Climate and the History of Egypt: The Middle Kingdom Author(s): Barbara Bell
Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Jul., 1975), pp. 223-269 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/503481 .
Accessed: 04/09/2013 15:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology.
Climate
and
the
History
of
Egypt:
The Middle Kingdom'
BARBARA BELL TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Survey of Dynasty XII ... ... 224
N ile Levels from the M iddle K ingdom ... .... 226
Reign of Senw osret I ... ... 226
Evidence from N ubia ... ... ... 229
H igh w ater levels (H W Ls) ... 229
Low water levels (LWLs) ... ...236
Volum e of the great Sem na floods ... 238
Evidence from Egypt ... ... ... 245
Rainfall in the Middle Kingdom ... 247
E g y p t ... ... ... ... 247
N ubia ... ... . . 248
Lake M oeris and the Fayum ... 249
Early Dynastic ... 252
Old Kingdom ... ...252
M iddle K ingdom ... . ... 254
Lake Moeris and the levels of the Nile ... ... 255
Some historical implications of the great floods ... 257
Decline of the M iddle Kingdom ... 260
D is c u s s io n... 2 6 5 References ... 266
Abstract
The first major section of this paper (p. 226f) surveys evidence bearing on the level of the Nile during the Middle Kingdom and the Second Inter- mediate Period, I991 to ca. 1570 B.C. With the exception of the analysis of the range of a "good flood" in the reign of Senwosret I, most of the evi- dence comes from excavations stimulated by the building of the High Dam at Aswan, from now- flooded sites in Nubia, and from the inscriptions on the cliffs at the Semna region of the Second Cataract, long-known and troublesome because commemorat- ing flood levels 8 to II m. above the modern from some 27 years in the reigns of King Amenemhet III and his immediate successors. Previous hypotheses
are discussed and rejected, and the inscriptions are interpreted literally as indicating actual great floods; the peak volume, in those years for which records exist at Semna, is estimated to have been 3 to 4 times that of the larger floods recorded at Aswan since A.D. 1870. These floods are interpreted as reflecting a climate fluctuation of only a few decades' duration and are not seen as typical of the Middle Kingdom, which appears otherwise to have had floods similar to those of modern times. Review of textual and architectural evidence bearing on rain- fall suggests that the Middle Kingdom had condi- tions similar to those of the A.D. i8oos, with heavy rainfalls somewhat less rare than in the present century.
II take this opportunity to thank Professors William Y. Adams (University of Kentucky), Karl W. Butzer (University of Chicago), and William Kelley Simpson (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Yale University) for their generous interest and encouragement in this work; each of them read the semi-final draft and made valuable suggestions and comments. I received also a number of useful suggestions from Prof. Sterling Dow
(Boston College).
The chronology followed in this paper is that of the revised Cambridge Ancient History, particularly Hayes (i96I), but the chronology of the XIIth Dynasty is known with exceptional exactness, so that there should be no significant difference among various authorities.
[AJA 79 The second major section (p. 249f) presents evi-
dence bearing on the level of Lake Moeris. It is concluded that the lake was in free connection with the Nile from Neolithic to Ptolemaic times when the level was artificially reduced. It appears that more than seasonal fluctuations in the lake level oc- curred from time to time (especially during the Neolithic), with possible interruptions in the free connection, as during the very low Niles and drought of the First Dark Age. If the connection then was restored with human aid, it appears most likely this was done early in the XIIth Dynasty under Amenemhet I.
The third principal section (p. 25If) discusses possible cultural and historical influences of the great floods recorded at Semna in the last reigns of Dynas- ty XII and early in Dynasty XIII, both while they were occurring and upon their cessation. There is no evidence that the decline in material prosperity and strength of the central government under Dy- nasty XIII was associated with any such severe failure of the floods and famine as brought on the First Dark Age. The few known famine inscrip- tions, from El Kab ca. 1750 B.C., do not suggest the most dire conditions of earlier inscriptions. However it is postulated that the cessation of the great floods, after the Egyptians had become accus- tomed to them, required a readjustment of the irri- gation system in a period of political weakness and uncertainty about the proper order of royal succes- sion, thus creating a sort of vicious circle which made the period "darker" than it need have been from either of these factors occurring alone and, under the Egyptian dogma of divine Kingship with the Pharaoh as "rain maker," or more exactly "flood maker," accounts in some degree for the very numerous and short reigns characterizing Dynasty XIII.
INTRODUCTION AND SURVEY OF DYNASTY XII
In a previous article (Bell 1971), I advanced the hypothesis that the First Dark Age in Egyptian history (generally known as the First Intermediate Period) was brought on by a prolonged and severe deficiency in the annual floods of the Nile. The con- sequent famine, amply attested by surviving in- scriptions, precipitated (I suggested) the collapse ca. 2180 B.C. of the central monarchy of the Old Kingdom, which was already weakened by the operation of social and political forces. I introduced
the further hypothesis that this failure of the floods in Egypt-most severe between ca. 2180 and ca. 2135 B.C., and again for a few years between ca. 2005 and 1992 B.C.-was only part of a widespread climatic fluctuation in the direction of greater aridity. The drought was severe. It played a significant and per- haps decisive role in the collapse of many centers of culture which flourished during the Early Bronze Age, all the way from Greece2 through the Near East to the Indus Valley, and so brought on the First Dark Age of Ancient History as a whole.
In the present paper, instead of proceeding imme- diately to consider a later Dark Age, I propose to continue with another theme implicit in the first paper, viz. the intermediate climatic history of Egypt. I propose, that is, to survey the evidence relating to climate from the founding of the XIIth Dynasty by Amenemhet I in 1991 B.C. to the dis- integration of the Middle Kingdom in the 1700s. In Egypt of course the essential climatic factor is the level of the Nile in the season of its annual flood. If the crops are to grow well, the flood must be sufficient to overflow the fields and prepare them for the sowing of the seeds.
Dynasty XII, ca. 1991 to ca. 1780 B.C., was a pe- riod of strong central government and general pros- perity, one of the high points of ancient Egyptian civilization." "When through the success of the state," and (I would add) through the return of the Nile to generous floods, "the 12th Dynasty Pharaohs demonstrated their capacity to be gods, they be- came once more the arbiters and dispensers of ma'at. To this the Egyptian people were assenting. They were well fed and busy and aware of oppor- tunities for advancement" (Wilson 1956:143)-
There was, to be sure, no ecologically significant revival of the rains over the desert, certainly no re- turn of the Neolithic Wet Phase (see Bell 1971). Although rainfall, occurring only in occasional cloudbursts, was too rare to be useful, the Nile inundations were evidently adequate or more than adequate during Dynasty XII. I shall discuss what can be known of flood levels during Dynasties XII and XIII in a major section of this paper. From
2 In the previous paper (Bell 1971:5-6), I noted that the radiocarbon dates associated with the House of Tiles at Lerna (late EH II) corrected to ca. 2500 B.C., suggesting association of the end of EB II in Greece with the end of the Neolithic Wet Phase rather than with the Egyptian I)ark Age. Recently published radiocarbon dates from the EM II phase at Myrotos, Crete (Q-95o/53, RC 12; and Q-0oo2/4, RC 14) average to
good agreement with the Lerna dates, being 2020 B.C. un- corrected and ca. 2500 B.C. corrected. And Korucu Tepe in
eastern Anatolia yields two dates (P-1628, RC 13, and M-2376, RC 14) for the end of EB II, which also average close to
2000 B.C. uncorrected.
a New date, required by Hintze's discovery of an inscription dated to year 13 of Amenemhet IV; see note ii.
1975] CLIMATE AND THE HISTORY OF EGYPT 225 Dynasty XII, Vandier (1936) was able to find only
one text referring to famine, viz. an inscription in the tomb of one Ameny, Nomarch of Beni Hasan during the reign of Senwosret' I. The Nomarch Ameny states (Breasted 1906:523):
... When years of famine came, I plowed all the fields of the Oryx Nome, as far as its southern and northern boundaries, preserving its people alive, and furnishing its food so that there was none hungry therein.... Then came great Niles, producers of grain and of all things, (but) I did not collect the arrears of the field (taxes) ... This inscription no doubt gives a picture of the nor- mal situation in a year of low Nile, which must have occurred from time to time throughout Egyp- tian history, though rarely with such severity as in the Dark Ages at the end of the Old Kingdom and again between Dynasties XI and XII. Vandier notes that Griffith believes that the inscription of Mentuhotep, son of Hepi, dated to year 25 of an unnamed king, refers to the same famine as Ame- ny's inscription; but Vandier himself would place it in the reign of Mentuhotep II, while Goedicke (JEA 1962:25-35) argues for a still earlier dating, under Inyotef II, both kings of Dynasty XI (see
Bell 1971 :I6-I9).
But such years of famine were not typical of the reign of Senwosret I, which was in general "a pe- riod of great economic development. The provincial cemeteries throughout the country display the very great wealth of the nomes at this time" (Vercoutter 1967:369). And the king himself was able to build extensively, "from Alexandria to Aswan there is no important site where he has not left his trace," with at least 35 sites revealing architectural ruins from his time; his reign was "one of the most glorious in Egyptian history" (ibid).
So also in the provinces. During all of the first four reigns of Dynasty XII-viz. Amenemhet I
(1991-1962 B.C.), Senwosret I (1971-1928), Ame-
nemhet II (1929-1895), and Senwosret II (I897- 1878)5-the provincial nobles continued to build fine large tombs in their several territories. Most of these series of tombs come to an end during the reign of the fifth king, Senwosret III (1878-I843), a fact which is usually taken as evidence that Sen- wosret III was able to break the power of the pro- vincial nobility and replace them by administrators subject to direct royal control.
Outside Egypt, the XIIth Dynasty regained firm dominion over Lower Nubia in the reign of Sen- wosret I, who conducted at least two campaigns there, in his year 9 (year 29 of Amenemhet I, io- year co-regency) and in year 18; and he began the construction of a series of forts in the vicinity of the Second Cataract (Emery 1965:141-52; 1967). Nubia apparently remained peaceful during the reigns of his son and grandson, but Senwosret III, a more military-minded pharaoh than his two pred- ecessors, found reason to conduct in person at least four major military campaigns in Upper Nubia. At the time of these campaigns, Senwosret III ordered the building of additional forts and the enlargement of those already in existence, so that they formed altogether a most formidable array, containing fea- tures of military architecture not previously known before the Middle Ages (Emery 1965:I02). Sen-
wosret III established Semna-the most important source of data on the flood-levels of this era-as the official frontier of his kingdom, and pacified Nubia so thoroughly that in later centuries he was worshipped as one of the prime deities of the area. It is now thought that the Nubian forts were built as a defensive measure against Kush, an apparent- ly powerful state in Upper Nubia (Trigger 1965; Emery 1965) about which little is yet known, but which the Egyptians must have considered dan- gerous. In addition the forts served to protect river traffic and trade with the south at points (i.e. the cataracts) where boats were particularly vulnerable to marauders, and where cargoes had to be por- taged or towed through; this indeed may have been the primary function of the forts (Adams
1971).
The reign of the sixth king of Dynasty XII, Amen- emhet III (1842-1797 B.C.), son and successor of Senwosret III, is generally considered to be the most prosperous of the Middle Kingdom. Nubia was under firm control. Egyptian power was ac- knowledged by many of the princes of western Asia (Hayes I96I:48), although the precise relationship between these princes and the pharaoh is still quite uncertain. Mining activity was at a high level, as indicated by many inscriptions from the turquoise mines of Sinai and the diorite quarries of Nubia (Hayes 1961). Amenemhet III was able to build for himself two pyramids, one at Dahshur near that of his father and one near the entrance 4Alternately written Senusret; Greek, Sesostris.
" The overlapping dates are correct, reflecting periods of co-
BARBARA BELL [AJA 79 to the Fayum Basin at Hawara, although the rea-
son he wanted a second pyramid remains unknown. He also erected two colossal seated statues of him- self at Biahmu, which Herodotus reports as lo- cated in the middle of Lake Moeris-a description which has given rise to much controversy, which we shall discuss below in the section on the Fayum. Amenemnhet III has often been credited also with the erection of the Labyrinth, a structure identified by some as the mortuary temple of his pyramid at Hawara, and described by Herodotus as a "won- der surpassing even the pyramids." Actually, how- ever, Herodotus attributes the Labyrinth not to Moeris (Ny-maat-re, Amenemhet) but to a com- mittee of 12 kings immediately preceding Psam-
metichus, the founder of Dynasty XXVI in 664 B.C.6
NILE LEVELS FROM THE MIDDLE KINGDOM
Reign of Sentwosret I (1971t-928 B.C.). In a note elsewhere (Bell 1970), i discussed the most an-
cient known records of the Nile floods, which cover in a fragmentary way the period from ca. 3050 to ca. 2480 B.C. These records indicate that the floods averaged 0.70 m. (or more, depending upon the assumption about the zero of the scale) higher in the vicinity of Old Memphis (near Cairo) during Dynasty I than in subsequent centuries. The next known figures date from the reign of Senwosret I of Dynasty XII, and state that a "good flood" had a level of about 21.5 cubits (11.3 m.) at Elephantine
(Aswan), 12.5 cubits (6.6 m.) at the "house of the Inundation" near Old Cairo, and 6.5 cubits (3.4 m.) at Diospolis in the northern Delta (Kees 196i:50; JEA 30:34). The highest surviving figure from the earlier records is about 8 cubits (4.2 m.) and the average from Dynasties II-V is 1.8 m. Because there is no reason to believe the floods were higher in the time of Senwosret I than in the early period, but on the contrary some reason-viz. the location of the valley temples associated with the royal pyra- mids-to believe they were lower, it seems clear
6 The dating of the Labyrinth remains controversial. Argu-
ments for the late date have been presented most recently by K. Michalowski (1968 JEA 54:219), while A.B. Lloyd (1970 JEA 56:8I-Ioo) attributes the Labyrinth to Amenemhet III.
The following description of the results of his explorations of the site of the Labyrinth by Lepsius (1853:83, 89-91) may be of interest, particularly to classical scholars interested in assessing the reliability of Herodotus on matters Egyptian (see also note 37):
"Here we have been, on the southern side of the Pyramid of Moeris, since the 23rd May, and are settled among the ruins of the Labyrinth; for I was certain from the first, after we had made but a hasty survey of the whole, that we are perfectly entitled to designate them under this name: I did not, how- ever, imagine that it would have been so easy for us to be- come convinced of this . . I caused some excavators to be levied from the surrounding villages . . . and ordered them to make trenches through the ruins, and to dig at four or five places at once
..
"These lines are written to you from the distinctly recognised Labyrinth of Moeris and the Dodecarchs, ... An immense cluster of chambers still remains, and in the centre lies the great square, where the courts once stood, covered with the remains of large monolithic granite columns, and of others of white hard limestone, shining almost like marble. . . . At the first superficial survey of the ground, a number of complicated spaces, of true labyrinthine forms, immediately presented them- selves, both above and below ground, and the eye could easily detect the principal buildings, more than a stadium (Strabo) in extent. Where the French expedition had vainly sought for chambers, we literally at once find hundreds of them, both next to, and above one another, small, often diminutive ones, beside greater ones, and large ones, supported by small col- umns, with thresholds, and niches in the walls, with remains of columns, and single casing stones, connected by corridors, without any regularity in the entrances and exits, so that the descriptions of Herodotus and Strabo, in this respect, are fully justified. But at the same time also, the opinion, which was never adopted by me, and is irreconcilable with any archi-
tectonic view, that there are serpentine, case-like windings, in place of square rooms, is decidedly refuted.
"The whole is so arranged, that three immense masses of buildings, 300 feet broad, enclose a square place, which is 600 feet long and 5oo feet wide. The fourth side, one of the narrow ones, is bounded by the Pyramid, which lies behind it; it is 300 feet square, and therefore does not quite reach the side wings of the above-mentioned masses of buildings. A canal of rather modern date, passing obliquely through the ruins . . . cuts off exactly the best preserved portion of the labyrinthian chambers, together with part of the great central square, which at one time was divided into courts . . . . the chambers lying on the farther side, especially their southern point, where the walls rise nearly ten feet above the rubbish, and about twenty feet above the base of the ruins, are to be seen very well even from . . . the eastern side; and viewed from the summit of the Pyramid, the regular plan of the whole design lies before one as on a map. Erbkam has been occupied ever since our arrival, in making the special plan, on which every chamber or wall, however small, will be noted down...." (see Lepsius' Denkmdler V.1, Abt. I, BI. 46- 48).
"... The fragments of the mighty columns and architraves which we have dug up from the great square of the halls, exhibit the name-shields of [Amenemhet III]. . . . We have several times found the name of [Amenemhet III in a chamber which lay in front of the Pyramid beneath a great quantity of rubbish]. . ... The builder and occupier of the Pyramid is therefore determined. But this does not refute the statement of Herodotus, that the Dodecarchs, only 200 years before his time, had undertaken the building of the Labyrinth. We have found no inscriptions in the ruins of the great masses of cham- bers which surround the central space. It may be easily proved by future excavations that this whole building, and probably also the disposition of the twelve courts, belong only, in fact, to the 26th Dynasty of Manetho, so that the original temple of [Amenemhet III] formed merely part of this gigantic archi- tectural enclosure."
19751 CLIMATE AND THE HISTORY OF EGYPT 227 .A .ARA S INAI ..i...ii . :.ii ij•i .... ...
...
ASY T f. AY.. M ENI . BDO THEBES EL KAB 25::iiiii- • ! ii: ELEPHANTINE 3N /SLo / CATARACT 0/OR/RE OUARRY K KUN TOSHKTA AB SIMBEL WoBI HALFA SCATARAC KERMA -- ARGO K DONGOLA* JEBAELBENAOTA MEROWE 5/h CATARAC
KHARTOUM
MALA
LAL
0
10,
A
USo
MBE
...
MAP I. The Nile Valley and vicinity: open circles, ancient sites; filled circles,
modern towns
that we must infer that the zero point of the scale, if it was ever fixed, was changed at some time be- tween the Vth and XIIth Dynasties. It is most reasonable to suppose that this change, a lowering of the zero-point, occurred during the First Inter- mediate Period (First Dark Age) when, according
to the evidence of surviving inscriptions, some years of Niles so low as to cause severe famine occurred, particularly between ca. 2180 and ca. 2135 B.C. As has been argued (Bell 1971), this drought in all probability precipitated the collapse of the Old Kingdom. The floods ca. 2500 B.C. on the old scale averaged around 1.8 m. (or 1.3 m.) above the un- known zero, so that the water must have failed to reach even the zero level in some of the famine years. This, together with the collapse of the cen- tral government, may well have led to the abandon- ment of the old Nilometer and the subsequent adoption of a new one with a lower zero point. We should note the fact that the figures given by Senwosret I describe a "good flood," not any par- ticular actual flood. It is reasonable to believe, however, that in fact the floods were "good," for Egyptologists agree that the reign of this king was a time of high prosperity for Egypt. Moreover his father, Amenemhet I (g1991-962, including io years co-regency) claimed in his Instructions to his son (Wilson 1955:418; see also Bell 1971:18-
20): "The Nile honored me on every broad ex- panse"; that is, the inundations were liberal.
The figures of Senwosret I for the vicinity of Cairo (6.6 m.) would be the same as the average rise of 6.6 m. from minimum to maximum at the Roda Nilometer (also near Cairo) over the period from the seventh century A.D. to 1890, as given by Popper (1951:225); the average rise for the
years A.D. 642-1521 he gives as 6.5 m., while his century-averages range from 6.i to 6.94 m., and the years A.D. 1822-1891 give 6.74 m. Thus it is reasonable to infer that the floods in the vicinity of Cairo in the early part of Dynasty XII were close to those of recent centuries, with the zero-point of the ancient scale being at or near the average LWL (low water level). But see note 22.
By a similar interpretation of Senwosret's figure from Elephantine (Aswan), however, rather higher floods would be indicated. The range for the years A.D.' 1870-1902 is 8.0 m., and the highest Io-day mean (in 1878) is 9.0 m. above the average LWL
(low water level), compared with a value of I1.3 m. given by Senwosret I. Extrapolation8 of the present Aswan gauge-discharge curve, shown in ill. i 7 Numerical data on modern gauge levels and flood volumes,
unless otherwise credited, were obtained from The Nile Basin, vols. II, III, IV, and their supplements, produced by H.E. Hurst, assisted in the earlier years by P. Phillips, and later by R.P. Black and Y.M. Simaika, published by the Ministry of
Public Works, Nile Control Department, Cairo, 1933-1963. 8 A word of caution is in order. Throughout the paper, when- ever extrapolations are used, it should be borne in mind that these can be no more than rough approximations, particularly as I have a cross-section of the channel to the highest relevant
[AJA 79 NILE VOLUME, m3 x 108 per day
2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100// SE MN A, M K -i - - -
~
95 E x F1878 8 .JW ,' --1946- w - AV 1870-99 o z 90< 1913 SHWL LWL 85 - -- AV 1870-99 -- - 1900-I 3 5 I 2 3 m3 x 108 per dayILL. I. The Nile at Aswan: gauge levels plotted against volume of discharge, from
Hurst et al (1946:123) and extrapolation (dashed lines) above level of modern floods (from Hurst, Black, and Simaika 1946:I23), sug- gests that a flood of I1.3 m. above LWL at Aswan would have a peak volume of 14x to I6xio"m.3/day,9 about double that of the average for 1870-1940 (Io- day mean - 8.4xio'm.'/day) and some 30 to 40 percent greater than that of the great flood of 1878 (II.4xio"m.'/day) which rose above the average LWL to 9.0 m. at Aswan and 8.36 m. at Roda (Cairo).
This sort of discrepancy between flood levels at Elephantine and at Cairo is found in Greek and Roman times as well. It has been discussed by L. Borchardt in his monograph "Nilmesser and Nil- standmarken" (see also Kees i96i:50). The dis- crepancy could be explained (Lyons i906:315) by assuming that the Egyptians used a zero point be- low mean LWL at Elephantine, which would be a more feasible thing to do among the rocks of the
Aswan cataract than in the alluvial valley of Lower Egypt, although of course a quayside scale could also perfectly well have a zero below (or above) LWL." It is also possible, even probable, that the zeros of the two Nilometers were fixed at different times. Since Dynasty XII originated from Thebes, which was the capital of the preceding (XIth) Dy- nasty, one could easily conceive that the Elephan- tine Nilometer was established at an earlier time when the LWL may have been lower. If we assume that the "good flood" of Senwosret I was similar to the larger modern floods, which amount to about i xxo"m."/day, with HWL at about 94.o m., then the zero of the gauge would have been at 82.7 m. Such a zero may have been fixed arbitrarily below the average LWL, but it is tempting to imagine that it was set in a period of exceptionally low LWL such as that just preceding the establishment of Dynasty XII by Amenemhet I in 1991 B.C., when according to the Prophecy of Neferty (Er- man 1927; Bell 1971:71): "The river of Egypt is empty, men cross over the water on foot."
There is however another factor in the problem of interpreting the levels given by Senwosret I, a factor which in pharaonic times must have served to enlarge the difference between the Elephantine and the Memphis/Cairo readings. This factor is the lake in the Fayum basin. It is generally agreed that since Ptolemaic times this lake has taken off only an insignificant fraction of the Nile flood- waters. But earlier, from pre-Neolithic down to Ptolemaic times, according to some authorities (e.g. Petrie 1889; Ball 1939), the lake was in more or less free connection with the Nile through the Hawara channel, and served to reduce flood levels in Lower Egypt by draining off a portion of the floodwaters. Water would then return to the river in the low season (Ball i939), and the action of the lake would diminish the range at Cairo, and everywhere downstream of the Hawara channel near Beni Suef, relative to that at Elephantine.
The level of the Fayum lake in pre-Ptolemaic an- cient times has long been a subject of controversy
levels only for Semna (from Lyons 19o6:26o; and Ball 1903). If the actual channel width suddenly increases at some gauge level within the range of interest, the extrapolations will under- estimate the volume of flow.
9 Explanation of symbols: m' = cubic meters; 1o0 = hun- dred millions = Ioo,ooo,ooo (eight zeros); i6xio8m'/day =
sixteen hundred million cubic meters per day. LWL = low water level; HWL = high water level or height of the flood.
10 However Lyons's further idea of a gradient of zero-points differing from that of the river is a rather inherently implausible idea which should not be accepted without a re-examination of the floods throughout the centuries and millennia. Toussoun of the data free from any predisposition to assume a constancy (1925:265) considers it evident that the scales of the various Nilometers found throughout Egypt have no deliberate rela- tion to one another.
1975 1 CLIMATE AND THE HISTORY OF EGYPT 229 among scholars. I shall discuss it at some length
later in this paper because it is an integral part of the climate history of Egypt and can be discussed most appropriately in connection with the Middle Kingdom. We shall there return also to the Nile levels of Senwosret I, and consider to what extent the diversion of water into the Fayum could ac- count for the apparent discrepancy between Ele- phantine and Old Cairo. But first we shall com- plete our survey of the information available concerning the Nile flood levels during the Middle Kingdom.
Evidence from Nubia, HWLs (High Water Levels). Rather more clear and tangible evidence on Nile flood levels is available from the latter part of the Middle Kingdom, between 1840 and ca. 1770 B.C., which yields quantitive measurements of flood levels relative to modern HWL and LWL. The interpretation of this evidence has been sub- ject to much discussion and controversy, leading to divergent views on the level of the Nile floods during the Middle Kingdom. The controversy origi- nated when Lepsius in 1844 discovered a series of inscriptions, on the rocks overlooking the river at the SEMNA region of the Second Cataract, that ap- parently recorded flood levels from the late Middle Kingdom. Vercoutter (1966) re-analyzed the phras- ing of the inscriptions and concluded that they must undoubtedly be considered meaningful rec- ords of high water levels.
Most of the inscriptions, scattered here and there on rocks of both the east and west bank, come from the reign of Amenemhet III (1842-1799 B.C.), but we now have also four from Amenemhet IV and one from Queen Sobekneferu, the last two rulers of Dynasty XII; also four from Sobekhotep I, and two from Sekhemkare, the first two kings of Dy- nasty XIII. Fifteen flood levels from the east bank have been published by Dunham and Janssen (I96o:Plate XXXII), based on the work of Lepsius and of Reisner. In ill. 2 these are plotted against date. Most of the inscriptions from the west bank are on rocks that have fallen from their original
WAD I BUHEN HA KOR. MEINARTI eDORGINARTI ROCK OF ABUSIR A MIRGISSA DABENARTI GEMAI MURSHID ASKUT KAJNARTY SHELFAK S URONART SEM NA • uM Ao SKUMMA 0 0 20 SEMNA kilometers SOUTH
MAP 2. Sites in the region of the Second
Cataract (adapted from Vercoutter 1970: Fig. i) positions (Reisner 1929a, b) so that they can give no quantitative information; these years (from Dunham and Janssen i96o:129f) are shown in ill. 2 by the broken bars, drawn arbitrarily to the average height of the solid bars. F. Hintze (1972 Jan I6, priv. comm.)"1 has generously made available to me for use in this paper the results of his re-examination of the Semna inscriptions and his additions to the list are shown by the thinner broken lines and included in the total numbers given above. Particularly noteworthy are Nos. 501 and 508, respectively dated to year 13 of Amenem- het IV and year 8 of Sekhemkare, the highest dates known for these kings. The modern floods, at the time of the visit of Lepsius, averaged about 7.3 m. lower than those recorded in the late Middle Kingdom, and from this has arisen the "Semna problem."
Before proceeding with the Semna problem itself, however, we should note that the question of the
11 The list provided me by Professor Hintze (Humboldt-
Universitiit zu Berlin) contains his reference number, the refer- ence number assigned by Reisner (I)unham and Janssen 1960) in case of revised translations, and the date of the inscription, as follows:
5oI: (new) Amenemhet IV, year 13
502: ( =RIS 6) Amenemhet III, year 36 503: (z.Zt. nicht greifbar in unserm Archiv) 504: (?--RIS 8) Shm-k'-Re [Sekhemkare], year 4 505: ( =RIS I6) Amenemhet IV, year 5
506: ( =RIS 19) Amenemhet IV, year 6 507: ( =RIS 18) Amenemhet IV, year 7 508: ( =--RIS Io) Sekhemkare, year 8
509: ( =RIS 2) S[m-Re-bw-t;wj [Sekhemre Khutowy] (Amenemhet-Sobekhotep), year 2
510: ( =RIS 3) Amenemhet-Sobekhotep, year 3
511: ( =RIS 8) Sdf'-k;-Re, year I [probably Sedjefakare, in the list of Hayes (1962a) the ninth king of Dynasty XIII,
230 [AJA 79 YEARS BC 1840 1830 1820 1810 1800 1790 c 1770 REGNAL YEARS 2 12 22 32 42 2 4 8 24 _ I 5 9 13 I 5 KUMMA TEMPLE AMENEMHET III -IV--- DYNASTY XIII -K U MMA TE MPLE 22 -60 A 20- O MK, MEAN HWL -""I. 18 -" 16"" " I> 14 I "" I < II I I : I oI Crr:
12-HWL, LEPSIUS I=50> "I II 50
o=--HWL
1901,
BALL
"
: :
IXII
.. .?? !. ,• I"II I ::: : r ii I IIw 2 11"I
I -140 "+ " I0-LWL,
LEPSIUS
-2 LWL, BALL AD-20.t C... A D 2 0 th C ... N .-ILL. 2. The Semna inscriptions: flood levels plotted against year: shaded bars, in situ inscriptions; dashed lines, fallen inscriptions plotted to average height of in situ inscriptions (from Dunham and Janssen i960); dotted lines, Hintze inscriptions (see n. i i); A, Askut inscription, estimated height at Semna average modern flood level itself is not without
complexity. John Ball (I903), from his visit to Semna in March 1902, reported that "there can be no doubt of the correctness of the difference of level noted, as the people of Kumma pointed out the precise spot where they go to get water at high Nile. My observation ... confirms that of Lep- sius." "The precise spot" must vary from year to year, however, with the variation in the volume of the modern flood, and indeed the HWLs de- termined by Ball and by Lepsius actually differ by 1.68 m. while the LWLs differ by 1.94 m., the levels given by Ball being lower in each case. This need
cause no disquiet, for the floods of 1843 and of 190o, preceding the respective visits of Lepsius and of Ball to Semna, measured 19.Io and 18.78 m. on the Roda gauge near Cairo, in satisfactory ac- cord with the difference in their levels at Semna. Table i presents a summary of the levels12 mea- sured by Ball and by Lepsius and relates them to absolute levels above mean sea level using the figures given by Vercoutter (1966: I40 n. 43).
In the report of his visit to Semna at the begin- ning of this century, Ball (1903) proposed to at- tribute the apparent decline in flood levels from the Middle Kingdom to modern times to an erosion of
12
Ball (1903) does not give the mean of the Middle Kingdom levels at Semna, but rather a value of I20.8 or 7.9 m. above his HWL of 1901, which represents the "lowest group of in-
scriptions." Fortunately for greater precision, he gives the level of year 23 of Amenemhet III as Io.9 m. above his HWL, which in turn is 12.i m. above his modern LWL; from these data the relation between the scales of Ball and of Lepsius can be worked out. Vercoutter (1966:n.43) reports actual measure- ments only for the two temples, where his figures show a dif- ference between the levels of the temples which is less than half of that published by Lepsius; it is clear that Vercoutter's "modern LWL" was determined from the Kumma elevation using the scale of Lepsius. The elevations of Kumma de- termined by Ball and by Lepsius are in good accord, while Ball gives yet a third elevation for the Semna temple. It is not
surprising that the Kumma elevation was the more accurately measured by Lepsius because all of the in situ inscriptions- the focus of his interest-are on the Kumma or east bank.
Lepsius's error in the elevation of the Semna temple pro- duces an initially puzzling result in Reisner's Plate IX (Dun- ham and Janssen 1960), where the water level of 5 April 1924-which was about 115.25 at Halfa, close to the average modern LWL-appears at 3.90 m. above the zero of Lepsius! From Table i, it should be around -1-.9 m. It would appear
that Reisner determined the temple platform to be 34.0 m. above the 5 April 1924 water-level, then used Lepsius's figure of 37-90 m. for the elevation of the temple. If we use Ball's elevation (135-4 m. - 102.9 m. - 32.5 m. on the scale of Lepsius) subtraction of 34.o0 m. gives --I.5 m., in satisfactory agreement with the expected value.
1975] CLIMATE AND THE HISTORY OF EGYPT 231 TABLE 1
Comparison of Nile levels at Semna, in meters, according to the various scales of Ball (1903), Dunham and Janssen (1960, from 1844 observations of Lepsius),
and Vercoutter (1966: I40, n. 43, meters above mean sea level).
Lepsius- meters above
Levels Ball Dunham-Janssen sea level
"modern" LWL, Lepsius (1o2.9) 0 138.92
March 1902 LWL* o00.8 (-I.94) 136.98
"modern" HWL, Lepsius (113.8) 11.84 150.76
HWL of 1901 112.9 (0o.i6) 149.08
difference, HWL - LWL 12.1 11.8
Mean Middle Kingdom
HWL** (121.9) 19.14 158.06
Year 23 of Amenemhet III 123.8 21.o6 159.98 M.K. mean - modern HWL 9.0 7.30 M.K. mean - modern LWL 21.1 19.14 Base of Temple Kumma 126.0 23.03 161.95 Semna 135-4 37-90 168.90 Semna - Kumma 9-4 14-9 7.0 * In March
19o2 the volume at Aswan was r-, o.52xiosm.3/day (Hurst et al. 1946), intermediate between the average minimum of 1870-1899 (o.58xios) and of 1900-1938 (o.415xIo8); and nearly 2 m.
below the LWL determined by Lepsius. ** See n. 12, first two sentences.
the river-bed by some 8 m. in the Semna cataract. With the limited knowledge then available on ero- sion rates, he was able to make a plausible case, and his conclusions were reaffirmed by Sanford and Arkell in 1933-
The erosion hypothesis seemed to be supported by clear evidence that the low water levels in the Middle Kingdom, at least in some years, were close to the levels of today. The various forts built in the vicinity of the Second Cataract by pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom each had a stairway in a pro- tected position leading down to the Nile. Wher- ever these water-stairs are well preserved they ex- tend approximately to the modern LWL, thus pointing to a LWL in the Middle Kingdom close to recent levels. We shall discuss the water-stairs more fully in the section on LWL.
After a re-examination of the geological evidence at Semna, however, Fairbridge (1963) rejected Ball's explanation for the Semna flood records. He concluded that very little erosion had occurred in the Semna cataract since the Middle Kingdom and
that the floods in that period were in fact around 8 meters higher than they are today. He concluded further that the Nile had reached bedrock and ceased any sort of rapid cutting already by ca.
3000 B.C., and that the Semna dike had been cut
mostly before the silt lens was deposited in Upper Paleolithic times. Butzer (1971) agrees "that Ball's rates of bedrock incision in diorite are quite incon- sonant with modern observations and that the channel floor must have been cut to substantially its present level long before the Middle Kingdom."
Even before the i960s, however, there emerged various difficulties with Ball's hypothesis quite apart from his over-estimate of the erosion rate. Reisner (1929b) rejected Ball's hypothesis because of a lack of evidence for levels significantly higher than today's in the New Kingdom at Semna, which would imply that all the erosion occurred between 1840 and ca. 1560 B.C. Reisner proposed a different sort of erosion hypothesis involving the sudden collapse of part of the cliff and a consequent widen- ing of the river channel. The amount of widening
BARBARA BELL [AJA 79 possible, however, appears by no means sufficient
to account for so large a change in flood levels. Moreover the evidence for high floods in the Mid- dle Kingdom is not confined to the Semna inscrip- tions nor to the immediate vicinity of the Semna cataract. Ancient fields associated with the forts at Uronarti and Shelfak are 7 and 6 meters respec- tively above the modern HWL (Wheeler 196i:96). According to Wheeler (i96i:96), who took a lively interest in evidence bearing on ancient flood levels, "It would appear possible that the ancient HWL came over the present river bank [at Mirgissa , and to within a short distance of the foot of the Fort itself. There is mud in the sand here which could not have arrived by other means. . ." In his notes on his 1931-1932 excavations at MIRGISSA, Wheel- er (1961:165) summarizes threefold evidence on the question of the HWL in ancient times:
i. The water-worn surface of the rock is very clear- ly defined at a level of 8.73 m. above 1931 HWL. From this level down to the lowest cleared (4.15 m. above 1931 LWL) the rock is deeply water-worn-all the veins of harder rock standing out from the surface, well polished. The upper limit of this wear, taken at different points, always gives the same level.
2. That part of the rock which was submerged has
a surface of salt crystals, which are very thickly distributed from the lowest level up to about 6 m. above 1931 HWL.
3. At a slightly lower point, 6.23 m. above 1931 HWL, there is river mud and sand tightly packed into a pocket in the rock. At the same point was found, wedged in a crack of the rock, a small potsherd, a water-polished pebble, and a small fragment of bone, hardened almost to semi-fossilization by water.
The fluvial planation observed in item (i), how- ever, must have required many centuries, even mil- lennia, and cannot possibly reflect merely the floods recorded at Semna. Most of it probably developed in the fourth and fifth millennia B.C., when there is other evidence for floods some 5 to io m. above the modern HWL (Trigger 1965:29). Regarding item (2), salt can move laterally and vertically through rock by capillarity (Butzer i97i) so this point is inconclusive. Few would dispute Wheeler's conclusion, now supported by evidence from many
parts of the valley, that the Nile flood levels were at some time in the post-glacial past, and for a con- siderable period of time, several meters higher than they are today. Since Wheeler found it "equally certain . . . that it was there during the occupation
of the fort," we may suspect that he was strongly influenced by the Semna inscriptions, for a potsherd and bone fragment of unspecified type cannot be considered alone as compelling evidence.
Modern excavations, set in motion in the 1950s by the impending disappearance forever of many sites beneath the waters of Lake Nasser, have brought to light a number of items relevant to the interpretation of the Semna inscriptions and water levels in the Middle Kingdom. Others may be ex- pected as more excavations become fully published.
In the course of their comprehensive excavations at Mirgissa, Vercoutter and his associates of the French Archaeological Mission to the Sudan dis- covered a "Lower Fort" or at least a substantial segment of fort-wall extending to a level some 15 m. below the earlier-known Fort on the top of the hill, and close to their contour"' 155 m. (Vercoutter 1965: fig. I; 1970). On stylistic grounds they con- clude that this fort was built in the earlier part of the XIIth Dynasty, by Senwosret I or his successors, while the well-known Upper Fort was built by Sen- wosret III (Vercoutter 1970:20-22), although the principal occupation remains are from the early part of Dynasty XIII, ca. 1770 B.C. Most important for our purposes, they conclude that "all the earliest structures of the site below the contour level 155 have been washed out by an uncommonly high flood which occurred between the end of the Mid- dle Kingdom and the beginning of the New King- dom" (Vercoutter 1971 personal comm.; see also the chapter by A. Hesse in Vercoutter 1970:51-67). Hesse also reports evidence of structures interpreted as riverside facilities, at a contour level of 149, and this elevation, he concludes, marks the normal HWL of the Middle Kingdom. Hesse (Vercoutter 1970:53) points out that the water damage of struc- tures up to 155 m. is persuasive evidence that such high floods were not typical of the Middle King- dom, contrary to the opinion of O.H. Myers and of Wheeler. The Egyptians would not have built at 13 Vercoutter's (1965: fig. I; 1966:61; 1970) contour levels re-
late to a different zero than that used by the gauges of the Nile Control Department because of the pressure of time and lack of a reliable benchmark in the vicinity of Mirgissa to fix the zero; they estimate (Vercoutter 1970:51) that their levels are
too high, relative to a sea-level zero, by 7.8 m. Study of Table 2 and maps of the area indicates to me that the discrepancy with the Kajnarty gauge levels is closer to II to 12 m., but it is possible that some of the discrepancy results from an error in the Nilometer zero.
1975] CLIMATE AND THE HISTORY OF EGYPT 233 levels they could expect to be flooded at HWL, and
thus the destruction up to 155 m. must have been caused by an exceptional, a truly extraordinary flood "une crue millinaire," some 6 m. above that typical for HWL in the earlier part of the Middle Kingdom.
It is puzzling that Vercoutter and his colleagues, confronted with this evidence from their site at Mirgissa, nevertheless resist the obvious solution of identifying their "crue millenaire" with the remark- able floods recorded at Semna, apparently because of a lack of independent non-archaeological evi- dence for the climate fluctuation that would be im- plied by such in interpretation. The evidence from Mirgissa, interpreted in conjunction with the Sem- na inscriptions, suggests that during much of the XIIth Dynasty the HWL was around 149 m., sim- ilar to that of the late nineteenth century A.D.14 Although the dating is not absolutely secure, Ver- coutter (1970:20f) concludes that the lower struc- tures at the site were built during the reigns of Senwosret I, Amenemhet II and Senwosret II, while the long-known Upper Fort was built under Senwosret III. All of this occurred before the ear- liest flood inscriptions at Semna, which began only with the reign of Amenemhet III. The channel width at Mirgissa at HWL is around 1700 m. (Ver- coutter 1970:56), and about 400 m. at Semna, so that we should expect the floods to be higher in the latter location; the highest floods, some io m. above the modern at Semna, would be only about 5.7 m. above the modern at Mirgissa." We shall return to this point in a later section. The evidence from Mirgissa of water-destruction up to level 155 m. however appears entirely compatible with interpre- tation of the Semna inscriptions as records of actual
flood levels produced by a short-lived climate fluc- tuation of a few decades which resulted in a num- ber of floods of a magnitude more typical of the Neolithic Wet Phase than of historic times.
Turning now to evidence from other sites, one of the most important items, discovered by A. Ba- dawy (1964 Kush 12:52), is a rock inscription at ASKUT, roughly midway between Mirgissa and Semna, at the north end of the Sarras region where the channel width is comparable to that at Semna at least up to modern flood levels (Lyons 1906:260). Close by is the modern gauge-station of Kajnarty which we shall use presently in an attempt to esti- mate the flood volumes recorded during the Middle Kingdom at Semna. The inscription at Askut re- cords a HWL dated to year 3 of Sekhemkare, the second pharaoh of Dynasty XIII. Badawy points out that it is important for its "very high level" and because it proves that inundations were still re- corded and that Upper Nubia was still under Egyp- tian rule.'" Vercoutter (1966:140, n. 41) reports that the Askut inscription is located at 17.4 m. above the Nile level of 1963 December 16. The level of the Nile at nearby Kajnarty on this date, kindly pro- vided me by the Sudanese Ministry of Irrigation, is 134.54 m., whence the level of the inscription is
151.9 m. From Table 2 it can be seen that this level is about 0.5 m. above the average estimated for the Middle Kingdom inscriptions in situ at Semna (151.4 m. at Kajnarty). The Askut inscription is represented in ill. 2 by the point labelled "A." This inscription is a severe, indeed fatal, embarrass- ment to the erosion hypothesis.
Vercoutter's (1966) excavation of a secondary fort at Semna South has provided clear physical evidence for very high floods at some period after 14 It appears impossible to obtain an exact relation between
the 1931 HWL determined by Wheeler and the various fea- tures excavated by Vercoutter and his associates. Vercoutter (I971 pers.comm.) estimates that Wheeler's level of 7.44 m. above the 1931 HWL is close to his contour 155 m., which would place the modern HWL at 147.5 m. The average HWL of the current century coincides closely with that of 1931; if this falls about 1.5 m. below that judged typical of the Middle Kingdom, the latter may be imagined as similar to the floods of the years A.D. 1870-1898, and almost certainly no larger than the largest floods of the past century.
However Hesse (Vercoutter 1970:54) determined the modern HWL to lie between 145 and 146 m. from two other mea- sures reported by Wheeler. Further, he informs me (Hesse
1972 pers.comm.) that the base of the Upper Fort was so
eroded that it was impossible to identify exactly the levels de- scribed by Wheeler and therefore necessary to rely on the other data given by Wheeler. Lacking evidence to the con- trary, Hesse assumes the typical Middle Kingdom flood vol-
ume was equal to the modern average and attributes the dif- ference between 145 and 149 to a change in the riverbed. Unfortunately most of the lower-level structures at Mirgissa were discovered only in the last season before they were flooded by the rising waters of Lake Nasser, so that they could not be re-examined after their importance as evidence on ancient Nile levels was fully appreciated (Hesse 1972 pers.comm.).
15A rise of 9 to io m. at Mirgissa, corresponding to the difference between the "crue millenaire" and a modern HWL at 145 to 146 m. is considerably more than could be expected from a Io m. rise at Semna. This fact tends to support Hesse's postulate of a decline of 2 to 4 m. in the level of the riverbed at Mirgissa since the Middle Kingdom, assuming that his de- termination of the modern HWL is to be preferred over Ver- coutter's estimate (see note 14). In addition, there is evidence that the river flowed closer to the Upper Fort in the Middle Kingdom than it does today.
16 We have now in addition, from Hintze (note II) years 4 and 8 of Sekhemkare at Semna, and year I of Sedjefakare.
234 [AJA 79 the building of the fort. He infers further that it
indicates the absence of such ultra-high floods at the time the fort was under construction, but I am less certain than he that the evidence compels this conclusion. At the fort of Semna South, built on "an ancient alluvial terrace of the Nile" about i km. south of the main Semna Fort, Vercoutter found a glacis about io m. wide, sloping toward the river and built of granite slabs. Beneath it was a subter- ranean water-stairway built also of granite slabs and running as a tunnel through the ancient alluvium from the northeast corner of the fort towards the river. Most significantly, the glacis was covered by a thick deposit of Nile silt-a typical water-laid silt (Butzer 1971)-up to a level of about 8 m. above
the modern HWL. This silt layer, Vercoutter points out, was deposited at some time after the building of the glacis and the stairway and, there being top- ographically no possibility of local silting from re- peated flooding of a wadi, indicates "a rise of some importance in the Nile level after the building, leading to a heavy silting in places where the sedi- ments could not be washed out by the current dur- ing the subsidence of the river." Only a few arti- facts from the Middle Kingdom were found in the Fort, from which Vercoutter concludes that it was not permanently occupied. He believes it was most probably constructed during the reign of Senwosret III, who is known to have campaigned actively around and above the Second Cataract, to have en- larged and strengthened existing forts and added others to the formidable array. From Vercoutter's
(1966) Figure 4, it would appear that the stairway led below the modern flood level, although lack of time and various difficulties prevented him from excavating it completely to the lower end, which by analogy with other forts of the region should be near modern LWL.
The silt-covered construction gives proof, Ver- coutter concludes, that at some time in the Middle Kingdom the flood levels were similar to or slightly less than those of modern times-close to the appar- ent convergence point of glacis and tunnel-roof- and that subsequently there occurred a period of floods some 8 m. higher. The second conclusion, in excellent agreement with the flood-level inscriptions
on the rocks at Semna and Kumma, beginning early in the reign of Amenemhet III, seems wholly compelling. But I am not convinced that Vercout- ter's excavations provide quantitative evidence on the HWL at the time of the construction of the Fort. In order to construct the water-stair, the Egyp- tians would presumably have dug a trench in the ancient alluvial terrace, built the stairway, covered it over and built the protective glacis."7 If they com- pleted this work in one season, I see no basis for any firm conclusion about the HWL at the time of the construction. Since it was not possible to exca- vate the stairs to their end, they cast no light on the LWL, so it is doubtful that Semna South has yielded any firm evidence against the erosion hy- pothesis-which, however, is already convincingly demolished by modern knowledge of erosion rates, and by the archaeological evidence from Mirgissa and Askut. The evidence from Vercoutter's (1970) excavations at Mirgissa also provides more persua- sive evidence that the HWL in Dynasty XII before the reign of Amenemhet III (dated from Semna) was similar to the modern.
Convinced that his excavations disproved the ero- sion hypothesis, Vercoutter (1966) was not inclined to accept the most straightforward (at least to me) alternative of climate fluctuation in absence of inde- pendent evidence for such a climate fluctuation. He postulated that the high levels were caused by a partial dam or rather, because of the Askut inscrip- tion,"8 a series of partial dams, built by the Egyp- tians of the Middle Kingdom with the object of prolonging the period of high water when the cata- racts were relatively navigable. His reasons for proposing this, to me incredible, explanation relate also to the evidence on low-water levels, plus his assumption, which I shall argue is completely un- justified, that a rise of 8 m. in the HWL must be accompanied by a corresponding rise of 8 m. in the LWL.
But first we shall finish with the evidence on HWL. Also relevant here are one (and perhaps two) items found in excavations by the Oriental Institute archaeologists (Knudstad 1966) at SERRA EAST (and Dorginarti), although no quantitative conclusions can be drawn until (unless) details on
17 Some of the 8 m. of silt overlying the glacis may have come from the trench, piled to the sides of the construction and redistributed smoothly by the series of great floods re- corded at Semna.
18 Vandersleyen (1970) proposes to attribute the single in- scription at Askut in year 3 of Sekhemkare to a great flood
which resulted from the rupture of Vercoutter's postulated dam at Semna. This hypothesis, while more attractive than the postulate of a series of dams, is nevertheless invalidated by the inscriptions of Hintze (notes 11, 16), three of which record great floods at Semna at dates later than the Askut inscription.