Abstract
Tomb and temple robberies were an endemic concern throughout ancient Egyptian history. With the exception of the thefts recorded in the so-called Great Tomb Robbery Papyri of the 20th Dynasty, we have almost no direct information on those who committed them. These texts provide important details on the sociology of robbers that, thus far, has not been fully explored. For this article, a database containing the almost 400 individuals involved in temple and tomb robberies was created. This article is the first half of this study and addresses the questions of who the robbers were, what they robbed, and why.
Introduction
Since its earliest history, ancient Egypt has known tomb and probably temple plundering, 1 particularly during periods experiencing a weakened central power and socioeconomic crises. 2 The resultant addition of large amounts of valuable materials from elite graves back into circulation would probably have benefitted the economy. 3 Sometimes, illegal plundering coexisted with official state practice. The reinternment of New Kingdom royalty into collective tombs deprived of their valuables by the 21st Dynasty Theban rulers is currently seen as a deliberate policy of retrieving their richness at the pretext of piously protecting them against robbers. 4
In the ancient Egyptian literature, tomb robbery marks the collapse of social order. 5 However, grasping its sociological background is difficult due to the paucity of sources. Fortunately, the dossier of the ‘Great Tomb Robbery Papyri’ at the end of the 20th Dynasty provides invaluable information. 6 These texts have mostly been analysed for their historical, political and judicial aspects while their sociological implications have seldom been studied. 7
Tomb and temple robberies raise several sociological issues. The first one concerns the identity of the robbers and their position in the society; what did they rob, and why? The second one concerns whether or not they formed specialized bands or gangs in our modern sense of the word. A third issue deals with how those who committed these crimes – as they were considered at least by the elite – complied with the transgressions of this taboo since the matter is also cultural. 8 All these questions cannot be addressed within a single article; the second part of this work will appear in JEA 110. Let us start by analysing the first issue.
Material and Methods
The documents and their context
The corpus consists of fourteen texts. 9 All of these have been published except P. Philadelphia Museum 49.11 which is the lower half of P. BM EA 10383. 10 P. Abbott and P. Leopold II-Amherst are final official documents while the others are probably office drafts 11 or intermediate documents. 12 They contain more or less elaborated and standardized records of the questioning of suspects together with lists of people and stolen goods. The Necropolis Journal of year 17 of Ramesses IX, P. BM EA 10054 and P. BM EA 10068, contain additional administrative texts, not all related to the robberies.
In the traditional chronology, 13 thefts seem to have started already before year 13 of Ramesses IX; 14 thieves had been arrested in year 14. 15 In year 16, an inspection at Dra Abu el-Naga concluded that only the pyramid of King Sebekemsaf of the 17th Dynasty had been plundered while surrounding private tombs were extensively looted. 16 The royal wadis were declared intact, but in year 17, several workmen of Deir el-Medina were arrested for plundering the tomb of Queen Isis, a wife of Ramesses III. 17 We have no dated information on the Valley of the Kings, but P. Mayer B, dealing with the tomb of Ramesses VI, might stem from the reign of Ramesses IX. 18 It is the only royal tomb which is clearly mentioned from the New Kingdom. 19 Concerning temples, thieves involved in the spoiling of probably the Ramesseum were interrogated in year 18. 20
Twelve years later, in year 9 (of Ramesses XI), there was a further investigation of thefts from the Ramesseum. 21 Another gap of eleven years brings us to year 1 and 2 of the Renaissance (corresponding to years 19–20 of Ramesses XI). In this period there were investigations concerning thefts from four tombs of the Valley of the Queens including, again, the tomb of Queen Isis, 22 the Theban Necropolis, and cemeteries of nearby localities. 23 Temple robberies concerned Medinet Habu 24 and Karnak. 25 The thefts themselves occurred months or years earlier and several of them had already been sanctioned. 26 No kings’ tombs are mentioned, but regular inspections in the Valley of the Kings started with the Renaissance 27 while the first known reburial of a king occurred under Herihor. 28
This chronology has been challenged by Ad Thijs in 1998. For reasons that cannot be developed here, this author proposed a partial co-rule of Ramesses XI with Ramesses IX and X until Ramesses XI became the sole king of Egypt in his year 19, corresponding to year 1 of the Renaissance. 29 A consequence of this chronology is that two key texts, namely P. BM EA 10053 Vs. and P. BM EA 10068 Vs., traditionally dated to year 9 and 12 of Ramesses XI respectively, are now ascribed to the Renaissance. In addition, year 18 of P. BM EA 10054 Rt. 3,7 dealing with thefts in the Ramesseum might correspond to Ramesses XI and not to Ramesses IX. For the moment, I propose to follow the traditional chronology and discuss the consequences of Thijs’ hypothesis later.
Suspects were presented to a court composed of the vizier, royal butlers, and sometimes the high priest of Amun. 30 Confessions were usually obtained under torture. Whereas some declarations merely contain a brief summary, others are more lengthily recorded and provide vivid details. These declarations were rarely verbatim, but were instead a digest made by the scribes. 31 Investigators were also interested in retrieving stolen metal. 32 Their amounts and receivers were listed. 33
The database
A database was constructed including all of the individuals mentioned in the texts, whether involved in robberies or not. An individual is identified by a name and an occupation to which may be added his or her father or mother’s name and the institution he/she was affiliated with together with the person who was his/her hierarchical superior, usually introduced by the preposition m-ḏr.t or r-ḫt. Sometimes the spouse and siblings could be identified. In a few cases where the occupation was lost or not indicated, a specific individual could still be identified because the context was unambiguous and the name not frequent. As a rule, an individual has only one occupation, which may have variants in its formulation, but wab-priests and foreigners (ȝʿʿ), which are not true occupational titles, frequently exert other professions. For specific sub-analyses, the contemporaneous documents and the online Deir el-Medina database of the University of Leiden 34 were checked for other attestations of the individuals and their relatives. 35 Sometimes doubts arose with frequent names and occupations as one or more individuals must be distinguished, particularly when his/her filiation or affiliation was not specified. In such cases, two possibilities were retained: a minimalist one considering only one individual and a maximalist one accepting two and sometimes more individuals of a same name and occupation. As a result, 659 or 670 individuals could be identified. Choosing the lowest number may lead to a bias by excess (risk of excessively attributing all of the information to one individual when there was in fact several) whereas choosing the largest leads to a bias by default (sharing the information of a single individual with several others when there was only one individual). In the end, the risk by default seemed preferable and, therefore, 670 individuals were considered for the study. 36
Categorization of the robbers
The texts indistinctively call people involved in the robberies ỉṯȝy.w whatever their exact role in the theft and whether they were denounced by other peoples, interrogated by the court, or proven to have actively participated in the robbery or benefitted from the booty. The only exception is P. Mayer A which clearly distinguishes robbers from recipients but without specifying whether these two categories were sentenced differently (see below).
Nevertheless, it is certainly interesting to differentiate the population of ỉṯȝy.w according to the role each individual played in the robberies, at least as far as the texts let us know. Indeed, we may suspect that social factors were determinant in this casting. For this we distinguished seven roles or situations using modern terminology.
Thieves proper, who actually performed the thefts and are designated or considered as such by the investigators. This group includes people who ferried the band of thieves to the West Bank. The reason to include the ferries here, is that in several examples they received a share of the booty in the same way as the men who performed the robbery, indicating that they were considered true members of the band. 37
Accomplices, who brought technical support to the robbers by showing the tombs, receiving the thieves who were preparing the theft, sharing and concealing the booty, melting metal, and so on. Some of them were granted a share by the robbers while others requested one without success. The wives of the thieves were frequently viewed as accomplices by the authorities.
Blackmailers and corrupted people, who extorted a booty share for their silence or favour, or by menace. 38
Witnesses who were interrogated by the court although they did not participate in the robbery. They were mostly sons, wives, and enslaved persons of deceased (or, at least, likely deceased) robbers and were usually tortured just as the other suspects. 39
Suspects, who are people who do not belong to any of the previous groups. They appear in lists of ỉṯȝy.w collected by the authorities 40 or in a context indicating that they probably participated in the robberies but without more precise information on their actual role in the thefts.
Receivers or fences, who received stolen goods from the robbers. 41 They are clearly distinguished from the thieves in P. Mayer A which calls them ‘people who received some silver [….] although they did not go’ 42 and collects their names in a list different from those containing the names of robbers. That this distinction has a general value is indicated by the Necropolis Journal of year 17 and P. BM EA 10053 Rt., which deal with the band of Deir el-Medina who robbed the tomb of Queen Isis. In both texts, specific sections are devoted to the robbers’ declarations concerning their receivers and the part of the booty received by the fences without any allusion to the theft proper which was probably recorded in other now lost documents. 43
Individuals denounced by other people, but for whom we have no information on their exact role in the robbery and if they even participated in it. 44
The analysis was performed according to these seven categories, but to take into account the ancient Egyptian point of view, we also analysed the data according to the categories of receivers and thieves (ỉṯȝy.w). In this case, ỉṯȝy.w included robbers proper, accomplices, blackmailers, denounced people and suspects. To avoid confusion, we will speak of thieves proper when using the seven categories and ỉṯȝy.w when referring to the ancient Egyptian classification. 45
Categorization of occupations
About 100 occupations are named in the documents, frequently with variations of a single title. For the study, they were collected into eighteen groups of six to 93 individuals (table 1).
The different categories of occupations used for the analysis. F: female. M: male.
Statistical analysis
To determine whether any observation is significant or only dependent on chance due to the incompleteness of the data or the small size of the samples, a statistical analysis was performed.
46
Statistics used were the Chi-2 or Fisher’s exact tests for qualitative variables (e.g., categories of thieves or categories of professions) and the Mann-Whitney or ANOVA tests for quantitative ones (e.g., social scores). The probability of obtaining a difference by chance was measured by the p-value. A p-value <0.05, which indicates that the probability of a result only obtained by chance is below 5%, was considered significant. In some instances, the size of the samples was too small to reach significance. In those cases, the result was considered as marginally significant when p
Who Were the Robbers?
Among the 670 individuals named in the texts, 240 (35.8%) occurred under Ramesses IX, 418 under Ramesses XI (62.4%) and 12 (1.8%) under both kings. 37 individuals (5.5%) were state or temple authorities who conducted the investigations and 397 persons (59.3%), including 37 women (9.3%), were ỉṯȝy.w or fences, while 232 individuals were not involved in the thefts.
Temple and tomb robbers: Two different populations
The thieves who robbed temples and tombs form two different populations, almost without overlap, since among the 397 ỉṯȝy.w or fences, 298 (75%) were involved in tomb robberies, 92 (23.2%) in temple robberies, and only three in both, while the evidence was insufficient for four individuals. This dichotomy is also present if we consider professions whose distribution is significantly different (p<0.001 by the Chi-2 test) between tombs and temples ỉṯȝy.w (fig. 1). This mostly relies on five professions. In temple robberies, priests (wʿb and ỉt-nṯr) and scribes are overrepresented comparatively to tomb robberies; enslaved people, servants, and workmen from Deir el-Medina mostly occur in tomb robberies. Similar results appear when considering thieves proper with an overrepresentation of priests and scribes in temple robberies and of Tomb 47 workmen in tomb plundering. Whereas, on the whole, craftsmen are present in the two groups, stonemasons only appear among tomb robbers where they played a crucial role in attacking the tomb structures. Coppersmiths appear in both groups, because of their specific technical skills to melt robbed metals.
Thief occupation and whereabouts according to tomb or temple robberies. * indicates a p-value <0.05 by the Fisher exact test.
These results suggest that the social position of tomb robbers was on the whole inferior to that of temple thieves. However, this would require more precise and specific information than the Tomb Robbery Papyri provide. Fortunately, two almost contemporaneous sources help us out. The first one is P. Wilbour. 48 This document, dated to the reign of Ramesses V, records the details of the land tenures of more than 1000 landholders exercising a variety of occupations, many of which are shared with the robbers. I have shown that the landholding mean surface in P. Wilbour was a valuable and measurable indicator of social position which allows the ranking of the different occupations. 49 The second indicator comes from the Amenemope Onomasticon. This text, dated to the end of the Ramesside Period or the early 21st Dynasty, contains a list of 166 occupations which, starting with the king and ending with the cultivators, is clearly ordered by decreasing social prestige. 50 Importantly, there is a good correlation between the social position of professions as indicated by the land tenure surface in P. Wilbour and the ranking in the Onomasticon, 51 showing that these indicators have a general value and can be used to estimate social position in other contexts, at least for the Ramesside Period. For this, the value of the equivalent mean land tenure surface in P. Wilbour or the ranking in the Onomasticon of each profession were ascribed to each of the thieves according to their occupation.
Even if not all the thieves’ occupations had a corresponding indicator, very few were not represented by at least one of them. Interestingly, the equivalent mean land tenure of professions involved in tomb robberies is significantly lower than that of professions involved in temple robberies (7.3 aroura versus 10.7 aroura, p<0.05). The same occurred with the equivalent ranking in the Onomasticon which was lower for tomb robbers than for temple thieves (117 versus 86, p<0.05). 52 Results were similar with robbers proper: equivalent land tenure surface: 7.2 aroura for tomb robbers versus 10.2 for temple robbers (p<0.01) and ranking: 119 versus 83 respectively (p<0.01). The difference was maintained throughout the period since it was observed whether the thefts were investigated before or during the Renaissance. 53
The workmen of Deir el-Medina could not be analysed in this way because they have no equivalent profession in either P. Wilbour or the Onomasticon. However, they certainly enjoyed a favoured social position. 54 The number of their receivers shows that they stood apart from the other tomb robbers. Indeed, the eight Tomb workmen who robbed Queen Isis’s tomb had at least 136 fences with a diversity of professions including a large number of traders, mostly comprising people from the Fayyum and Middle Egypt. 55 In contrast, the thirteen men of generally low status who later plundered the same sepulchre confessed only fifteen receivers, all Thebans. Calling on receivers was socially determined and reflected the capability of developing a rich social network including people who are not in your usual sphere.
The Robber’s Whereabouts
Geographical residence also distinguishes tomb and temple robbers. The thieves’ whereabouts are usually not recorded by the investigators, but the information can be obtained for several of them using two different approaches. First, P. BM EA 10054 and P. BM EA 10068 contain three administrative texts listing people inhabiting the West Bank at the same period. The first list, dated to year 12 (of Ramesses XI), records the name of 181 individuals whose house is located within or around the memorial temples of Seti I, Ramesses II, and Ramesses III. 56 Although not specified, this list was perhaps used for controlling a population at risk of committing thefts in the temples. 57 The second document dated to year 6 (of Ramesses XI) names people living in the Medinet Habu enclosure where they received grain. 58 The last one, 59 is a list of people which, although undated, is probably contemporaneous with that of year 12. The purpose of this list is unclear. It may record a kind of levy (šrm.t) or list fences with their share of booty called a šrm.t. 60 Interestingly, thanks to the database, it was easy to cross reference these lists with that of robbers and find many correspondending names and professions indicating that several of the thieves inhabited the West Bank. 61 The second way is by considering the institutions to which the ỉṯȝy.w were affiliated with the assumption that they lived near their institution. Some lay on the East Bank, mostly at Karnak, 62 while others were on the West Bank, including at memorial temples and as part of the Tomb institution. Some individuals were non-Theban as suggested by their affiliation. They came from localities at the south of Thebes or from Middle Egypt. In the end, the whereabouts of the ỉṯȝy.w could be ascertained with 89 individuals. As shown in figure 1, most of temple ỉṯȝy.w resided on the West Bank, when tomb ỉṯȝy.w came from the West Bank, when affiliated with the Tomb institution, and probably from the East Bank and the Karnak complex for the others. A non-Theban origin was not discriminant as the proportion of people originating from a locality outside Thebes was similar among tomb and temple robbers. Identical results are obtained with thieves proper.
The Heterogeneity of Tomb and Temple Robbers
Although robbers showed strong differences as they robbed tombs or temples, they did not form homogeneous groups. 63
Temple robbers
Two temples, the Ramesseum and Medinet Habu, were involved. 64 The two bands who ransacked the Ramesseum consisted of 31 ỉṯȝy.w who were investigated in year 18 (of Ramesses IX) and 9 (of Ramesses XI). These bands were linked by several individuals since three men were involved in both series of investigations while three others were probably sons of robbers who were active 12 years earlier. 65 Concerning Medinet Habu, the band investigated during the Renaissance consisted of 39 individuals.
As shown in figure 2, the two groups have a different composition (p = 0.007). Priests predominated at the Ramesseum while women, foreigners and peoples involved in agriculture (herdsmen and cultivators) were over-represented at Medinet Habu. Another difference concerns the blackmailers, who were especially numerous at the Ramesseum with a strong dissimilarity in terms of occupation and social position between the two temples. At the Ramesseum, the blackmailers pertained to the temple staff and included the highest authorities such as the sem-priest, 66 a troop commander (who was possibly the sem-priest of the time), 67 and the scribe of royal records Sutekhmose. 68 In contrast, at Medinet Habu, the blackmailers were foreigners, one of which was attached to another temple and another from the south of Thebes. 69 To summarize, the people who robbed the Ramesseum were probably temple staff members while at Medinet Habu they were probably foreign to the temple. Although marginally significant, their whereabouts confirm this hypothesis by showing that the Ramesseum plunderers mostly inhabited the West Bank while for Medinet Habu they came from both banks and outside Thebes.
Distribution of occupations, blackmailers and whereabouts of ỉṯȝy.w involved in temple robberies. * indicates a p-value <0.05 by the Fisher exact test. # indicates a marginal significance (P<0.10).
A further difference concerns where in the temples robbers committed their thefts. Normally, temple access was limited. Of the priesthood, wab-priests could not enter the most sacred part. 70 Numerous non-cultic personnel contributed to temple economy and administration, including scribes, craftsmen and people involved in agriculture, but only a few of them ever entered the sanctuary for professional purposes. Despite information on what was robbed, it is frequently difficult to identify where in the temple stolen objects were located. This is particularly true with the Ramesseum. However, when identifiable, they were probably in the relatively accessible forepart of the temple. In year 9 (of Ramesses XI), P. BM EA 10053 Vs. 2.3 mentions robberies of gold foils covering a granite gate which is probably one of the three doorways made from this stone leading from the inner court to the hypostyle hall. 71 Wood of a ‘floor of silver’ (pȝ tȝ n ḥḏ) was also robbed (Vs. 4,15). At Karnak, a similar structure was used for oracle consultation and probably located in one of the temple forecourts accessible to at least a selected public. 72 Another important target were the door jambs of the House of Gold (pr-nbw). 73 This institution may correspond to the ḥw.t-nbw 74 frequently mentioned in temple contexts to designate a workshop where precious cultic objects and statues where manufactured by craftsmen and then magically brought to life by the priests. At the Ramesseum, this structure has been located within the treasury outside the main temple. 75 Of note, the robbers mentioned in P. BM EA 10053 and who were directed by a scribe mostly consisted of priests who were themselves craftsmen. In year 18 (of Ramesses IX), P. BM EA 10054 Rt. 3.17 mentions the stripping of copper on ‘the great statue of the Lord which stands in the court (pȝ wbȝ)’ – perhaps the now collapsed colossus of Ramesses II in the first court of the Ramesseum, or another statue. 76 Rt. 3.7 mentions the gold of Nefertum which may come from the shrine of Nefertum mentioned in P. BM EA 10053 Vs. 4.11. Where this chapel was located is totally unknown as with other stolen goods. 77 However, the available information suggests that the bulk of the robbers’ activity was concentrated in zones located before the hypostyle hall or outside the temple.
The situation was different at Medinet Habu where the plundered portable chests of Seti I, Ramesses II, and the high priest of Amun Ramessesnakht are explicitly said to have been stored in the treasury. 78 This structure is now well identified and was only accessible through a hidden door opening in the first hypostyle hall of the temple, 79 showing that in this instance, robbers who were not temple staff members entered a restricted part of the sanctuary. In year 2 of the Renaissance, P. BM EA 10383 1.8–9 and P. PM 49.11.1 2.1 mention that a vase-stand (ḫnty-gnn), a vase (ṯb), a statue of Ramesses II brought from the Ramesseum, and wood of a processional galley had been robbed, 80 but their location in the temple is unknown. Copper of several doors including that of the treasury were also looted.
What is important, is that at the Ramesseum and at Medinet Habu, representations of the gods, including their statues, do not appear in the spoil although the thieves may have robbed wood and precious metals from their chapels.
Tomb robbers
Two comparisons were performed: whether or not the New Kingdom royal necropolis (pȝ ḫr) 81 was plundered, and whether or not investigations took place before or during the Renaissance (fig. 3). These categories are unbalanced with 95 ỉṯȝy.w of pȝ ḫr against seventeen for the non-royal necropolis, and 83 individuals investigated during the Renaissance against 26 before. This explains why the statistics sometimes identify marginal differences only.
Distribution of occupations, role in the thefts, and whereabouts of ỉṯȝy.w involved in tomb robberies. ‘Noble’ refers to the non-royal necropolis of the New Kingdom and pȝ ḫr to the Valley of Kings and of the Queens. RIX: thefts investigated under Ramesses IX. Ren: theft investigated during the Renaissance. * indicates a p-value <0.05 by the Fisher exact test. # indicates a marginal significance (P<0.10).
Before the Renaissance, tomb robbers were mostly workmen of Deir el-Medina or craftsmen in keeping with what they robbed, the Valley of the Queens or the non-royal necropolis of the New Kingdom respectively. Tomb robbery was a matter of professionalism as confirmed by the occupation of those who robbed the non-royal necropolis which included stonecutters or similar professions, coppersmiths, carpenters and people owning/operating a boat such as fishermen or boatmen to cross the Nile since at least 6/13 robbers were affiliated with the East Bank versus 4/13 with the West Bank. Professionalism similarly concerned the Valley of the Queens if we consider that in the Tomb Robbery Papyri it was plundered by those who were in charge of it.
The situation is different with thefts investigated during the Renaissance. The occupation of those who robbed pȝ ḫr differs considerably from that before the Renaissance (p<0.0001). Robbers showed a large spectrum of professions among which craftsmen chiefly skilled for tomb plundering are underrepresented while enslaved people or subaltern administrators like agents (rwḏw), retainers (šmsw), deputies (ỉdnw), doorkeepers (ỉry-ʿȝ) or storekeepers (šnʿ) are over-represented. Tomb workmen form a minority although they play a crucial role by guiding robbers to their target. 82
Concerning their whereabouts, tomb robbers more frequently originated from the West Bank but this is mainly due to the fact that under Ramesses IX an important portion of the thieves inhabited Deir el-Medina. Results are wholly similar if we restrict the analysis to robbers proper (p<0.01, not shown). Another significant difference is the outnumbering of accomplices and denounced people during the Renaissance. This mostly depends on the nature of the documentation, which under Ramesses IX is focused on thieves proper and rarely provides extensive confessions. Accomplices are also an interesting group. Of the nineteen individuals with known occupations, nine were family members, including sisters or wives and two were enslaved persons pertaining to the household. 83 Some accomplices probably brought technical support as in the case of two sailors and a goldsmith but an important part had no evident professional skill for tomb robbery as with two herdsmen, an agent, a brewer, a storekeeper, a male singer and even an overseer of the chamber (ḥry-ʿt). 84 This testifies that radical changes occurred between the two waves of thefts.
Behaviour vis à vis the dead seems to have formed a further dividing line, both between the two series of thefts and those who committed them. This is well exemplified by the fate of Queen Isis’s body. Although the band of Deir el-Medina investigated under Ramesses IX broke her sarcophagus, 85 robbers mostly took vessels, linen and goods stored in the tomb. Some ebony and ivory pieces of the inner coffin (wt) were robbed 86 but the mummy equipment is not mentioned in what was found in the possession of the thieves and their fences, suggesting that her body was wholly respected. 87 In contrast, those who looted her tomb and were investigated during the Renaissance probably violated the mummy since they took the inner coffin (wt) and the silver swḥ.t, 88 a term which designates the innermost mummy cover. 89 As far as we know, the band of Ramesses VI’s tomb limited itself to the content of boxes and chests. 90 In contrast, the band of Sebkemsaf’s pyramid used only one, radical, method for who they robbed. Mummies, royal 91 or not, 92 were pulled out of their sarcophagus and smashed to retrieve jewellery while coffins were burnt to collect inlayed metals. Thus, two categories of robbers could be distinguished: those who did not hesitate to attack the bodies, even royal ones, and those who, for unspecified reasons, were apparently reluctant to do that.
What Part of the Theban Population was Involved in the Robberies?
It is impossible to measure exactly the part of the Theban population directly or indirectly involved in the robberies since we have no precise knowledge of its size, and because several documents dealing with the thefts are now missing, likely leaving a number of robbers unknown to us, 93 not to mention those who escaped the investigations. However, we can make an estimation using the population of the male householders listed in year 12 (of Ramesses XI) of whom 29/181 (16%) were ỉṯȝy.w or fences in the memorial temple thefts. 94 This is, of course, not an actual snapshot of the situation in year 12, since robbers investigated under Ramesses IX and XI were pulled for the analysis. However, as the thefts investigated under these two kings probably occurred within a relatively short period of time, 95 this may wholly depict the situation in the middle of Ramesses XI’s reign.
In contrast, a snapshot is possible for Deir el-Medina in year 17 of Ramesses IX. 96 Eight or possibly nine workmen were involved in the thefts 97 while eleven of their receivers belonged to the tomb. Finally, sixteen or seventeen workmen, including the two deputies, participated in the thefts representing 27% or 28% of the workforce which at that time consisted of about 60 men. The workmen’s commitment in tomb robberies probably explains why the authorities decided to dismiss the crew once the thefts were revealed. When they formed the new team consisting now of 40 men, the authorities retained only 20 men from the previous crew. 98 These men were probably considered as sufficiently safe to be kept in the new crew suggesting that half or two-thirds of the team may have, to a certain degree, contributed to the theft. 99
The Incentive to Rob
Taking the risk of robbery combines several incentives. The positive ones include the expectation of a good financial return, the imitation of what others do, the hope of reaching a better social position, and a potential gain of power. 100 This was counterbalanced by the fear of being arrested, tortured, and probably condemned to death. Another counterpoint was moral and religious. Desecrating temples or dead ancestors was immoral and theoretically exposed the individual to divine sanctions. 101 Addressing the moral aspect certainly needed an elaborate level of education and introspection while fear of the divine was probably shared by a large part of the population. Unfortunately, the investigators were not particularly interested in these aspects when questioning the suspects. Nevertheless, in passing, the texts provide interesting information on at least the material aspect of the issue.
Several individuals interrogated during the Renaissance mention a famine 102 and a civil war 103 while under Ramesses IX, workmen of Deir el-Medina complained that they were starving because of the absence of grain rations. 104 It is also revealing that thieves used the argotic word ‘bread’ to designate precious objects to rob. 105 Recurring deprivations and social unrest may thus have urged a great part of the Theban population to find alternative means of sustenance.
Nevertheless, survival was not the only incentive. Table 2 provides a rough estimate of the amount of stolen gold, silver, and copper as preserved in the documents. 106 They were then converted into their equivalent copper value using a ratio of 120 deben of copper for one of gold and 60 for one of silver and then transformed in an equivalent monthly grain salary of a workman at Deir el-Medina using the high price of 4 deben of copper/khar of grain in year 17 of Ramesses IX. 107 The amounts probably exceeded what any robbers would have ever dreamed of. What they acquired (enslaved people, 108 cattle, 109 land, 110 grain, 111 wine, 112 honey, 113 or coffins 114 ) does not correspond to a situation where the main concern was famine and subsistence. All in all, the items bought by the robbers rather point in the direction of the typical and coveted lifestyle of the middle-elite.
Amounts of metal robbed in temples and tombs as reported in the texts with their equivalent in deben of copper and the monthly grain rations at Deir el-Medina. RIX: Ramesses IX. RX: Ramesses XI. Ren: Renaissance.
Conversely, the fear of sanction was not absent. One suspect argues that he would never go out robbing because he remembered the sanctions inflicted to the thieves in his father’s time. 115 Another one warns a colleague that robbery is a death risk. 116 A boatman refuses to transport robbers but deceitfully delegates an apprentice in his place, 117 which later allowed him to deny any participation in the theft before the court. A man who disagreed with the thefts expelled his son-in-law from his house for having stolen. 118 However, this handful of individuals seemingly more motivated by the fear of sanction than a sense of probity formed a minority among the people who have been investigated compared to the number of those who stole. 119
Discussion
Here we focus on points not yet, or not yet fully, discussed. Our first point of discussion concerns chronology. Thus far, we have used the traditional chronology, but the chronology proposed by Thijs has important consequences on the dates of several documents and particularly on the record of thefts in the Ramesseum in P. BM EA 10053 Vs. which become ascribed to year 9 of the Renaissance. 120 Although one might expect this to have serious repercussions for our analysis of the evolution of the thieves’ sociology and behaviour due to whether investigations were conducted before or during the Renaissance, this turns out not to be the case for several reasons.
First, a consequence of Thijs’s chronology is to reduce the time lapsed between year 17 of Ramesses IX and year 1 of the Renaissance from 23 to 7 years. But if we consider the robberies at the Ramesseum, the time lapsed between the two investigations is not very different: 14 years in the traditional chronology against 10 or 14 years with Thijs’s hypothesis.
Second, the evidence strongly suggests that in the traditional chronology, the robberies occurred between about year 15 of Ramesses IX and the first years of Ramesses XI even if they were investigated (and in reality re-investigated) during the Renaissance. 121 This time period of about 10 years is not very different from that proposed by Thijs. Thus, the changes which have been identified with the traditional chronology may similarly have occurred with Thijs’s hypothesis. 122
Our second point of discussion concerns changes that occurred with time in the band structure. Tomb robbers examined before the Renaissance in the traditional chronology belong to bands of specialists by the professionalization and complementarity of their members. The same applies to temple staff who plundered sanctuaries they were affiliated with. This contrasts with the diversification of profession and geographical origin of the thieves brought to trial at the start of the Renaissance. Contextual changes between the two periods are probably involved. Even if the later years of Ramesses IX saw desert dweller raids, high grain prices and supply problems, it seems the general institutions, including the tomb, were maintained and the Royal Valleys still controlled 123 since apparently only tomb workmen were able to rob there. 124 This is different for thefts investigated during the Renaissance and which, as seen, probably occurred a short time after the first wave of robberies. 125 This time, famine and civil war with murder and deportation occurred. 126 Ramesses XI’s tomb was left unfinished, 127 tomb workmen were reduced to fourteen men, 128 and the state organization deeply modified. 129 In a context of disarray, tombs and temples were probably exposed to a number of those in need of alternative means of subsistence explaining an increase in the band size from seven to fourteen (median eight) robbers proper and accomplices before the Renaissance to 20 to 28 (median 25) individuals in investigations performed during the Renaissance. At the same time ‘specialists’ almost disappear, particularly priests (12/42 versus 2/72), craftsmen (13/42 versus 8/72), and tomb workmen (10/42 versus 2/72). 130 The drastic reorganization of the tomb certainly contributed while, with the taking of Medinet Habu, 131 many priests probably fled or disappeared. The same possibly affected craftsmen who depended on normal temple functioning.
The third point of discussion is the social dichotomy whether robbers plundered tombs or temples. This is not circumstantial since it lasted throughout the period. Before the Renaissance, tomb workmen and temple personnel looted the institution they were affiliated with. A straightforward explanation is that a thorough knowledge of the context gave them the assurance of ease and security. Another reason is that access to temples and to the Royal Valleys was difficult for unauthorized people. In contrast, the rest of the necropolis where ancient royal tombs stood was likely less secured and exposed to determined robbers, such as the Sebekhemsaf’s pyramid band.
The same dichotomy appears in thefts investigated during the Renaissance, although most robbers had nothing to do with the institutions they looted. To access their target, thieves needed accomplices, e.g., a tomb workman for the Valley of the Queens 132 and for Medinet Habu, probably one of the remaining staff members. 133 Here it was the capability of forging links of confidence with remaining members of looted institutions that seems to have directed robbers toward either tombs or temples. A move has occurred from a traditional world naturally centred on the institution to a new one where personal acquaintances probably warranted confidence and security. Nevertheless, social hierarchy between those who robbed tombs or temples persisted throughout the period, demonstrating that the weight of social position withstood the turmoil of the times. 134
Temple or tomb robbery was a taboo transgression. Although needing further investigation, it seems that profaning royal bodies or the holiest parts of a temple introduced a differentiation between robbers. The line apparently lay between those who desecrated their natural sphere of activity and those who were extraneous to it. A typical example is the band of Sebekemsaf’s pyramid that had no link with the necropolis and certainly no knowledge of such a remote king and therefore violated the royal body with the same violence as non-royal corpses, while the band of Deir el-Medina in charge of the Valley of the Queens seemingly respected the mummified body of Isis that a band of non-specialists, foreign to the tomb, probably transgressed a few years later. The same likely occurred with temples. If this is correct, the feeling of pertaining to an institution was a social determinant for robber behaviour by introducing a kind of limitation on the taboo transgression.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I express my grateful thanks to the reviewers and the editors of the JEA for improving this article.
Funding
The author did not receive any funding for this study.
2
Cooney 2018; 
.
4
5
See the Admonition of Ipuwer (: 155), the Instruction of Merikare (Lichtheim 2006: 102), and the Complaints of Khakheperre-Seneb (Lichtheim 2006: 147).
7
9
P. Abbott (P. BM EA10221) and the Abbott Dockets, P. BM EA 10052, 10053, 10054, 10068, 10383, 10403, as well as P. Ambras have been published by Peet 1930; P. Mayer A and B by Peet 1920; P. Amherst-Leopold II by Capart, et al. 1936. The Necropolis Journal of year 17 was published by Botti and Peet 1928. These texts are transcribed in Kitchen 1983 and translated in Kitchen 2012. P. Rochester MAG 51.346.1 was published by Goelet 1996 and Quack 2000. Recent improvements of the texts in Gasse 2001 and Collier, et al. 2010. P. Turin 2106/07 (Kitchen 1983: 868) which contains the very fragmentary confession of Nakhtmin son of Pentawer should be added to the list and is linked with the Necropolis Journal of year 17 of Ramesses IX.
10
Antoine 2019 and .
12
Thijs 1998: 104–106 and : 521–522.
14
15
P. Abbott, 4.11–4.17.
16
P. Abbott, 2.1–4.1.
17
Necropolis Journal of year 17, Rt. B1.21–25.
18
P. Mayer B is dated by Aldred 1979 to Ramesses IX based on a graffito of year 9 of that king. However, the presence among robbers of aA.w otherwise only attested under Ramesses XI points to a later date: see : 77–78.
19
P. Ambras (2.8) of year 6 of the Renaissance mentions robberies in the royal tomb (pȝ ḫr) of the Great General. Contrary to Winand 2011: 39–40, Herihor is probably not referred to here, but Ramesses II who is also called ‘the Great General’: E. : 213. In this case, a second royal tomb should be added to the list of those plundered at the end of the New Kingdom.
20
P. BME EA 10054, Rt. 3.7.
21
P. BM EA 10053, Vs. 1.1–1.11.
22
Queen Isis: P. BM EA 10052, 1.15. Queens Nesmut and Bakenwerel in P. Mayer A 3.23–3.25 and Tity in the restored lines 22–23 of P. BM EA 10052, 6 (Collier, et al. 2010: 244).
23
P. BM EA 10052 and P. Mayer A. P. BM EA 10052, 8.5 and 8.16. mentions localities at the south of Thebes.
24
P. Mayer A, P. BM EA 10483, P. BM EA 10383, and P. PM 49.11.
25
P. Rochester MAG 51.346.1.
26
P. Mayer A, 13B.3.
29
For the most important references, see: Thijs 1998; Thijs 1999; .
31
Winand 2018: 148–152 and . I thank the JEA reviewer for this last reference.
32
33
Necropolis Journal of year 17, Rt. B3–B7; P. BM EA 10053, Rt. 3; P. BM EA 10068, Rt. 4–6.
35
36
The variation introduced by choosing the lowest or the largest number is however marginal: 1.6–1.7%.
37
P. Leopold II-Amherst 3.1; P. BM 10054 Rt. 3.6.
38
39
40
For example, in P. BM 10054 Vs. 5.1, Abbot Docket, and P. Mayer A, 10 to 13.
42
P. Mayer A 12.9.
43
The only exception is the fragmentary P. Turin 2106/07.
44
For example, Degay, enslaved person to the robber Bukhaaf, denounced a number of people who were in relation with his master without providing evidence that they were involved in the robberies (P. BM EA 10052 4.15–5.1).
45
46
For a free online accessible introduction to statistics, see Lane 2003. For a practical use of the different tests, see .
47
The capitalised ‘Tomb’ is used here to designate the Royal Tomb institution, while the uncapitalized ‘tomb’ designates a sepulchre in general.
50
Gardiner 1947: 13–98. On the social aspect of this list: Antoine 2014: 30–32 and . As ranks are classified by decreasing importance, a higher number indicates a lower position.
52
The higher the rank, the lower the status since the text starts with the highest positions.
53
With both ranking in O. Amenemope and the corresponding landholding surface in P. Wilbour, before (p = 0.001 and <0.001 respectively) and during the Renaissance (p = 0.02 and 0.018 respectively).
54
Valbelle 1985: 259–286 and : 1–8.
56
57
The link between this list and that of Rt. 4.22 (the šrm.t list discussed infra and in n. 56) with the Tomb Robbery Papyri is unclear. As P. BM 10068 is an office or intermediate document, the scribe may have used it for several purposes. However, if the šrm.t list in Rt. 4.22 records fences with their part of booty (Janssen 1992: 20–21; ), the house list may also be linked with the robberies.
58
P. BM EA 10054, Vs. 2.1–2.36.
59
60
Aldred 1979; Janssen 1992: 20–23; and : 527. Due to the uncertainty of the nature of this list, people mentioned in it were not considered as fences for this study.
62
An east Theban institution such as the harbour of No.
63
For a detailed analysis of the different bands of robbers see the appendix of part II of this study (forthcoming in JEA 110).
64
The Temple of Amun at Karnak was plundered but only one thief appears in P. Rochester MAG 51.346.1. For details on these bands, see part II of this work (forthcoming in JEA 110).
65
Beside the scribe of Royal Records Sutekhmose, three wab-priests Hori, Paysen, and Nesamun of year 9 were probably sons of Pakhore, a godfather arrested in year 18 (of Ramesses IX). Their filiation appears in the house list of year 12. Sedy (godfather) and Paysen (carpenter) in year 18 may be the homonymous scribe and priest in year 9. For details on these men with reference, see part II of this work.
66
The sem-priest Khaemope of P. BM EA 10054 (Rt. 3.15) who heads the Ramesseum house list (P. BM 10068 Vs. 2.15) was certainly sem of that temple.
68
This man appears in year 18 (of Ramesses IX) in P. BM EA 10054, Rt. 3.15–3.16 and in year 9 (of Ramesses XI) in Vs. 3.13–3.15, 3.22, and Vs. 5.6.
69
The foreigner Horemwaset of the Temple of Sety and the foreigner Paser from Iumiteru (P. BM EA 10403, 1.27–1.28). See also n. 38.
73
P. BM EA 10053 Vs. 2.10.
74
In royal tombs, pr-nbw designates the sarcophagus hall: Carter and Gardiner 1917: 139. There are only a few examples of pr-nbw in temples. At Dendera, the chapels of Osiris were designated as ḥwt-nbw (Cauville 1990: 68) and in one example, one of these chapels is alternatively named pr-nbw and ḥw.t-nbw (Cauville 1997: 90). On the ḥw.t-nbw see inter alia. Traunecker 1989; Daumas 1980; Rizzo 2015; . I thank Olga Ignatowska from the Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw for these references.
76
77
In P. BM EA 10054 appear ‘the god of pharaoh’, which probably designates the chapel of Nefertum (: 69 n. 26), and amulets (?) (Rt 3.11–3.12) possibly linked with the same chapel of Nefertum. In P. BM EA 10053 a portable chest (?) of Thutmose II (Vs. 2.7), and the wood from a chamber Ḏrwt of Ramesses II (Vs. 4.9), the doors of the chapel of the great Ennead, a chapel of Mut, and the Great Seat (Vs. 4) are mentioned. The whereabouts of these objects remains unknown.
78
P. Mayer A 1.10.
79
Room 14: Murnane 1980: 46–48. Several rooms at the rearmost part of the sanctuary were also used for storing precious objects; see on this : 21.
81
82
83
See for example the Bukhaaf’s band in P. BM EA 10052. For details, see part II of this work.
84
For details on these men, see part II of this work.
85
In the Necropolis Journal, Rt. B8.2–11, the ‘stone’ was found broken, probably the red granite sarcophagus with broken lid found in QV 5 (PM I(2): 756).
86
P. BM EA 10068, Rt. 3.7–3.9.
87
P. BM EA 10053 Rt. and 10068 Rt. 1–3 provide a detailed list of the booty.
88
P. BM EA 10052, 1.18 and 5.13.
89
Cooney 2007: 22–24. It is usually translated as mummy board. Whether a mummy board was used for a queen is uncertain since no intact New Kingdom mummified queens have been found thus far. Kings and royal family members, such as Yuya and Tuya, were not equipped with a board. Instead, their shroud was covered with a mask and sewn with vertical and horizontal gilded bands with inscription, divine representations, and for the king, the regalia. For Tutankhamun, see Reeves 1990b: 112; for Psusennes I, Montet 1951: pl. CVI; and for Yuya and Tuya, : 28–30. These items may correspond to the swḥ.t of Queen Isis which was made of silver. If true, the robbers needed to attack the shroud to retrieve its precious decoration and came in close contact with the mummified individual.
90
P. Mayer B, 10–14.
91
P. Amherst-Leopold II, 2.5–3.5 for the detailed description of the plundering of Sebekemsaf’s pyramid.
92
P. BM EA 10054, Vs. 1.8–1.9; Rt. 1.4–1.9; Rt. 2.8–2.16.
93
See the documents listed in P. Ambras of whom several do not appear in the available corpus.
94
For a discussion of several of these cases, see the appendix of part II of this article.
97
The band appears in the Necropolis Journal, P. BM EA 10053, and P. BM EA 10068. A difficult point is that several thieves appear under different names (/18: 166–167). The band included Amenwa son of Hori and his sons Paysen (also called Nekhenmut), Hori, and Panqen, and Pentawer son of Amennakht and his sons Nakhtmin (also called Pakhore), Amenhotep, and Mose. In the Necropolis journal, A2.9, Seramun son of Amenwa was imprisoned but as he does not appear among the thieves in A5.8–5.11 he was probably exonerated.
98
; Davies 2017/18.
100
According to Social Learning theory, modern criminal behaviour is learned based on interaction with others and values received during the interaction. Individuals learn values from a wide array of associates and institutions, such as family, friends, and coworkers and those values either support or oppose criminal behaviour: .
101
It is crucial to differentiate with Näser (2013: 649–652). Plundering, which is the object of this article, differs from tomb re-disposition, which inevitably occurred when a tomb and its equipment were reused by family decedents or new occupants. Evidence shows that respect toward the initial tomb occupants frequently existed in this context. Coffin reuse, which becomes particularly frequent from the 20th Dynasty onward is the best example of this phenomenon. According to : 286–292, it resulted from the combination of functional materialism, dictated by social and economic realities, with religious beliefs. The coffin was probably seen as a ritual object whose main role was the passage of the deceased from this world to the other. Thus, after this transitional phase, which mainly occurred during the burial and immediately after, the coffin could be reused without real transgression of the sacred. The same distinction probably applies to temples.
102
P. BM 10052, 10.7 and 11.8.
103
P. Mayer A 6.4–6.7 and P. BM EA 10383 2.5.
104
Necropolis Journal of year 17, Rt B1.9–1.15.
105
P. BM EA 10052, 1.9, 3.4, 6.4 and 19, 14.6 (?). Peet 1930: 158 n. 4; : 137.
106
107
Janssen 1975: 112–127, : 13–35.
108
P. Mayer A, 8.12 and 10.19.
109
P. BM 10053, Vs. 3.13.
110
P. Mayer A, 8.11.
111
P. Mayer A, 9.16–9.17.
112
P. BM 10052, 2a.5.
113
P. BM 10052, 2a.6.
114
P. BM 10053, Vs. 4.16.
115
P. BM EA 10052, 8.19.
116
P. BM 10052, 4.9–4.10.
117
P. BM 10052, 13.1–13.6.
118
P. BM 10052, 13.17.
119
What part the fear of retaliation, probity, or simply the absence of need among people who never robbed played is necessarily unknown.
120
122
124
In P. Abbott, 4.11–4.17, a coppersmith accused of robbery in the Valley of the Queens was unable to find the tomb because he probably never went there unless he was lying to prove his innocence.
126
Lull 2004; : 9–13.
130
p<0.01 with robbers proper and their accomplices.
131
Mentioned in Mayer A, 6.4.
132
The workman Pawerikhtef son of Harmin also called Pawer P. BM EA 10052 1.15, 2.2, and 6.17.
133
The porter/chief porter Panefer who occupied a key post by controlling all the entries in the temple (P. BM 10068, Vs. 1.22 and Vs. 3.11; P. Mayer A, 13A.15; and P. BM EA 10403, 1.11), the scribes Pabaki (Abbott Docketts A14; P. Mayer A 1.11; I2.6 and 12.10; and P. BM EA 10403, 1.17 and 1.23) and Pentahutnakht (P. BM EA 10403, 3.19 but his role in the robberies is less clear), or the deputy Nesamun (P. BM EA 10403, I.17–18 and P. Philadelphia Museum 49.11, 1.5–1.9).
134
The difference between ranking in O. Amenemope and the corresponding landholding surface in P. Wilbour is maintained both under Renaissance (p = 0.02 and 0.018 respectively) and before (p = 0.001 and <0.001 respectively).