During the early Herakleopolitan Period, southern Upper Egypt slipped out of royal control, but what happened to those parts of the country that remained under Herakleopolitan rule until its end? The relevant sources include the prosopographical records and biographical inscriptions from southern Middle Egypt. Among these, pride of place goes to the tombs of the overseers of priests at Asyut. During the latter part of the Herakleopolitan period, Asyut emerged as the most important military stronghold in Upper Egypt, remaining faithful to the Herakleopolitan kings in their struggle against the Theban rebels. The biographical inscriptions of three successive holders of office provide crucial information both on the course of political events and on current views on the ideology of rule.
Additional information can be derived from a group of graffiti that were inscribed on the walls of the travertine quarry at Hatnub by emissaries of a nomarch Neheri of the nome of el-Ashmunein, whose rock tomb is known at el-Bersha. A date for these texts immediately after the end of the Herakleopolitan Period seems most likely (although some would contest this). Certainly, however, their intellectual outlook is firmly rooted in Herakleopolitan tradition.
The topics addressed in these texts from Asyut and Hatnub are similar, in many respects, to those encountered in the texts from further south. Again, the local rulers’ claims to have cared for their towns in critical situations feature prominently. The biographical inscription of the earliest overseer of priests at Asyut even provides a detailed description of the measures he took to improve the irrigation system in order to ensure sufficient harvests in bad years. Furthermore, the military prowess of the nomarchs is emphasized. Both their successes in struggles with a foreign enemy (the Theban ruler) and the establishment of public security within their own nomes are stressed. Lastly, the local magnates’ care for the temples of their towns is not forgotten: both construction work in the temples and the making of provisions for the needs of the associated cults are mentioned.
In stark contrast to the text of Ankhtifi, however, the maintenance of close connections with the king plays an important part in the texts of the Asyut magnates. They themselves claim descent from venerable aristocratic stock, and close personal ties seem to have linked them with the Herakleopolitan house of rulers. One of them, for example, mentions that, in his childhood, he received swimming lessons together with the royal children. In addition, the intervention of the Herakleopolitan army in Upper Egypt is mentioned. Herakleopolitan rule, therefore, was something very real to the local rulers of southern Middle Egypt.
Our sources for the internal structure of the Herakleopolitan kingdom remain extremely sketchy. Nevertheless, the available material seems to suggest that the Herakleopolitan monarchs may have relied on a class of provincial aristocrats who stayed loyal to the Crown, particularly in those cases where there were strong personal bonds (perhaps through kinship, marriage, or friendship). These aristocrats, however, would, at the same time, have regarded their own towns as crucially important to them, perhaps even making them the principal focuses of their loyalty. In this respect, the Herakleopolitan kingdom again seems to have inherited one of the characteristics of the Old Kingdom; it may also, therefore, have shared one of its structural weaknesses.
World History
