Egyptology in Australia and

New Zealand 2009

Proceedings of the Conference held in Melbourne,
September 4th-6th

Edited by

Christian M. Knoblauch
James C. Gill

BAR International Series 2355

2012
 
 
Published by 
 
Archaeopress 
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports 
Gordon House 
276 Banbury Road 
Oxford OX2 7ED 
England 
bar@archaeopress.com 
www.archaeopress.com 
 
 
 
BAR S2355 
 
 
Egyptology in Australia and New Zealand 2009:  Proceedings of the Conference held in Melbourne,  
September 4th‐6th 
 
 
© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2012 
 
 
 
ISBN 978 1 4073 0941 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Printed in England by Information Press, Oxford 
 
 
All BAR titles are available from: 
 
Hadrian Books Ltd 
122 Banbury Road 
Oxford 
OX2 7BP 
England 
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk 
 
The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from 
Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com 
 The Ruler of Kush (Kerma) at Buhen during the Second Intermediate
Period: A Reinterpretation of Buhen Stela 691 and Related Objects
Christian Knoblauch
Figure 1 Monuments depicting the Ruler of Kush from Buhen fortress (a) from Smith 1976, pl. III (2); b) from Smith
1976, pl. III (7); c) from Smith 1972, fig. 11 (3).
INTRODUCTION
The subject of this paper is Buhen Stela 691 (H7-14;
Khartoum 62/8/17), found at Buhen fortress by the
mission of the Egyptian Exploration Society in December
1959 (Figure 1a; Emery 1961a, 84-85; Smith 1976, 11-12,
pl. III, 2; LVIII, 4; Emery et al. 1979, 63). This small
sandstone stela measuring 26 x 29.5cm depicts a striding
figure wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt, holding
a reversed bow and brandishing a weapon for close
combat. The stela was dated to the late Second
Intermediate Period in the final publication of the
inscribed material from Buhen fortress by Harry Smith
(1976, 11-12). The importance of the stela derives from
the tentative identification by Smith of the figure wearing
the white crown as a bearer of the “Ruler of Kush” (HqA n
KS) title. This was a designation used by Apophis in the
Kamose texts and by Egyptians living at Buhen in the late
Second Intermediate Period to refer to the ruler/king of
Kerma (Lacovara 1997, 72; Ryholt 1997, 326-327; Smith
& Smith 1976, 68, fn. 51; Valbelle 2004, 177-178). 1
Based on this initial identification, the Ruler of Kush was
recognised on two further stelae from the vicinity of
Buhen (Figure 1b lower; Figure 1c). The cultural-
historical significance of these three Buhen stelae is
1
The title HqA n KS appears in two instances in the Buhen elite milieu of
the late Second Intermediate Period in positions that hint that the
Egyptians at Buhen served this ruler rather that the Theban king (i.e.
Kubisch 2008, 86-88; 166-170; Lacovara 1997, 72; O’Connor 1993, 41;
Säve-Söderbergh 1949; Smith 1976, 55; Zibelius-Chen 1988, 160-161).
85
 
  
considerable: Despite the initial excavations at Kerma by
Reisner (1913-1916) and ongoing excavations at the same
site by the University of Geneva since 1973 they remain
the only widely accepted depictions of a Kerman ruler
(i.e. Valbelle 2004, 176 concerning Buhen 691 only).2
Smith’s identification of the figure on Stela 691 as a
Kerman ruler has been accepted and is now the standard
interpretation in surveys of Nubia with a broad
chronological scope (Morkot 1999, 183-184; 2000, 68;
Török 2009, 108; Williams 1991, 83), short catalogue
entries for exhibitions on Nubian culture in which the
stela is featured (i.e. Davies 2004, 100-101; Kendall 1996,
32-33; Wildung 1996, 100: Cat nr. 100), as well as by
Valbelle in her careful analysis of iconographic material
found at Kerma (Valbelle 2004, 176). 3 Some scholars
have even taken the interpretation a step further and
2
For the absence of stone relief work generally at Kerma, see Reisner
(1923, 22). Regarding the rarity of depictions of the human form at
Kerma, Valbelle’s (2004, 177) comments are a suitable summary: “..we
cannot prevent ourselves from being struck by the paucity of human or
divine figuration at Kerma.” It has been suggested that a fragmentary
clay figure and some incised human figures on ostrich shells found at
Kerma could conceivably represent Kerman rulers or elites (i.e. Bonnet
1993, 10 fig. 13; 2004, 157 fig. 123, 160 fig. 126; Bonnet & Valbelle
2006, 185-186; Valbelle 2004, 176-177).
3
In Valbelle (2004, 176) the identification is seemingly accepted, but in
Bonnet & Valbelle (2006, 184) we read “..während die Hyksos-
Herrscher sich die Darstellungen der ägyptischen Könige widerrechtlich
aneigneten, gibt es keinen Hinweis auf vergleichbare Praxis in Kerma.”
Whether this implies that her opinion has changed, or that she considers
Buhen 691 Egyptian, and not Kerman is unclear.
CHRISTIAN KNOBLAUCH
posited that the striding figure can be identified with a
particular Kerman ruler, namely NDH (Morkot 2000, 68,
followed in Davies 2004, 101). The reason for this
identification is that NDH is the name of the Kerman ruler
whom the Egyptian KA, living at Buhen during the late
Second Intermediate Period, claimed to have served on
Khartoum Stela 18 (Säve-Söderbergh 1949, 55; Smith
1976, 41).
Significantly, in lieu of any other clear iconographic
evidence for a Kerman Ruler from the Kerma Classique,
the Buhen group of stelae has been used to illustrate
aspects of the nature of political power at Kerma during
that phase. Stela 691 in particular, was used to
demonstrate a number of different facets: the
“Egyptianisation” of the Kerman ruler (Smith 1976, 85);
the willingness of the Kerman ruler to “run his territory
on the lines of an Egyptian principality” (Smith 1976, 85);
the adoption of pharaonic “institutions” such as
“kingship” by Nubians prior to the New Kingdom
(Williams 1991); and finally an actual Kerman claim to
the kingship of Southern Egypt and Nubia during the
Second Intermediate Period (Kendall 1996, 32-33; Török
2009, 108-109).
While such speculations are interesting, they tend to
downplay or ignore the doubt expressed by Smith himself
regarding the identification: As Stela 691 is anonymous
the proposal is “not of course easily susceptible to proof”
(Smith 1976, 12). This is not to say that Smith did not
support his theory with evidence. Indeed, art-historical,
historical and archaeological arguments were all cited in
support of the contention. These have been considered
persuasive enough that no alternative avenues of
interpretation have been explored. This paper has as its
modest aim a reanalysis of these arguments. It concludes
that while an identification of the figure on Stela 691 and
associated Buhen stelae as Nubian rulers can never be
ruled out, there is nothing in the stelae’s content or their
archaeological context that suggests that this
interpretation is the correct one. It concludes by
highlighting the need to contextualise the Buhen stelae in
larger groups of monuments with similar formats and
scenes and to fully consider their probable function if a
more plausible interpretation is to be proposed.
THE ARGUMENT
Buhen 691 was just one of hundreds of inscribed
monuments from Buhen published by Smith in the
volume of Buhen inscriptions (Smith 1976). The space
afforded to it and Buhen 732, a second stela on which the
Nubian ruler was identified, as small, uninscribed
monuments was understandably brief. The third stela
with a Nubian ruler (Gebel Turob 38) was found near a
rock-art/rock graffiti site west of the fortress and
published ahead of the fortress material alongside the
rock inscriptions (Smith 1972) with only a brief
commentary. The argumentation was therefore
necessarily brief, not all in one place and as a
consequence, difficult to reconstruct: At a number of
86
points the narrative stops and it is mostly in these silences
between strands of argument that one must insert Emery
and Smith’s experience, intuition, theoretical outlook and
personally held values. This is clearly impossible and the
case laid out below is therefore admittedly cobbled
together.
The Case for Non-Egyptian Manufacture
At the basis of the original argument that a Nubian and
not an Egyptian ruler is depicted on Stela 691 was the
belief that Buhen 691 along with Buhen 732 and Gebel
Turob 38 were produced by non-Egyptians. This idea was
first printed in a preliminary report authored by Walter
Emery two years after the excavation of Stela 691 and
three years before Smith began his book on the
inscriptions (Emery 1961a, 84-85; Smith 1976, viii nr. I
for dates). The description of the stela there pre-empts
Smith’s later conclusions: “The figure is in the
conventional pose ... but its execution is undoubtedly
native and we may hazard the guess that it is the work of
a Nubian soldier or workman trying to copy an Egyptian
model. As an example of borrowed art it is certainly
unique” (Emery 1961a, 84-85).
From the passage quoted above it is clear that in Emery’s
view, an argument in favour of non-Egyptian
manufacture for Buhen Stela 691 was the low level of
expertise exhibited in the stela’s execution. This
interpretation was echoed fifteen years later in Smith’s
final publication of the stela where it was first cited as
evidence of a non-Egyptian subject for the figure on Stela
691. There he stated: “There can be no doubt that this is
not native Egyptian work” (Smith 1976, 11). Like Emery
he nonetheless recognised the Egyptian origin of the
motif and similarly suggested the stela was realised by a
non-Egyptian craftsman who was “aping Egyptian work”
(Smith 1976, 11, 84; c.f. Wildung 1996, 100). Of recent
accounts of the stela, Török’s (2009, 108) is the only one
that implicitly entertains the possibility that an Egyptian
may have been responsible for its execution.
Perhaps due to the type of report in which his comments
appeared, Emery did not further elucidate why the style
precluded an Egyptian craftsman. In contrast, Smith
refers to unusual features including the pose of the figure;
the setting of the head on the neck; the detail of the crown;
the detail of the uraeus and dress; the positions of the
arms and the positions of the weapons (Smith 1976, 11).
For both these scholars therefore, the level of
craftsmanship ruled out an Egyptian craftsman and
suggested a Nubian instead. Why should this be the case?
From a theoretical perspective, the belief that differences
in the quality of craftsmanship can be reduced to
differences in the ethnicity or “race” of the craftsmen
appears firmly grounded in what Bruce Trigger has
termed the “culture-historical” approach to interpreting
Nubian archaeological remains (Trigger 1994, 332-334).
This approach, of which the work of George Reisner was
paradigmatic, was based on the theory that changes in the
racial composition of Nubia were responsible for changes
 The Ruler of Kush (Kerma) at Buhen during the Second Intermediate Period
observable in the archaeology (Trigger 1994, 333-334,
also discussed in different terms by Adams 1976, 4-5).
Arts of a “poor standard” were typically assigned to
Nubians while “higher quality” artefacts were assigned to
Egyptians. Emery`s outlook was very close to that of
Reisner’s (Adams 1976, 4-5; Trigger 1994, 333-334) and
it is therefore tempting to interpret Emory’s initial
attribution of Stela 691 to a Nubian craftsman in light of
this shared theoretical position.
It would be wrong, however, to characterise Smith’s
work on Buhen 691 in this same way as his volume on
the inscriptions from Buhen is largely a rebuttal of this
type of thinking. This is especially true of his work on the
majority of the Second Intermediate Period inscriptions.
This group was equally if not more “crude” than Buhen
691, exhibited anomalous orthographies, schematic and
original palaeography and an adventurous disdain for
proportional cannon. The rendering of the human body is
particularly diverse and strict canonical forms cannot be
discerned. 4 Despite this, Smith did not ascribe the stelae
of this group to non-Egyptian manufacture or to non-
Egyptian owners (Smith 1976, 67-68). Instead, almost
without exception, these monuments were attributed to
the local workshop tradition of the advanced Middle
Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period. Smith
singled out this Egyptian workshop for its “incompetent
mason’s work” (Smith 1976, 68). This poor quality work
was not limited to lower status monuments. Noteworthy
in this regard is Pennsylvania University Stela 10984
(Smith 1976, 55-56, pl. LXXII). It was made at the behest
of spd Hr.w, “Commander of Buhen” during the late
Second Intermediate Period (Smith 1976, 67-68, 78-79)
but is of a very “crude quality”. Even royal monuments
were not exempt as the “rough” Horus temple gateway
executed for Ahmose demonstrates (see below).
As Smith was well aware, the situation was not site-
specific but indicative of Egypt generally during this
period where a combination of high demand for inscribed
objects at a local level and the dearth of highly trained
craftsmen resulted in regional styles that differed greatly
from the high Middle Kingdom canon. Taking this
background into account, the attribution of Buhen Stela
691 to a Nubian craftsman seems arbitrary and intuitive.
It is also clear that other factors played a significant role.
These include the stela’s archaeological context and the
historical narrative of Buhen fortress during the Second
Intermediate Period.
4
Compare for example Buhen 262 (K7-125): Smith (1976, 5-6, pl. I, 1,
LVII, 1); Buhen 263 (K7-126): Smith (1976, pl. I, 2, LVII, 2); Buhen
451 (J7-130): Smith (1976 7, pl. I, 4); Buhen 500 (J7-171): Smith (1976,
9, pl. II C); Buhen 964 (L10-18): Smith (1976, 15 pl. IV, 6); Buhen
1569 (J9-37): Smith (1976, 19 pl. VII, 2); Buhen 1708 (K10-47): Smith
(1976, 20, pl. VII, 4, LX, 1); Khartoum 18: Smith (1976, 41); Khartoum
364: Smith (1976, pl. LXX, 1); Khartoum 365: Smith (1976, 43-44, pl.
LXX, 2); Khartoum 366: Smith (1976, 44-45, pl. LXX, 3); Khartoum
370: Smith (1976, 46, pl. LXX, 4); Khartoum 371: Smith (1976, 46-47,
pl. LXXI, 1); Khartoum 5320: Smith (1976, 47-48, pl. LXXI, 2);
Philadelphia E10983: Smith (1976, 54-44, pl. LXXI, 4, 2); Philadelphia
E10894: Smith (1976, 55-56, pl. LXXII, 1); Pennsylvania University
E10989: Smith (1976, 56-58 pl. LXXII, 2); Philadelphia, No. Unknown:
Smith (1976, 59-60, pl. LXXII, 4).
87
The Archaeological and Historical Contexts
Emery already implicitly linked the issue of the ethnic
authorship of Stela 691 with the stela’s archaeological
context in his preliminary report (Emery 1961a, 84): The
stela was found in the vicinity of large Middle Kingdom
houses which had been subdivided for use as smaller
domiciles or as copper foundries (Emery 1961a, 84).
Importantly this area yielded evidence for Nubians in the
form of C-Group and Kerman pottery sherds. Emery hints
that the owners of this pottery (a) were involved in the
copper working and (b) responsible for the execution of
Buhen Stela 691 (Emery 1961a, 84). Emery proposed two
alternative identities for these Nubians: They were either
squatters who occupied the abandoned fortress during the
Second Intermediate Period, or they were Nubian soldiers
in the New Kingdom garrison (Emery 1961, 84). The
stela itself he dated to “not later than New Kingdom and
probably earlier” (Emery 1961a, 85). These findings were
of course only preliminary and later Emery identified the
Nubians living in House G (where the stela was found)
exclusively as part of a squatter population that occupied
the fortress of Buhen after the end of the Middle
Kingdom (Emery et al. 1979, 107). Stela 691 was
attributed to this squatter population and dated to the
Second Intermediate Period accordingly. Smith cites this
evidence stating the “the area in which this stela was
found yielded considerable evidence of occupation by
Kerma-group people in the Late Second Intermediate
Period” (Smith 1976, 12, also Wildung 1996, 100).
It appears that it was Smith who first contextualised Stela
691 and its find spot in Emery’s reconstruction of events
at Buhen during the Second Intermediate Period. In doing
so, he came to the conclusion that a Nubian and not an
Egyptian ruler was depicted. According to this particular
narrative, the Nubian squatter population responsible for
the production of Buhen Stela 691 had occupied the fort
after it had been partially destroyed at the end of the
Middle Kingdom. This event resulted in the evacuation of
the fort by the Egyptians, with the exception of a family
of Egyptian expatriates who ran the fortress along
Egyptian lines, but did so at the behest of the “Ruler of
Kush”. In this context it is logical that a Nubian living at
Buhen would make an image of a Nubian and not an
Egyptian ruler.
Problems with the Historical Narrative and
Archaeological Context
It is well known that the larger sequence of events
proposed by Emery for Nubia during the Second
Intermediate Period is no longer valid. This has been
amply demonstrated by Tyson Smith (1995; 2003, 80-81).
I do not wish to repeat his results here as they do not
directly contradict the key aspects for this paper that a)
the Egyptians living at Buhen served the ruler of Kush;
and b) that Nubians were probably also living in small
numbers at the Egyptian forts. Tyson-Smith’s work,
however, has clearly demonstrated that ethnicities, which
were treated very intuitively by Emery and Smith, are
CHRISTIAN KNOBLAUCH
extremely complex: Ascribing motivations, political
allegiances and behaviour to individuals who were not
visible in the archaeological record but for some pottery
sherds is extremely problematic.
Additionally, some specific problems relating to the find
context of Stela 691 can be listed. According to the final
report, the stela was found in the West Wall Street in
close proximity to the entrance to House G in sector C. A
staircase had been built against the external face of the
house during a phase of renovation. The staircase was
built slightly above the existing Middle Kingdom
pavement level and was associated with C-Group and
Kerman sherds (Emery1979, 63). Stela 691 was found at
the level of and immediately in the vicinity of the steps
(1979, 63) suggesting it was of the same relative date as
the secondary alterations and coeval with the Nubian
sherds. The Nubian material was dated to the Second
Intermediate Period.
There are some details, however, that detract from the
usefulness of this information. Firstly, hardly any
evidence that would allow for a confirmation of the
ethnic attribution (i.e. Kerman, C-Group or Pan-Grave),
the quantification or the chronological evaluation of the
“Nubian” material was published. 5 Secondly, a close
reading of the archaeological report suggests that the
deposits in which Buhen 691 were found primarily
belonged to a debris layer in which there was no clear
undisturbed stratigraphy (Emery et al. 1979, 63-64). This
of course means that the dating and cultural attribution of
the Nubian sherds is irrelevant as they may not have been
deposited at the same time as the stela or have been
contemporary with the construction of the staircase. Nor
is there any indication that the stela was in, or near its
primary context. Smith in his chapter on Buhen in the
Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period
notes that none of the Buhen fortress stelae were found
“in their original situations. They were found scattered
about the streets and buildings of the town in disturbed
and unstratified debris. Obviously in late times, as so
often in the Nile valley, the ancient site had been used as
a source of dressed stone” (Smith 1976, 66). Given this
problem, is it not conceivable that the stela was originally
displayed somewhere else entirely (possibly even outside
the fortress) and only moved to its find spot through some
unknowable secondary process? This would mean that
the relationship between the stela and Nubian pottery
sherds was an indirect one.
It hardly needs to be noted that without archaeological
context the dating of the monument is extremely difficult
and dating it precisely to the period when the Egyptians
from Buhen served the Ruler of Kush is impossible.
Although it was noted above that the style of execution of
691 recalls the local workshop “tradition” particularly
characteristic of the Second Intermediate Period, this
5
Only one of the sherds from the vicinity of the stairs has been
published (Nubian Type 7), while the remainder are not listed according
to levels but instead are simply assigned to the convolute of House G
(Emery et al. 1979, 64).
88
observation does not help to date the stela to a specific
historical period. Changes in material culture can rarely
be correlated absolutely with discreet historical divisions.
Thus a distinct departure from the strict Middle Kingdom
carving standards is observable well before the end of the
13th Dynasty as a small stela of the 13th Dynasty King
Wagef from Mirgissa fortress demonstrates (Mirgissa
Stela IM.375, see Vercoutter 1975, pl. 22a). Similarly,
stone carving in the Second Intermediate Period tradition
was still being produced in the early New Kingdom well
after the reconquest of Buhen fortress by Kamose (Smith
& Smith 1976, 67-68; Ryholt 1997, 181-182 for the date
of this event). This is most clearly observable in the
workmanship on the gateway for the Horus temple at
Buhen that was erected for Turi the “Commander of
Buhen” during the reign of Ahmose (Smith 1976, pl.
LXXX). This is an excellent indication, as noted by
Smith (1976, 207), that the Buhen craftsmen probably
survived the political transition to Egyptian rule that took
place at the end of the Second Intermediate Period and
found employment with the fortress’ new commanders.
The implication of this for the dating range of Stela 691 is
clear. While a Second Intermediate Period production
date certainly cannot be ruled out, neither can a date in
the advanced Middle Kingdom or the Early New
Kingdom.
In summary, there is considerable uncertainty concerning
the dating and interpretation of the archaeological context
in which the stela was found. This and the
methodological problems outlined above make the case
for a Kerma ruler on Buhen Stela 691 extremely tenuous
and it should probably be rejected.
DEPICTIONS OF THE RULER OF KUSH ON OTHER
MONUMENTS FROM BUHEN
The identification of the Ruler of Kush on other
monuments at Buhen was based largely on the premise
that this ruler was depicted on Buhen 691. If the latter
argument is rejected, the case for the other two stelae is
weakened considerably. It is nonetheless germane to
briefly review the evidence.
The first stela is Buhen 732 (H8-14), a small sandstone
stela only 12.5cm in height (Figure 1b; Smith 1976, 12-
13, pl. III: 7, LIX: 1-2). Unusually it is inscribed on two
sides. If both sides were not displayed simultaneously, it
may indicate that usurpation or secondary use of the stone.
The figure, sometimes identified as a ruler of Kush is
shown on the reverse (Figure 1b lower) and probably
belongs to the second phase of use. The scene includes
two signs. The first (to the left of scene) is the outline of a
standing figure facing the right, which has been
recognised as a ruler wearing an Upper Egyptian crown
and a long false beard. For the “same reasons” (Smith
1976, 12-13) as for Stela 691, this figure has been
identified as a “Ruler of Kush”. In front of this figure is a
pair of legs, possibly belonging to an unfinished figure
(Smith 1976, 12-13). This sign faces the same direction
 The Ruler of Kush (Kerma) at Buhen during the Second Intermediate Period
as the larger figure. 6 The obverse (Figure 1b upper)
shows a standard depiction of an Egyptian soldier
wearing a feather (i.e. Säve-Söderbergh 1941, 132) and a
captive. The scene is known from other Egyptian objects
from Lower Nubia (i.e. Wegner 1995) and may have
served as the model for the inscription on the reverse
(Smith 1976, 12).
The other stela with an apparent ruler, Gebel Turob 38 is
only circa 15cm high and roughly shaped of red Nubian
sandstone (Figure 1c; Smith 1972, 50-51, fig. 11:3). The
display surface evidently bears the same type of scene as
the obverse of Buhen 732, namely a solder and a trussed
captive. The soldier in this case, however was tentatively
identified as wearing a white crown and is thus cited as a
possible further parallel to the ruler figures on Buhen 691
and the reverse of Buhen 732 (Smith 1972, 50-51).
To the observer, the identification of the white crowns in
both scenes is not without difficulties: The execution of
the scene on the reverse of 732 is extremely schematic
and coarse and one wonders whether one should read too
much into the final (or perhaps preliminary) product. If
indeed the scene was inspired by the soldier and captive
scene on the obverse, it seems just as likely that the
downward slanting stroke is not the white crown and
false beard of a ruler, but the feather and beard of the
Egyptian soldier. They were perhaps “hieratisized” and
combined with the soldier’s left arm. In the case of Gebel
Turob 38, both the size and nature of the inscription cause
difficulties for its interpretation. The individual signs are
ca. 6cm in height and the height of the crown, the
disputed element, is only ca. 1.5cm. Compounding this,
the style of execution is very schematic and other details
of the scene, for example the weapon, are so simply
rendered as to be unidentifiable. Hence, the safer solution
is to assume that the crown is in fact the feather
commonly worn in a head band by soldiers as clearly
depicted on the obverse of Buhen 732 (Figure 1b upper).
Finally, it may be pointed out that unlike the figure on
Stela 691 who wears a Uraeus appended to the crown and
is thus clearly of royal status, neither of the figures from
these two other stelae display any other elements of royal
iconography apart from the contested headdress. In both
cases an identification of the ruler figure as a soldier is
preferable.
INTERPRETATION AND FUNCTION OF BUHEN 732
AND GEBEL TUROB 38
In addition to the reasons outlined above for the belief
that Buhen stelae 691, 732 and Gebel Turob were
Kerman monuments, one can add the stelae’s format. It is
“clearly” awkward due to the absence of any readable
inscription that helps to explain the identity of the figure
or the function of the stones.7 In the case of Stela 691 in
6
As such the sign is not completely dissimilar to Gardiner sign W25 as
sometimes found in rock graffiti and common in the personal name
In<tf> (i.e. Žaba 1974, Palaeography Sign List W25:77).
7
Whether inscriptions, had originally been added in paint to the surface
in the case of stela 691 is unknown. Davies (2004, 100-101) notes in the
89
particular, one would expect an Egyptian royal
monument to include the name of at least the king. This
oversight places it outside the mainstream of Egyptian
stela for the Middle Kingdom to Second Intermediate
Period and increases the impression of its alien nature.
Indeed, Török has commented that “the absence of an
inscription on the stela points towards the influence of a
different cultural tradition and reinforces the
identification of the royal figure as a ruler of Kush”
(Török 2009, 108; see also Williams 1984-85, 45).
The second part of this paper is aimed at resolving
precisely this issue by an examination of the potential
function of Buhen Stela 732 (Figure 1b upper) and Gebel
Turob 38. It is argued that if a plausible function can be
proposed for these two stelae within a purely Egyptian
cultural context, there is less motivation to seek non-
Egyptian influence for the format of Buhen 691. The
reasons why Buhen 732 and Gebel Turob are the subject
of the investigation and not Buhen 691 directly are
twofold. Firstly, although still wanting in clarity, the
context for at least one of these stelae provides a starting
point for a discussion of the type of context in which it
might have been displayed. Secondly, unlike for Buhen
691, there are parallels for Buhen 732 and Gebel Turob
38 that provide a solid basis for an analysis of the
function of the latter. This, it must be stressed, does not
automatically mean that Stela 691 had the same function
as these stones, merely, that the impulse for its creation
originated in an Egyptian, and not a Nubian cultural
tradition.
Context of Buhen 732 and Gebel Turob 38
Like Buhen 691, Buhen 732 was found in unstratified
debris inside the fortress itself, specifically in the debris
of Block C, House C (Smith 1976, 12). Its context, in this
regard is not helpful. In contrast, Gebel Turob 38 was
picked up on a high hill ca. 300m south-west of the
fortress (Smith 1972, 50, pl. XXIII for location of the
Gebel). Unfortunately the piece was lying loose and its
original context could not be reconstructed. The Gebel
Turob, however, was used as a cemetery during the late
Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom. This
fact and the chance that the stela could have originally
derived from one of the graves there is tentatively cited as
a reason for its presence in this lonely location (Smith
1972, 50). In this case we would have to imagine the stela
in either a mortuary or funerary context, possibly
functioning as a votive or a focal point for offering
activity. While such an interpretation is just conceivable,
it is not easily reconcilable with either the image on the
stela or the total absence of any ancillary inscriptions.
Tellingly, Gebel Turob had another, earlier function
attested to by numerous graffiti left there by untitled
Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom (Smith 1972). At this
catalogue entry for this stone in an exhibition at the British Museum that
the figure had originally been painted. The only traces mentioned are in
relation to the body and the kilt and the crown that were coloured red
and white respectively. It is possible that further details, now lost, were
originally added in paint.
CHRISTIAN KNOBLAUCH
time the elevation was probably used as a military watch
post for small groups of soldiers and scribes. Their likely
tasks were to relay messages between Buhen fortress and
Kor and to keep watch for Nubians on the Buhen-
Mirgissa-Semna road that skirted the western river bank
(Smith 1967, 56). If a cemetery existed at Buhen at this
time, it was within the fortress enclosure walls (Cemetery
K) or north of the fortress in Cemetery H (Knoblauch
2007, 191-193). Taking into account both the military
theme of the inscription of Gebel Turob 38 and the use of
the elevation where it was found by the military during
the Middle Kingdom, it is easier to imagine the function
of Stela 38 related in some way to this activity.
Figure 2 Khartoum National Museum 14221 (Inking by  Buhen fortress itself. Therefore, the most obvious
author after photo in Wildung 1996, 85).  solution is to assume that both the Buhen stones were
Parallels and their Find Contexts
Such an explanation is supported by the find spots of two
further stelae with comparable scenes to the last that have
been found in Lower Nubia. The first of these, Khartoum
National Museum 14221, is a well-executed, medium
sized (45.8cm), round topped sandstone stela (Figure 2).
Its rounded lunette bears an inscription naming “Horus
Lord of Foreign Lands, the Great God, the Lord of the
Sky”. This deity was closely related to Horus of Buhen
and may have had a cult at Buhen during the late Middle
Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period (Säve-
Söderbergh 1949, 51, C; Smith 1976, 234). The lower
register is devoted entirely to a scene of a soldier and
kneeling captive. While differing in minor details it
reproduces essentially the same content and format of
both the stelae from Buhen (Wildung 1996, 84-85 cat. Nr.
92 and literature cited there). The stela has been dated to
the Middle Kingdom-Second Intermediate Period
(Wildung 1996, 84). According to Wildung (1996, 84 Cat.
90
Nr. 92), it was found by locals to the east of Argin, a
locale ca. 7.5-10km downstream of the fortress of Buhen
(Nordström 1962, map facing page 12). Hereafter it is
referred to as the Argin Stela.
The second stela with a comparable scene and layout to
that on Buhen 732 and Gebel Turob 38 is Cairo Jd’E
68759 (Figure 3; Engelbach 1938, 389, pl. LV:3). It was
picked up on the return journey to Aswan by the 1930
Engelbach-Murray mission to the Gebel el-Asr quarries
west of Toshka in Lower Nubia. The stela was found in
the desert ca. 20km south west of Aswan: Engelbach
noted in an addendum that it was lying face down next to
a caravan route that leads from Aswan to Kurkur Oasis
(Engelbach 1938, 390 Addendum). The round topped,
sandstone stela (height 68cm) is devoid of decoration or
inscriptions with the exception of the small motif of a
soldier with a bow leading a trussed captive in the stela’s
upper half. Above the figures is the inscription “Year 18”
(Engelbach 1938, 389). Hereafter this stela is referred to
as the Aswan Stela.
Concerning the find context of the first stela, it is
interesting that this stretch of river in the vicinity of
Argin had no Middle Kingdom pharaonic sites. It did,
however, have a number of C-Group cemeteries that
point to a fairly substantial local Nubian population
during the Middle Kingdom (Nordström 1962, 13-14).
One can suppose that the stela originally marked an
Egyptian boundary in relation to these peoples as
suggested by Wildung (1996, 84). The location of the
second stela on the road to Aswan makes a function as a
type of boundary stone for this stone likely as well (in
this direction c.f. Engelbach 1938, 389). Returning to the
Buhen stelae we can note that one was found on a
mountain west of the fortress at Buhen, close to a military
watch post and a route that led from Buhen fortress
westwards deep into the desert.8 The other was found in
also boundary stelae used by the Egyptians to mark
borders, territories or routes in Nubia.
Border Stones in Lower Nubia
The practice of erecting border stones to legally delineate
internal and external boundaries was a key aspect of
Middle Kingdom policy (Eyre 1990, 138-142; Habachi
1975; Helck 1977b; Helck 1977c, 896; Müller-
Wollerman 1996, 9-16; Murnane & Van Siclen III 1993;
Quirke 1989). Such stones functioned as “physical
manifestations of declared policy” (Eyre 1990, 138) with
practical and legal implications for administration as well
as customs and immigration in the case of external
boundaries (Murnane & Van Siclen 1993). The fixing of
borders with the help of border stones was also an
important literary topos in Middle Kingdom texts as it
8
Buhen appears to have been the riverside endpoint to a major desert
road that left the main gate of the outer enclosure and continued for at
least six miles into the desert (Emery 1971, 96). The destination of the
road remains unknown.
 The Ruler of Kush (Kerma) at Buhen during the Second Intermediate Period
was concerned with extending and maintaining “social or
even cosmic order” (Eyre 1990, 140). The most famous
of this type of monument were the border stones erected
at Semna in Year 8 and at Semna and Uronarti in Year 16
of the reign of Senwosret III. These publically marked the
border (tAS) between Egyptian territory and the kingdom
of Kush and set out the terms of engagement between
Egyptian and Nubians at the most-southern Nubian
border (i.e. Eyre 1990; Meurer 1996; Seidlmayer 2001).
Of foremost importance was the establishment of a firm
border which Nubians could pass only under strict
conditions (Eyre 1990; Meurer 1996, 10-27).
Figure 3 Cairo Jd’E 68759 (Schematic inking by author  type of activity inevitably involved the taking of Nubian
after Engelbach 1938, pl. LV (3)).9  prisoners, thus the iconography of the aHAwtyw on the
But the southern boundary was not the only border in
Lower Nubia that needed to be defined and regulated. In
fact, it was probably necessary to define the eastern and
western margins of Egyptian territory throughout Lower
Nubia as well as internal divisions. Such borders (tAS)
were obviously not customary, but had been imposed
unilaterally (Quirke 1989, 263). They overrode pre-
existing patterns of indigenous land ownership and land-
use, affecting access to traditional grazing lands along the
desert margins or in the desert itself, as well as to
customary routes that previously connected river-based
communities with each other and with the adjacent desert
regions for the purposes of communication and trade.
Such extensive borders were no doubt routinely contested,
not only by sedentary groups settled near the river and
desert margins, but also by semi-nomadic, desert-based
Nubians west of the Nile (c.f. Seidlmayer 2002, 93 fn. 7)
and by ‘Medjay’ Nubians in the Eastern desert who tried
9
Note that the writing of rnpt and the sign between the two standing
figures are particularly uncertain.
91
to penetrate to the Nile Valley during dry phases (c.f.
Bietak 1982, 1003 drawing on the evidence of the Semna
Despatches). The organisation of these borders required
not only personnel located in strategic positions, but
probably also formal border markers, similar to the
Semna stelae that showed where these boundaries were. It
is proposed that the stelae with soldier and captive motif
fulfilled this function.
Content
The interpretation of this group of stelae as border
markers is supported by the motif common to all four
stelae (and thus the essential element) that arguably
depicts the physical act of border maintenance (see
below). While in theory any Egyptian soldier could and
probably did perform this duty (i.e. the Argin and Aswan
stelae) the stelae Buhen 732 and Gebel Turob 38
interestingly specify soldiers wearing feathers in their
head bands. Soldiers with identical iconography also
occur on stamp seals from the fortified settlement at
Areika in Lower Nubia where they were originally
believed to be the representation of a local Nubian chief.
Wegner (1995 147; c.f. Säve-Söderbergh 1941, 133
Abb.12), however, has conclusively demonstrated that it
instead refers to aHAwtyw, a specific type of professionally
trained Egyptian soldier (Faulkner 1941, 40).
The Semna Despatches provide us with some information
relating to the activities of these specialist troops.
According to Despatches 2, 3 and 4 from the Egyptian
fortresses at Mirgissa and Serra East (Smither 1945, 7-8,
pl. IIIA: Lines 3, 9; pl. IVA Lines 8, 9), aHAwtyw were
employed in the patrolling of the deserts around the
fortresses. Their chief concern appears to have been the
discovery and tracking of Nubians illegally entering or
traversing what was considered Egyptian territory. 10 In
modern terms, we might call them border police. This
stelae and stamp seals that stressed this aspect of their
profession in Lower Nubia (see also Wegner 1995, 147).
In this regard, the use of the motif on the stelae is highly
appropriate and could be considered a type of double
warning to potential border crossers: Firstly, that the
stone marked a border (i.e. the territory patrolled by the
aHAwtyw or a generic Egyptian soldier in the case of the
Argin Stela and the Aswan Stela); and secondly, it clearly
sets out to Nubians the type of treatment they could
expect should they illegally enter into Egyptian space
(also Engelbach 1938, 38; Meurer 1996, 4, 24-26;
Wildung 1996, 84).
A second function worth considering is whether the stelae,
by way of their inscriptions, possessed apotropaically
generated magical power used in the defence of Egypt’s
borders (i.e. Meurer 1996, 28-30). The iconography and
10
The presence of aHAwtyw at Buhen fortress is demonstrated by stamp-
sealings bearing the name of aHAwtyw units found at the fortress (i.e.
Randall-MacIver & Woolley 1911, pl. 42; Smith 1976, pl. XLVIII;
Wegner 1995, 147).
CHRISTIAN KNOBLAUCH

treatment of the defeated enemy on the stelae certainly reconstruction, the importance of the lower field and the
call to mind three dimensional figurines or statuettes of depiction of the captive Nubians for the stela’s overall
Nubians used in execration rituals (Meurer 1996, 28-30; message can no longer be doubted. Interestingly, Meurer
Wildung 1996, 85). Such figurines were depicted as came to precisely the same conclusions regarding the
kneeling and bound. These actions were intended to meaning of these figures for the border stone as the
identify the figure as an enemy, but one that had been present author did for the soldiers and captive figures on
rendered harmless through hostile restraint (Ritner 1993, the Lower Nubian group. He posited that they
142-144). Execration rituals utilising this type of figurine complemented the text in the upper portions and were
were performed at Egypt’s boundaries in Nubia, for intended as a warning for non-Egyptians who were
example at Mirgissa (i.e. Vila 1963, 147; for Uronarti see unable to read the text and as an apotropaic device akin to
Dunham 1967, pl. XXXI. c-e). It has been argued that execration magic intended to secure the borders (Meurer
their buried remains constituted an integral component of 1996, 30).
the state’s southern defensive system at the Second
Cataract (Wildung 1996, 85). It is tempting to imagine
that the stelae bearing depictions of defeated Nubians had
a similar function and were placed at strategic points in
Lower Nubia as part of an extended network of protective
magic that sealed Egyptian territory against the force of
Isfet. This of course complements, rather than replaces
the stelae’s function as instruments of practical border
demarcation.

The Relationship with the Semna Boundary Stelae

Although clearly a different calibre of monument,

comparisons with the Semna border stelae are useful for
investigating in what ways, if any the stelae being
discussed here are related to the larger Semna stelae.11 A
consideration of the so-called Smaller Semna Stela
(Figure 4; Berlin 14743; Meurer 1996, Loeben 2002)
erected at the southern boundary with Kush by Senwosret
III in Year 8 is particularly illuminating. A brief review
of its format and content suggest that the Lower Nubian
group could be considered miniaturised versions of this
type of monument. However, they had been reduced to
display only certain pieces of information relevant to the Figure 4 Smaller Semna Stela (Berlin 14743) (after 
context in which they were displayed and the audience Loeben 2001, Abbildung 1). 
for whom they were intended.
There is an obvious similarity between the content and
In its current state, the Smaller Semna Stela is 83cm high design of the lower part of the Smaller Semna Stela and
and consists of a small lunette, six horizontal lines of text the content and designs of Buhen Stela 732, Gebel Turob
and a narrow space at the bottom of the stela (i.e. Meurer 38 and the Argin 13 and Aswan stelae. Hence it is
1996, 3). As pointed out by Meurer, the stela when found justifiable to propose that the latter were in fact intended
by Lepsius originally had an 82cm high field below the to reproduce the information and format of this part of the
text field that stretched to the bottom of the stela (Meurer smaller Semna stela. The reason why the text in the upper
1996, Tafel 5). It had been removed by Lepsius at Semna half of the Smaller Semna Stela is omitted is obvious:
who thought the field empty (Loeben 2001, 279-281).
whereas this stela (wD) is the manifestation and record of
New facsimiles made by Müller (in Meurer 1996, Tafel 1)
a royal command (wD) in an important fortress populated
and Loeben (2001, Abb. 1) show that the small extant
by Egyptians, the stelae of the Lower Nubian Group were
section of this field in fact bears the representation of
to be placed in isolated locations where the intended
three kneeling Nubian captives. These appear to float in
audience were illiterate Nubians for whom only the
the space of the field and were not accompanied by any
information of the lower half of the stela could have any
further text. Loeben has suggested that the (now lost)
meaning.
bottom section contained further captive figures, but this
is of course difficult to prove (Loeben 2001, 279-281,
Abb. 3). 12 Regardless of the correctness of the
empty, presumably to enable the stela to be set in the ground (Habachi
11
The larger of the Semna border stones was probably erected in 1975, 34, 35 fig. 5). If the Semna stela was also intended to be set in the
connection with offering chapels for the royal cult (Seidlmayer 2000, ground, presumably part of the stela base would have been invisible.
13
233-242; 2001, 32-34) and an exhortation for the descendents of the The formal similarity of the representation of the Nubian captives on
king to maintain the border. the stela to the Nubian captive on (them unpublished) Khartoum stela
12
Note that the lower half of a similar boundary stela dating to the reign 14221 has already been noted (Meurer 1996, 29) although the
of Senwosret I from Karnak (Cairo JE 88802) was left completely significance of this was overlooked (Meurer 1996, 30 fn. 30).

92
 The Ruler of Kush (Kerma) at Buhen during the Second Intermediate Period
Some additional features of the Lower Nubian Group
suggest further areas of overlap between this group and
the Semna Boundary stelae. The first is the year date ‘18’
on the Aswan Stela. As it stands without further
explanation it is difficult to interpret what precisely this
date refers to. Nonetheless, it seems plausible that it is a
reflection of the practice documented on both the smaller
and larger Semna stelae to refer to the year in which the
border was being established or renewed (c.f. Seidlmayer
2001, 20, back cover; also Helck 1977b, 897 for other
cases). The Argin Stela provides one further point of
overlap with the Semna border stelae: The reference to a
sky god in its lunette transposes the practical issue of
border protection onto the celestial plain and frames it as
an issue of divine concern (Wildung 1996, 84-85). In
doing so it mirrors the depiction of the sky god BHdty in
the lunette on the Semna Year 16 border stela of
Senwosret III (c.f. Barta 1974, 54). That it is Horus Lord
of Foreign Lands and not BHdty who is named on the
Argin Stela points to the importance of the local god in
this endeavour. It could also reflect the engagement of
troops stationed at Buhen in patrolling the area. It is
interesting that none of the other border stelae exhibit this
detail of the Argin Stela. Evidently it was a non-essential
element. Its inclusion on the Argin Stela, arguably the
best of the group, may point to its origin in a specialist
workshop or to an occasion when highly trained
craftsmen were present at Buhen or Faras. The other
Buhen stelae in contrast were simply made and show less
formal similarities to the Semna stelae. This perhaps
implies that they were made on demand by whoever was
at hand.
Finally, it remains to be pointed out that there is a Middle
Kingdom precedent for the makers of inscribed border
stones reducing complex information down to essential
basics. These are namely small monuments that were
probably used to mark houses (Fischer 1961b; 1980;
Helck 1977b, 897) and building plots (Kemp 2006,
195). 14 Like the Lower Nubian group, these border
markers were generally round-topped, and realised in a
format that rarely exceeded 30cm in height. Their
inscriptions are concise and to the point. While these
sometimes included personal names, determinatives,
epithets and religious formulas were avoided reinforcing
their secular function. Often large areas of the display
surface are left empty. Their meaning, undoubtedly
derived in part from the context in which they were
displayed, must have been clear enough to their intended
audience. For modern observers, who mostly only have
the stripped down inscriptions to go by, the precise
14
Some important, mostly Middle Kingdom published examples are
BM 59205 (Fischer 1980, fig. 1, round topped, height 18cm); JE 47261
(Fischer 1980, fig. 2, round topped stela, height 22cm, Lahun); UCL
10712 (Fischer 1961b, 107, round topped, height 18cm, provenance?);
UCL 16047, (Trope, Quirke & Lacovara 2005, 62:47, round topped
stela, height 14cm, from Lahun). See also an unnumbered stela
allegedly from Toshka West (Simpson 1963, fig. 41 round topped,
21cm high); For nb smnw as a personal name see Smith (1976, 46). For
the relationship of the Smaller Semna Stela to such monuments see Eyre
(1990, 136-137) and literature cited there. See Berger (1934) for field
markers of the New Kingdom which were also presumably similar to
the last.
93
meaning of the information they communicate can be
difficult to grasp. This, of course, they have in common
with the Lower Nubian Group.
CONCLUSION
The preceding discussion provides one explanation for
the appearance and function of Buhen Stela 732 (Figure
1b upper) and Gebel Turob 38 (Figure 1c). It is argued
that rather than a new type of royal monument for the
Ruler of Kush, the stones were used to mark out borders
by the Egyptian army in Lower Nubia. This interpretation
is partially based on reference to a parallel that has
already been identified as a border stone by Wildung
(1996). The only originality of this contribution is the
realisation that Buhen Stela 732 and Gebel Turob 38 are
probably also to be considered border stones allowing for
a broader appraisal of the iconography, display context
and systemic functionality of these stones based on a
larger corpus of material.
Importantly, the preceding discussion shows that it is not
necessary to seek outside the Egyptian cultural tradition
for the inspiration that led to the creation of the unique
format of Buhen Stela 691. This does not necessarily
imply that Buhen 691 had the same function as Buhen
732 and Gebel Turob 38. However, when one considers
the emblematic nature of the ruler figure and its reduction
to a purely symbolic function, such a proposal is worthy
of consideration. The image of the fully armed pharaoh
ready to strike15 lends itself splendidly to the subject of a
border stela16 and echoes the rhetoric of the Great Semna
Stela (trans. Lichtheim 1973, 119 Lines 14-21;), the
Cycle of Hymns to Senwosret III (trans. Lichtheim 1973,
198 Hymn I Line 1) and other Middle Kingdom texts that
thematise the king as the establisher and protector of
Egypt’s borders (Quirke 1989, 262-265; Eyre 1990, 140-
142).
15
Wilkinson’s (1987; 1991; 1994) views regarding the motif of the
reversed bow are interesting but not persuasive. Rather the pose of the
ruler calls to mind regular soldier imagery of the Old Kingdom (Fischer
1968, 133, fig. 33 nr. 3), the First Intermediate Period (i.e. Fischer 1961;
1964), the Middle Kingdom (i.e. Newberry 1893, pl. XIII; Säve-
Söderbergh 1941, 133 Abb.12; Wegner 1995, fig. 10) and the Second
Intermediate Period (W. S. Smith 1981, 223:219). It may be remarked
that the pose of the king on Buhen 691 is almost identical to that of the
Goddess ‘Victorious Thebes’ on a Second Intermediate Period royal
stela (Vernus 1982, pl. I; Ryholt 1997, 202 Table 42, lit. 388), the only
difference being that the king on Buhen 691 appears to be captured mid-
smite.
16
Both Thutmosis I and III appear as lions on the Hagr el-Merwa border
markings at Kurgus (Davies 2001, 46-52). Although the iconography is
different to the cases being discussed here, the effect is much the same.
Anonymous depictions of kings similar in design to the figure on stela
691 that possibly date to the Old Kingdom occur in remote desert
regions such as on ‘Radjedef’s Mountain’ 100km south east of Balat (i.e.
Kuhlmann 2002, 136-137 fig. 9) as well as near the Korosko bend in
Lower Nubia (Basch & Gorbea 1968, fig. 160 (opposite page 168)).
These types of inscriptions have been interpreted as marking an
Egyptian claim to a part of a foreign land (Kuhlmann 2002, 136), and
thus could also be understood as a type of border marking.
CHRISTIAN KNOBLAUCH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, W. Y. 1977. Nubia, Corridor to Africa. London;
New Jersey: Allen Lane.
Barta, W. 1974. ‘Der Terminus twt auf den Grenzstelen
Sesostris’ III. in Nubien’. In Festschrift zum 150jährigen
Bestehen des Berliner Ägyptischen Museums
(Anonymous Editor). Mitteilungen aus der Ägyptischen
Sammlung 8. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 51-54.
Berger, S. 1934. ‘A Note on Some Scenes of Land-
Measurement’. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 20: 54-
56.
Bietak, M. 1982. ‘Pfannengräber’. In Lexikon der
Ägyptologie Band 4, edited by Helck, W; Westendorf, W.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 999-1004.
Bonnet, C. 1993. ‘Les fouilles archéologiques de Kerma
(Soudan). Rapport préliminaire sur les campagnes de
1991-1992 et de 1992-1993’. Genava N.S. 43: 1-18.
Bonnet, C. 2004. Mission archéologique de l’ Université
de Genève à Kerma (Soudan). Le temple principal de la
ville de Kerma et son quartier religieux. Paris: Éditions
Errance.
Bonnet, C; Valbelle, D. 2006. Pharaonen aus dem
Schwarzen Afrika. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern.
(German Translation of Bonnet, C; Valbelle, D. 2005.
Des Pharaons venus d’Afrique. Paris: Éditions Citadelles
& Mazenod).
Bosch, M. Almagro; Gorbea, M. Almagro. 1968.
Estudios de Arte Rupestre Nubio I. Yacimientos situados
en la Orilla Oriental del Nilo, entre Nag Kolorodna y
Kars Ibrim (Nubia Egipcia). Memorias de la Mision
Arqueologica en Egipto X. Madrid: Comite Español de
Excavaciones Arqueologicas en el Extranjero.
Davies, W. V. 2001. ‘Kurgus 2000: The Egyptian
Inscriptions’. Sudan and Nubia 5: 46-58.
Davies, W. V. 2004. ‘74: Stela with Figure of a King’. In
Sudan. Ancient Treasures, edited by Welsby, D;
Anderson, J. London: The British Museum Press, 100-
101.
Dunham, D. 1967. Second Cataract Forts. Volume II:
Uronarti, Shalfak, Mirgissa. Boston: Museum of Fine
Arts.
Emery, W. B. 1961a. ‘A Preliminary Report on the
Excavations of the Egypt Exploration Society at Buhen,
1959-60’. Kush 9: 81-86.
Emery, W. B. 1961b. Archaic Egypt. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
94
Emery, W. B. 1965. Egypt in Nubia. London: Hutchinson
& Co.
Emery, W. B. 1971. ‘Buhen, Kor, the Nubian Survey,
Ibrim’. In Actes du IIe symposium international sur la
Nubia, edited by Habachi, L. Cahiers Suppléments aux
Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 24. Cairo:
Organisme Général des Imprimeries Gouvernementales,
95-108.
Emery, W. B; Smith, H; Millard, A. 1979. The Fortress
of Buhen. The Archaeological Report. Excavation
Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society 49. London:
Egypt Exploration Society.
Engelbach, R. 1938. ‘The Quarries of the Western
Nubian Desert and the Ancient Road to Tushka’. Annales
du Service des Antiquités de l’Egypte 38: 369-390.
Eyre, C. 1990. ‘The Semna Stelae: Quotation, Genre, and
Functions of Literature’. In Studies in Egyptology
Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, Volume 1, edited by
Israelit-Groll, S. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew
University, 134-165.
Faulkner, R. O. 1953. ‘Egyptian Military Organization’.
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 39: 32-47.
Fischer, H. G. 1961a. ‘The Nubian Mercenaries of
Gebelein during the First Intermediate Period’. Kush 9:
44-80.
Fischer, H. G 1961b. ‘Land Records on Stelae of the
Twelfth Dynasty’. Revue d’Egyptologie 13: 107-109.
Fischer, H. G. 1964. Inscriptions from the Coptite Nome,
Dynasties VI-XI. Analecta Orientalia 40. Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.
Fischer, H. G. 1968. Dendera in the Third Millennium
B.C. down to the Theban Domination of Upper Egypt.
New York: Augustin
Fischer, H. G. 1980. ‘Deux stèles villageoises du Moyen
Empire’. Chronique d’Égypte 55 (109/110): 13-16.
Habachi, L. 1975. ‘Building Activities of Sesostris I in
the Area to the South of Thebes’. Mitteilungen des
Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 31: 27-37.
Helck, W. 1975. Historisch-Biographische Texte der 2.
Zwischenzeit und Neue Texte der 18. Dynastie. Kleine
Ägyptische Texte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Helck, W. 1977a. ‘Feldereinteilung und –vermessung’. In
Lexikon der Ägyptologie Band 2, edited by Helck, W;
Otto, E. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 150-151.
Helck, W. 1977b. ‘Grenzsteine’. In Lexikon der
Ägyptologie Band 2, edited by Helck, W; Otto, E.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 897.
 The Ruler of Kush (Kerma) at Buhen during the Second Intermediate Period
Helck, W. 1977c. ‘Grenze, Grenzsicherung’. In Lexikon
der Ägyptologie Band 2, edited by Helck, W; Otto, E.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 896-897.
Kendall, T. 1997. Kerma and the Kingdom of Kush 2500-
1500 B.C. The Archaeological Discovery of an Ancient
Nubian Empire. Washington: National Museum of
African Art; Smithsonian Institution.
Knoblauch, C. 2007. The Egyptian Cemeteries in Lower
Nubia during the First Half of the Second Millennium
BCE. Unpublished PhD thesis. Sydney: Macquarie
University.
Kubisch, S. 2008. Lebensbilder der 2. Zwischenzeit.
Biographische Inschriften der 13.-17. Dynastie.
Sonderschriften des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo 34. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Kuhlmann, K. P. 2002. ‘The “Oasis Bypath” or The Issue
of Desert Trade in Pharaonic Times’. In Tides of the
Desert- Gezeiten der Wüste. Contributions to the
Archaeology and Environmental History of Africa in
Honour of Rudolph Kuper, edited by Lenssen-Erz, T. et
al. Africa Praehistorica 14. Köln: Heinrich-Barth-Institut
für Archäologie und Geschichte Afrikas, 125-170.
Lacovara, P. 1997. ‘Egypt and Nubia during the Second
Intermediate Period’. In The Hyksos: New Historical and
Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Oren. E.
University Museum Monographs 98. Philadelphia: The
University Museum, 69-83.
Lichtheim, M. 1973. Ancient Egyptian Literature. A Book
of Readings. Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms.
Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California
Press.
Loeben, C. 2001. ‘Bemerkungen zur sogenannten
“Kleinen Semna-Stela” (Berlin 14753)’. In Begegnungen.
Antike Kulturen im Niltal. Festgabe für Erika Endesfelder,
Karl-Heinz Priese, Walter Friedrich Reineke, Steffen
Wenig von Schülern und Mitarbeitern, edited by Arnst,
C-B; Hafemann, I; Lohwasser, A. Leipzig: Verlag
Wodtke und Stegbauer, 273-284.
Meurer, G. 1996. Nubier in Ägypten bis zum Beginn des
Neuen Reiches. Zur Bedeutung der Stela Berlin 14753.
Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Kairo, Ägyptologische Reihe 13. Berlin: Achet Verlag.
Morkot, R. 1999. ‘Kingship and Kinship in the Empire of
Kush’. In Studien zum antiken Sudan. Akten der 7.
Internationalen Tagung für meroitische Forschungen
vom 14. Bis 19. September 1992 in Gosen/bei Berlin,
edited by Wenig, S. Meroitica 15. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 179-229.
Morkot, R. 2000. The Black Pharaohs. Egypt’s Nubian
Rulers. London: Rubicon.
95
Müller-Wollermann, R. 1996. ‘Gaugrenzen und
Grenzstelen’. Chronique d’Égypte 71:5-16.
Murnane, W; Van Siclen III, C. 1993. The Boundary
Stelae of Akhenaten. Studies in Egyptology. London:
Kegan Paul International.
Newberry, P. 1893. Beni Hasan. Part 1. London: Egypt
Exploration Fund.
Nordström, H. 1962. ‘Excavations and Survey in Faras,
Argin and Gezira Dabarosa’. Kush 10: 34-58.
O’Connor, D. 1993. Ancient Nubia. Egypt’s Rival in
Africa. Philadelphia: The University Museum.
Quirke, S. 1989. ‘Frontier or Border? The Northeast
Delta in Middle Kingdom texts’. In Proceedings of
Colloquium ‘The Archaeology, Geography and the
History of the Egyptian Delta in Pharaonic Times’.
Discussions in Egyptology Special Number 1, 261-275.
Randall-MacIver, D; Leonard Woolley, C. 1911. Buhen.
Text. Eckley B. Coxe Junior Expedition to Nubia Vol.
VII. Philadelphia: University Museum.
Reisner, G. 1923. Excavations at Kerma Parts IV-V.
Harvard African Studies Volume VI. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Peabody Museum of Harvard University.
Ritner, R. 1993. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian
Magical Practice. Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization 54. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago.
Ryholt, K. 1997. The Political Situation in Egypt during
the Second Intermediate Period, c. 1800-155 B.C.
Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications Volume 20.
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Säve-Söderbergh, T. 1941. Ägypten und Nubien. Lund:
Ohlsson.
Säve-Söderbergh, T. 1949. ‘A Buhen Stela from the
Second Intermediate Period (Khartūm No. 18)’. Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology 35: 50-58.
Seidlmayer, S. J. 2002. ‘Nubier im ägyptischen Kontext
im Alten und Mittlerem Reich’. In Akkulturation und
Selbstbehauptung. Beiträge des Kolloquiums am
14.12.2001, edited by Leder, S. Orientwissenschaftliche
Hefte 4; Mitteilungen des SFB „Differenz und
Integration“ 2. Halle: Centre for Oriental Studies, 89-113.
Seidlmayer, S. J. 2001. Pharao setzt die Grenzen.
Textanalyse zwischen traditioneller Philologie und
elektronischen Medien. Eine Ausstellung der Berlin-
Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und
der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin Stiftung Preußischer
Kulturbeitz. Begleitheft zur Ausstellung. Leipzig:
Arbeitsstelle Altägyptisches Wörterbuch; Ägyptisches
Museum der Universität Leipzig.
CHRISTIAN KNOBLAUCH

Seidlmayer, S. J. 2000. ‘Zu Fundort und
Aufstellungskontext der großen Semna-Stela Sesostris’
III’. Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 28: 233-242.
Simpson, W. K. 1963. Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic
Material from Toshka and Arminna. Publications of the
Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt 1. New Haven;
Philadelphia: Peabody Museum of Natural History of
Yale University; The University Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania.
Vercoutter, J. 1975. ‘La Roi Ougaf et la XIIIe Dynastie
sur la IIme Cataract’. Revue d’Egyptologie 27: 222-234.
Vernus, P. 1982. ‘La stèle du roi Sekhemsankhtaourê
Neferhotep Iykhernofret et la domination Hyksôs (Stèle
Caire JE 59635)’. Annales du Service des Antiquités de
l’Egypte 68: 129-135.
Vila, A. 1963. ‘Un dépôt de textes d’envoûtement au
Moyen Empire’. Journal des Savants: 136-160.

Smith, H. 1972. ‘The Rock Inscriptions of Buhen’.
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 58: 43-82.
Smith, H. 1976. The Fortress of Buhen. The Inscriptions.
Excavations at Buhen II. Excavation Memoir of the
Egypt Exploration Society 48. London: Egypt
Exploration Society.
Smith, H; Smith A. 1976. ‘A Reconsideration of the
Kamose Texts’. Zeitschrift der Ägyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde 103: 48-76.
Smith, S. T. 1995. Askut in Nubia. The Economics and
Ideology of Egyptian Imperialism in the Second
Millennium B.C. Studies in Egyptology. London: Kegan
Paul International.
Smith, S. T. 2003. Wretched Kush. Ethnic Identities and
Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire. London:
Routledge.
Smith, W. S. 1981. The Art and Architecture of Ancient
Egypt. Revised edition with additions by Simpson, W. K.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Smither, P. 1945. ‘The Semnah Despatches’. The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology 31: 3-10.
Török, L. 2009. Between Two Worlds. The Frontier
Region between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700BC-
500AD. Probleme der Ägyptologie 29. Leiden; Boston:
Brill.
Trigger. B. 1994. ‘Paradigms in Sudan Archaeology’.
The International Journal of African Historical Studies
27 (2): 323-345.
Wegner, J. 1995. ‘The Function and History of the site of
Areika’. Journal of the American Research Center in
Egypt 32: 127-160.
Wildung, D. 1996. Sudan. Antike Königreich am Nil.
Wasmuth: Tübingen.
Wilkinson, R. 1987. ‘The Turned Bow as Gesture of
Surrender in Egyptian Art’. Journal of the Society for the
Study of Egyptian Antiquities17(3): 128-133.
Wilkinson, R. 1991. ‘The Representation of the Bow in
the Art of Egypt and the Near East’. Journal of the
Ancient Near Eastern Society 20: 83-99.
Wilkinson, R. 1994. Symbol and Magic in Egyptian Art.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Williams, B. 1991. ‘A Prospectus for exploring the
Historical Essence of Ancient Nubia’. In Egypt and
Africa. Nubia from Prehistory to Islam edited by Davies,
V. London: British Museum Press, 74-91.
Williams, B. 1984-1985. ‘Nubian Publication Project’.
The Oriental Institute 1984-1985 Annual Report: 44-46.
Žaba, Z. 1974. The Rock Inscriptions of Lower Nubia.
Prague: Charles University.
Zibelius-Chen, C. 1988. Die ägyptische Expansion nach
Nubien. Eine Darlegung der Grundfaktoren. Beihefte
zum Tübinger Atlas der Vorderen Orients. Reihe B Nr.
78. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert.

Trope, B; Quirke, S; Lacovara, P. 2005. Excavating

Egypt: Great Discoveries from the Petrie Museum of
Egyptian Archaeology, University College London.
Atlanta: Michael C. Carlos Museum.

Valbelle, D. 2004. ‘The Cultural Significance of

Iconographic and Epigraphic Data Found in the Kingdom
of Kerma’. In Nubian Studies 1998. Proceedings of the
Ninth Conference of the International Society of Nubian
Studies, August 21-26, 1998 Boston, Massachusetts,
edited by Kendall, T. Boston: Department of Afro-
American Studies Northeastern University, 176-183.

96