Scarabs Second Intermediate Period

Scarabs of the type known for mid-Dynasty 13 kings with filiation (in general Martin back-type 6) attest to a wide variety of names and titles, and in several instances the same name and title recurs on several scarabs (here denoted 'scarab series').

The most substantial early series is that of Senebsumai, recorded by Martin 1971 as with back-types 6 predominantly but also 3 (1), 4 (1, from Lisht tomb 405), 5 (1), 7 (1), and 10 (2).

Scarabs of the type known for Hyksos and non-Egyptian names (in general Martin back-type 10) attest to a far lesser number of names and titles, and belong mainly to scarab series for men titled treasurer or king's son.

These peak in the treasurer Har series, recorded by Martin 1971 as with back-types 5 and 10 predominantly but also 4 (x2), 6 (1), 7 (1), 8 (1).

UC 11463 commander of the ruler's crew Sobekhotep son of commander of the ruler's crew Mentuhotep (identified by Ryholt as the future Sekhemrasewadjtawy Sobekhotep (III) son of Mentuhotep)

UC 11472 treasurer Nebresehwy	UC 11485 treasurer Senebsumai

UC 11591 eldest king's son Nehesy, back-type 10	UC 11597 eldest king's son Nehesy, back-type 10

UC 11600 eldest king's son Qupepen, back-type 5	UC 11601 king's son Seket (?) back-type 10

UC 11486 back-type 10	UC 11488 back-type 5	UC 11489 back-type 10

UC 11490 back-type 10	UC 11491 back-type 10	UC 11492 back-type 10 - note determinative disappearing into border

Scarabs with treasurer titles only - might these be by-products from the Har scarab series production?

UC 11513 from Tell el-Yahudiyeh, back-type 10 (already in Historical Scarabs, no.462)

Scarabs with poorly attested treasurers - might these also derive from the Har scarab series production?

UC 11479 'Rediha' back-type 10	UC 11507 'Rediha' back-type 10

There is also the scarab read 'Sadi' by Kim Ryholt, Martin 1971, no.1672, pl.30.6 (Cairo, from Fuad I collection)

UC 11514 clear writing of title of treasurer followed by inverted shen-loop, m, unclear central group - is this an otherwise unattested treasurer (Martin, Ryholt), or a random assemblage of signs? Where should the attestation be situated on the spectrum of meaningfulness, given parallels available in the surviving record?