Reconstructing approximately 150 three-room complexes in the inner fort, which seems reasonablebased on
the fragmentaryplans recoveredfor the inner fort (Vercoutter et al. [supra n. 3], figs. 37-38). The numbersgenerated are consistent with the higher estimates from the
weapons presentedabove. The actual force present might
have been considerablymoreif soldiersand/or conscriptable
reserveswerealso quarteredin the outer town. These figures
also do not consider potential occupants of the elite/administrativestructures.
108George Andrew Reisner, "Ancient Egyptian Forts at
Semna and Uronarti,"Bulletin of the Museumof Fine Arts
Boston XXVII(1929),72.

would presumably be isolated by any serious

assault on the border. A total of from about 368
to 920 men might have been available to the
commander at Semna. A reasonable estimate of
the force which the Egyptians could place in the
field at need, leaving a small number to man the
fortifications, might be some 400-500 men, a
sizable body of troops for the period.109
If, on the other hand, the Nhsi were found to
be engaged in trade to tkn, or on official business, they could proceed along the overland
route. Native cargo vessels would be required to
stop and transship their goods (and/or personnel) to Egyptian vessels, or to Egyptian or native
overland expeditions. The first and seventh
Semna Dispatches, originating from Semna fort,
record direct trade with native merchants sailing
up from the south.110Thus, Semna should also
have facilities for the transfer of goods from
native cargo vessels to Egyptian bottoms, or to
overland expeditions. The lower pool at Semna
could hold several small vessels, as seen in a
m
photograph of the date fleet taken in 1928.
center
in
must
have
been
a
fact,
Semna,
bustling
of trade itself,112 although not as prominent as
Ikn, which had access to a much broader market.
Since the number of vessels arriving from the
south might very well outstrip the capacity for
immediate shipment north, Semna must have
had facilities to hold the goods until arrangements could be made. Although no block of
storerooms was found in the excavations there,
evidence of thick walled structures, similar to
those of the official buildings at the other forts,
was found underneath the temple mound in the
north Wing.113 Kemp has rightly suggested that
this area probably contained the fort's granary,
which might have been tapped for trading purposes.114Every transaction recorded at Semna, in
fact, included a gift of bread and beer before the
trader(s) departed.115This structure might also
109Cf. Winlock(supran. 105).
110Smither(supran. 101).
111Reisner,op. cit., fig. 2.
112Kemp(supran. 43), fig. 6.
113Dunham and Janssen(supran. 3), 7, pls. 6C, 8A, Map
III.
114Kemp,op. cit., 130.
115Smither,op. cit.

ASKUT AND THE ROLE OF THE SECOND CATARACT FORTS

have included an attachedtreasurycomplex such
as that found at Uronarti.
Even more significant in this context, however, is the outer enclosure at Semna South.
Surroundedby a low, insubstantialbrickwall, it
containedevidenceof temporaryoccupation, but
no traceof permanentstructures.The excavator
suggests that it was suitable for use as a commercial exchange base,116exactly the sort of facility necessaryfor the transshipmentof goods
required by the edict of Senwosret III.117The
upper pool of the Semna cataract,opposite this
fort, was large enough to make a harborcapable
of sheltering a number of vessels.118Ancient
merchant vessels might have stopped there and
off-loaded their goods, putting them into temporary storage at Semna South. More valuable
goods might be taken for safekeeping to Semna
and/or Uronarti. The large plain at Semna
South would, in fact, provide a good staging
area for the native caravans to await official
permission to leave, or the Egyptian ones to buy
up native goods brought in by boat. Alternatively, the goods could be transporteddown past
the cataract to the lower pool opposite Semna
fort and transferredto Egyptian ships. The extensive defensewall tracedby Mills from a point
north of Uronarti to Semna extends into this
area,119and might have been used to keep unauthorizedgroups out and contain this activity.
Kummaclearlyservedas an adjunct to Semna,
policing the East Bank road and guarding the
channel, and no doubt sending out patrols into
116Zabkarand Zabkar(supran. 3), 9.
117Although strangely,theydisagreewith Lawrence'ssuggestion that Semna South was likely to have been a caravan
base (ibid., 30, n. 11;Lawrence[supran. 57], 82, n. 1). Even
if traces survived of the kind of ephemeral structurethat
might be associated with the temporarystorage and encampmentnecessaryfor such activity, they might have been
overlookedconsidering the conditions imposed by the salvage nature of the project.The Zabkarsdate the use of the
fort until the reign of Amenemhet III, based upon the
distributionof seal impressionsfound in a very large dump
nearby(op. cit., 14).This may, however,simply date the use
of the dump, and does not necessarilyreflectthe terminal
period of occupation at the fort itself, which might well
have extendedinto DynastyXIII, as was the case at all of the
otherforts.
118Ibid., pl. I.
119Ibid., 12f.,pl. 1.

131

the desert.120Both Semna and Kumma would

have the additional role of helping any Egyptian traffic past the cataract, as suggested by
Adams.121
Reisnernotes that one or two boats in
the modern date fleet were lost each year in the
difficultdownstreampassage through the Semna
A permanentgarrisonstationedthere,
Cataract.122
available in time of peace to assist the ancient
merchant vessels, might help to prevent such
losses.
Uronarti, with its extensive evidence of administrative activity,123probably served as the
local command center for the forts. Its garrison
and storerooms were large enough to support
Semna both militarily and economically in case
of need. The garrison would also, no doubt,
have workedwith Semna to man the wall system
running along the perimeterof the Westbank.
Reisner has suggested, in his analysis of the
distribution of sealings, that the inhabitants of
Uronarti might also have carried on a small
export and import business with Egypt.124This
activity would have supplied the need of the
garrison, or perhaps the garrisons of all the
nearby forts, for luxury goods from Egypt. It
might have been connected with the general
trade from the south as well (see above). Uronarti's garrison would also aid any Egyptian
river trafficpast the rapids.125
A rock inscription
of SenwosretIll's expedition of Year19 found at
Uronartiactually recordsthe difficultiesof negotiating the shoals there.126
Shalfak, the smallest of the Second Cataract
forts, probablysent out patrols into the desertto
monitor the movements of the natives.127Its
strategiclocation on a sharp bend in the riverat
the very end of the Saras Plain, where the cliffs
rise precipitously to sixty metersabove the river
level and the valley becomes tightly constricted,
120Dunham and Janssen(supran. 3), 2, and Kemp(supra
n. 43), fig. 6.
121Adams(supran. 85), 184.
122Reisner(supran. 108),67.
123Kemp(supran. 43), 134-36, and GeorgeAndrewReisner, "Clay Sealings of Dynasty XIII from Uronarti Fort,"
Rush III (1955),26-69.
124Ibid., 34.
125Adams,loc. cit.
126Wheeler(supran. 1), 259.
127Kemp,op. cit., fig. 6.

132

JARCE XXVIII (1991)

implies that the fort may have helped to contain

the local C-Group peoples, or at least to regulate
their movements. Its garrison may also have
helped boats past the rapids located there.128
Finally, Askut, as well as being the main
campaign reserve grain store, would logically
also serve as a reserve for the entire system, at
least in time of need. Its administrative system
for the control of goods was divided into at least
four branches, the Storerooms, Upper fort (presumably the main fort as opposed to the southeast quarter), Hurt, and Treasury.129 Isolated
from the desert trade routes and nestled safely on
an island well behind the frontier, its main
focus was local. Soldiers from the garrison would
be detailed to man the signaling post at Murshid, held in constant readiness in case of emergency. They apparently also supplemented the
garrison's diet through fishing (ll-H-4).130 The
Commandant of Askut would also have overseen
the mining activities at Khor Ahmed Sherif, as
well as the ore reduction stations on the plain.
The crushed ore would be further reduced at the
fort itself, and then washed in the "settling"
system. This all might have been accomplished
with labor supplied by the Hurt, the gold being
placed in the Treasury. Askut must also have
kept watch over the considerable C-Group population of the Saras plain, which might conceivably pose a threat to river traffic. Some
exploitation of local agricultural and pastoral
activities, as well as hunting, might also have
taken place, although most of the grain for
Askut' s granary presumably came from Egypt.
The presence of a statue of the "Director of
Plowings Sob[ek . . . ]" at Askut is suggestive in
this context.131 The Hurt might have been involved here also, since it is often associated with
agricultural work. This activity would reduce
128Dunham (supran. 3), 115,and Adams,loc. cit.
129See aboveand Smith (supran. 59).
130Mills and Nordstrom(supran. 6), 11.
131Badawy(supran. 16), 127f.SenwosretIII is mentioned
on the statue. It was found in a disturbedcontext and thus
could have been tradedsouth from Egypt during the Second
IntermediatePeriod as with the Middle Kingdom statuary
from Kerma.

both the drain on royal stores and cost of transport of supplies from Egypt, giving the forts a
greater measure of self-sufficiency. Considering
the local environment and likely subsistence
base, exploitation of pastoral resources is perhaps more likely than agriculture during the
Middle Kingdom. A preliminary pass through
the faunal material from Askut indicates a heavy
reliance on cattle and goat/sheep. At least one
pig was present. Large amounts of fish and
shellfish were also found, which ties in well
with the fishing station to the north of the fort.
Small numbers of gazelle and at least one antelope were hunted.132 The rocky stretch of river
around Askut might conceivably pose difficulties
for navigation, and thus Askut' s garrison may
also have assisted river traffic.
Thus, the Second Cataract forts of the Middle
Kingdom operated as a well planned and integrated system with considerable functional differentiation, ranging from Semna fort's apparent
emphasis of garrison, to Askut' s more passive
focus on support of the other forts and local
activities. One need not seek to find a single, or
even primary, purpose for the system. It is clear
that the forts had a multi-faceted role in the
Nubian policy of the Middle Kingdom Pharaohs,
serving on the one hand in support of the punitive campaigns to the south and as a static
defense to prevent violation of the boundary,
and on the other to regulate and facilitate riverine and overland trade, monitor the local
population both on the Saras Plain and in the
Western desert, and exploit the natural resources
of the area. The study and publication of the
assemblage from Askut, with its good context
and fine preservation, can help to further clarify
this picture, and shed more light on the lifeways
of the garrisons.
University of California
Los Angeles
132These are impressionsonly, none of the faunal material has been quantifiedyet, and some of the remains may
date to the New Kingdom. I am obliged to Dr. Sandor
Bokonyifor some of the preliminaryidentifications.