Wayheset a Libyan Amazigh and Egyptian Pharaonic King

Wayheset The Libyan Amazigh and Period in Egypte History[/caption] The text on the limestoe stela records a trial by oracle, in which the God of the Oasis, Seth, delivers a decision in a dispute over water rights. The trial takes place during the reign of the Libyan prince and soldier Shoshenk, who ruled Egypt between 945 and 924 B.C. He has sent the prince Wayheset to be the new governor of the oasis, who carries among other titles, “overseer of the inundated lands” and “prince of the two lands of the Oasis.” The stela tells us that Wayheset’s mission was “to restore order in the oasis-land,” which was then in ”a state of war and turmoil.” His first act was to inspect the wells upon which local prosperity depended. During this inspection. He was petitioned to sort out a dispute about a claim to the water rights of a certain well. The trial by oracle was staged with ritualistic gravity, with the God Seth being carried from the Holy of Holies, the inner sanctuary, out to the temple’s Hypostyle Hall. There the God rested on the shoulders of the priests who jerked upwards or downwards to signal divine assent or dissent claim to the claims being made….although the litigants must have been fully aware that it was Wayheset himself who was the decision-maker. The final decision was recorded on the stela:”Then said Seth, the great God: “Nesubast, the son of Pate, is in the right…” Besides providing a vivid snapshot of the theatre of an Egyptian ritual and justice, the stela confirms the crucial importance of the artesian waters, the stela confirms the crucial importance of the artesian waters. Though all the ups and downs of Pharaonic history, the wells flowed and provided the basis of life in Dakhleh, whoever held nominal power over this desert domain. The sandstone stela, dated to 726 B.C., identifies a tribe, the Shain Esdhuti, as living in Dakhleh, but the oasis is under the rule of Ethiopians, The late Period was also marked by an unexpected invasion from Nubia. An Ethiopian king, Piankhy, commanded a force from the Kingdom of Kush, which had been heavily Egyptianized during the New Kingdom. He moved northward along the Nile, eventualy driving the Libyan ruler to surrender in the Delta and initiating the sixty-year rule of an Ethiopian dynasty. “The Egyptians weren’t xenophobic>” says Mills. They tolerated, if not welcomed, foreign domination.” SECRETS OF THE SANDS Page 195-196 https://books.google.ca/books?id=qFOkRtrPiQUC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=egypte+Wayheset&source=bl&ots=TgxDOn5NAn&sig=HJJo4sfamrFiFLzU7eB6qP-pC18&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjp6zNnZzLAhXJE5oKHYCGAKkQ6AEIODAG#v=onepage&q=egypte%20Wayheset&f=false “Wadi Hammamat in the Eastern desert” Fragmentary temple reliefs from Dakhla attest to sporadic temple construction during the third Intermediate Period. The most important document is “Greater Dakhla stela’. *This inscription records a visit to Must by Wayheset, Chief of the Meshwesh and Governor of the The Two Lands Two Oasis Lands (h3ty-‘n p3 snw n wh3.t), most likely the Southern or Great Oasis Lands (Kharga, Dakhla) and the Northern Oasis (Bahariya). Sheshonq I had dispatched Wayheset to restore order in the Oases, and the official regulates agricultural disputes concerning wells and irrigation, appealing to the local God Set for divine authority.’ Wayheset also bears religious titles which link him to Hu (Diospolis Parva). A region closely linked to the Oases via desert roads, and the luncttle of the stela appears to depict the Bat standar (shm) sacred to the Seventh Upper Egyptian nome.” The extent of Pharaonic control of Nubia during the Third Intermediate Period is debatable.” The office of Viceroy of Kush is attested through Dynasty Twenty-Two, And a stela found at Elephantine records. David Klotz Page 902 https://books.google.ca/books?id=_FBK8IDEE-kC&pg=PA902&lpg=PA902&dq=egypte+Wayheset&source=bl&ots=FUIpt2nS_m&sig=oB6RMIvK6zawncyCcLP_Ys2OL5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjp6zNnZzLAhXJE5oKHYCGAKkQ6AEIOzAH#v=onepage&q=egypte%20Wayheset&f=false Wayheset: Libyan king. The ancient evidence suggests that the Libyan chieftainship was often, if not regularly, associated with the priesthood. In the Dahlah Stela, a document of the FXXIIIrd Dynasty, recording a dispute in connection with a well among the half-Egyptian- ized Libyans of the oasis, is mentioned ” the son of the chief of the Me(shwesh); chief of a district ; prophet of Hathor ; . . . prophet of Sutekh ; . . . Wayheset.” 1 The same Wayheset is more briefly termed in the same inscription the ” prophet and chief Wayheset,” 2 or simply ” the chief, Wayheset.” 3 That something of the sacred char-acter of the priest-king may be manifested in the Adyrmachid droit de cuissage has been already pointed out. A more certain indication of the union of sacred and temporal duties in the person of the chief is seen in the account given by Silius Italicus of the warrior-priest Nabis, a Libyan in the army of Hannibal. Nabis is described as an Ammonian chief, splendidly armed, who, feeling himself under the protection of Amon, rides fearlessly through the thick of battle, shouting the name of his god. From his helm depend the sacred fillets of Amon, and his dress, of which an attempt is made to despoil him at his death, is that of a priest. 4 Iernas, a Syrtic prince who figures in the ‘Johannis of Corippus, 5 also appears as a fighting chief and as a priest. The leader, around whom the Imazighen (Berbers) of the Aures rallied to withstand the Arabs, was the queen-priestess el-Kahinah ; 6 and although this and the evidence already cited are in- sufficient to prove definitely that any sacred offices were regularly attached to the chieftainship, the other instances in which such was the case encourage the belief that the Libyan kings had religious as well as secular duties. Little is known of the way in which the conduct of the rulers was ordered so as to differentiate it from that of the simple tribesmen. Doubtless many little observances and restraints marked the chief as clearly as did his material insignia. One curious restriction observed by the Numidian chieftains is mentioned by a Roman writer, who says that the # native kings were not allowed to be kissed by any of their subjects because by this the dignity of the ruler would have been impaired. 7 In conclusion of this brief outline of the sociology and government of the Eastern Libyans, it may be said that the ancient institutions probably differed in no vital way from those of the more primitive Amazigh (Berber) tribes of the present day. Of course among the sedentary tribes law and order prevailed to a greater extent than among those ” people always ready for rapine and rapid incursions, accustomed to live by plunder and blood- shed,” 8 who dwelt in the interior ; and it must not be forgotten that, at the time of the invasions, the power of amalgamation among those Libyans who dwelt within striking distance of Egypt showed itself to be of a very formidable nature. 1 BAR iv. § 726. 2 BAR iv. § 727. 3 BAR iv. § 728. 4 Silius Italicus xv. 672 sqq. Corippus, Johannis ii. 109, iv. 66j sq., 1 138, et alibi; J. Partsch, op. cit. p. 15, notices this indication of theocracy, but has not brought other evidence to bear on the question. 6 From < m£ praesagivit, hariolatus fait. Ibn Haldun, Kitab el ‘Ibar, trans, vol. i. pp. 213, 340; H. Fournel, Les Imazighen (Berberes), vol. i. pp. 215, 218. 7 Valerius Maximus ii. 6. 17 : Ne Numidiae quidem reges vituperandi, qui more gentis suae nulli mortalium osculum ferebant. Quidquid enim in excelso fastigio posit um est, humili et trita consuetudine, quo sit verier abilius, vacuum esse convenit. 8 Ammianus Marcellinus xviii. 6. 2. Said of the Ausuriani. SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT 117 https://archive.org/stream/cu31924008200838/cu31924008200838_djvu.txt]]>