J J Shirley The Culture of Officialdom an Examination of the Acquisition of Offices During the Mid 18th Dynasty Baltimore 2005

The Culture of Officialdom An examination of the acquisition of offices during the mid-18th Dynasty

By JJ Shirley

A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Baltimore, Maryland March, 2005

© 2005 by JJ Shirley UMI # 3172694

Abstract

Stemming from Helck’s Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und euen Reichs and Der Einfluss der Militärführer, studies on the configuration and development of the administration of ancient Egypt have focused primarily on discussing the offices and the duties attached to them, and only secondarily on the office-holders as they relate to their positions. The current work examines the structure of ancient Egypt’s government through a prosopographical and historical investigation of the officials themselves in order to ascertain how they obtained their positions during the transition from the reign of Thutmosis III to that of his son Amenhotep II, c.1450-1400 B.C. The methodology employed reintegrates the titular, genealogical and biographical information that was available for the officials with the historical context in which they functioned. Issues relating to how and why these officials became visible are also considered in order to gain a better understanding of the culture of officialdom. Three questions are posed; 1) What were the means by which an ancient Egyptian could attain office?; 2) What does this tell us about the underlying structure of the government during the mid-18th Dynasty?; 3) What do these patterns (or lack thereof) indicate about an official’s or family’s influence vis-à-vis the king in achieving and retaining a position? The results of the current work demonstrate that the administrative structure described by Helck, and essentially followed since, should be reevaluated. It now appears that officials were able to obtain their positions in a variety of ways throughout the period studied. Direct inheritance and familial nepotism were more prevalent during the reign of Thutmosis III, while under Amenhotep II the families of his nurses and tutors benefited

ii

from the close relationship formed between the young prince and his caretakers. Meritorious rise was also a possibility and did not require external circumstances, such as wartime activity, to instigate it. While the particular men who made up the highest levels of the administration changed, the elite status of their families did not. This indicates that the underlying structure of the government was extremely fluid and that while at the surface the alterations may appear dramatic, in fact they were not.

iii

Dedication

In 1988 I went to Egypt for the first time and fell in love with it – the country, the people, but especially the monuments. A few years later I began my professional academic career as a student of Egyptian art, archaeology, history and language. This work is the culmination of that process. It is dedicated to all the people who made my journeys, adventures, and research possible.

But especially to those who ensured that I finished.

iv

Acknowledgements As is inevitably the case with a project that spans several years, there are a number of people who have contributed in small and significant ways to the final product. The project would not have begun without the advice and support of Dr. Betsy Bryan, and the Department of Near Eastern Studies at The Johns Hopkins University. Permission to work in Egypt was granted by the Supreme Council of Antiquities and its directors, previously Prof. Dr. Gaballa Ali Gaballa, and currently Dr. Zahi Hawass. The fieldwork was undertaken with financial backing from The Johns Hopkins University, an Exploration and Field Research Grant from the Washington, D.C.-based Explorers Club, and a USBECA Fellowship funded through The American Research Center in Egypt. While working in Egypt, The American Research Center in Egypt provided assistance that I am very grateful for. Special thanks go to Mme. Amira Khattab and Mr. Amir Abdel Hamid. At the Cairo Museum, I am indebted to Mr. Adel Mahmoud. Salima Ikram and Nicholas Warner ensured that my time in Cairo was always exciting. In Luxor, Dr. Yehyia el-Misry, Dr. Mohammed el-Bialy, Mr. Nur Abd el-Gafar, my inspectors, Mr. Ramadan Ahmed Ali and Mr. Mugi Mahmoud Selim, and the Necropolis guards were all essential for the daily operations of my work. I could not have recorded some of the tombs without the help of Chicago House. I would like to especially thank the Director, Ray Johnson for the loan of ladders, as well as tea and dinners, Will Schenk and Emily Napolitano for their epigraphic help and enthusiastic company, Yarko Kobylecky, Sue Lezon, and Ellie Smith for their photographic assistance and Tina Di Cerbo for the loan of her digital camera, as well as many fun afternoons. I cannot thank Deanna Kiser enough for her company and coffee during the many months we both worked in Luxor.

v

Many Egyptologists and Institutes generously shared their work with me. I would especially like to mention Roland Tefnin, Luc Gabolde, Nigel Strudwick, and Peter Piccione, all of whom allowed me to examine the tombs they are currently publishing. In addition, Dimitri Laboury shared his own research on the viziers, while Annie Gasse and Vincent Rondot allowed me to use their as yet unpublished work on the graffiti at Sehel. At the Griffith Institute, I would like to thank Jaromir Malek and Elizabeth Miles for granting me access to, and assistance with, the collection, and John Baines for facilitating my stay in Oxford. My work at the Egypt Exploration Society in London was accomplished with the help of Patricia Spencer and Chris Naunton, as well as a wonderful phone conversation with T.G.H. James. During the writing process I received constant advice, support, critiques, and encouragement from both Betsy Bryan and Richard Jasnow. My colleagues and friends in Baltimore and elsewhere were an important source of sanity while “dissertating,” and I would like to especially mention Violaine Chauvet, Ronald Koder, Nicholas Picardo, and Matthew D. Adams, as well as Susanna Garfein and Ross Garfinkel and their “inn.” The last few months in Michigan were greatly helped along with the support of Janet Richards. Finally, I must thank my dissertation committee, Matthew Roller, Betsy Bryan, Richard Jasnow, Raymond Westbrook, and David O’Connor for their participation and valuable comments. The support of my family has been constant from the very beginning, and I owe them all a special thanks, but especially my mom and dad for always encouraging me to pursue my dreams. A final thank you goes to Diane Kagoyire, for getting me back on track, and to Raphael Cunniff, for keeping me there.

vi

Table of Contents

Title Page

i

Abstract

ii

Dedication

iv

Acknowledgments

v

Table of Contents

vii

List of Figures

xii

Abbreviations

xv

Introduction: Attaining Office in the Time of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II

1-58

I. Purpose of Research

1

II. Historical Background

3

III. Prosopographical Studies

14

IV. Methodology

23

V. Data Analysis

27

VI. Structuring of the data

33-55

VIa. Appointment

34

VIb. Heredity

45

VIc. Nepotism

46

VId. Merit

52

VII. Data presentation

54

vii

Chapter 1 The Power of Heredity: Inheritance and Influence I. Introduction

59-176

59-75

Ia. Lineage

60

Ib. Staff of Old Age (mdw iAw)

64

Ic. The “imyt-pr”, adoption, and other “legal” methods of ensuring succession

69

Id. Appointment and Heredity

73

Ie. Conclusion

74

II. Officials

75-163

Ahmose-Aametu, his son User-amun and grandson Rekhmire (Three generations of viziers)

75

Aametu’s extended family and later generations (Involvement in the Amun priesthood)

95

Amenemhat (scribe and steward of the vizier)

101

Menkheperresoneb and his nephew Menkheperresoneb (Two generations of high priests of Amun)

110

Minnakht and his son Menkheper(resoneb) (Two generations of overseer of granaries)

122

Amunemhat, son of Itnefer (mid-level priests)

138

Amenemhat (A new high priest of Amun)

145

Min and his son Sobekhotep 152 (Two generations of treasurers; Three generations of mayor through marriage) Excursus: A possible tomb for Min in Thebes

157

Userhat (Two generations of Amun servants)

160

viii

III. Conclusions

163

Chapter 2 177-329 Influence as a Means of Obtaining Office: The Family and The King I. Introduction

177

II. Family Influence

181-282

IIa. Familial Nepotism

181-199

The Family of Qen (Karnak clergy and staff)

181

Amunhotep and his uncle Neferhotep (Priests in the royal mortuary temples)

185

Baki and his father Bak[enamun] (Mid-level priests)

190

Ahmose and his son Ra (Priests at Karnak and in the royal mortuary temples)

193

IIb. The Family and the King

200-282

Taiunet and her son Menkheperresoneb (A royal nurse and her son the high priest of Amun)

200

Iamnefer and his son Suemniut (A regional mayor and tutor and his son the royal butler)

205

Usersatet, viceroy of Kush (A man of elite origins)

216

The Family of the Mayor of Thebes Sennefer 240-259 A. The Parentage of Sennefer 240 B. Ahmose-Humay, his son Amenemopet (called Pairy) 246 and his nephew Sennefer (A tutor, his son the vizier, and nephew the mayor of Thebes) Hunay and her son Mery (A royal nurse and her son the high priest of Amun)

259

Amenemipet and her son Qenamun 265 (A royal nurse and her son the steward of the king and steward of Perunefer)

ix

III. Personal Influence

282-313

Nebamun and his son Paser (Friendship with the king is more important than family)

282

Amenmose (From the field to the court)

290

Montuiywy (Royal butler and court follower)

297

Pehsukher (A court-based military official)

305

IV. Conclusions

312 331-431

Chapter 3 Meritorious Rise to Office I. Introduction

331

II. Officials

333-432

Sennefri (His rise from a Sna in the Delta to overseer of the seal)

333

Iamunedjeh (A controller of works abroad and in Egypt)

351

Userhat (From idnw of the royal herald to Xrd n kAp of Amenhotep II)

367

Amenemheb-Mahu and Baky (A career military man and his royal nurse wife)

380

Minmose (An idnw for the king abroad and overseer of works in Egypt)

401

Dedy (From soldier to royal messenger to chief of the Medjay)

418

Tjanuny (From army scribe to overseer of the army of the king)

424

x

III. Conclusions

432

Conclusions Changing Continuity in the Movement of Office

444-457

Figures

458-510

Works Cited

511-544

xi

List of Figures

Fig. 1

Table of ancient Egyptian kinship terminology with anthropological equivalents

458-59

Fig. 2

Genealogy of Aametu, indicating the line of viziers and marriage into the priestly family of Ineni

460

Fig. 3

Gebel es-Silsilah Shrine 17 (after Caminos)

461

Fig. 4

Co-Installation Scene of User (after Dziobek)

462

Fig. 5

Co-Installation Text of User (after Dziobek)

463

Figs. 6-7

Rekhmire’s “Family wall” (after Davies)

464-5

Fig.8

Extended genealogy of Aametu’s family, indicating their positions throughout the Amun priesthood

466

Fig.9

Genealogy of Amenemhat (after Davies)

467

Fig.10

Amenemhat’s “Family wall” (after Davies)

468

Fig.11

Menkheperresoneb (i)’s Family

469

Fig. 12

Minnakht and Menkheper(resoneb) (after Guksch)

470

Figs. 13-15

Amenemhat (TT53) stele lunette

471-3

Figs. 16-18

TT143

474-6

Fig. 19

Qen’s family

477

Fig. 20

Amunhotep offers to his parents (rt.)

478

Amunhotep offers to his parents (left) Fig.21

Baky offers to his parents

479

Fig. 22

Usersatet Semna stele (after der Manuelian)

480

Fig. 23

Usersatet Ras Sehel graffito (after Habachi)

481

Fig. 24a-b

Gebel es-Silsilah Shrine 11 (after Caminos)

482

xii

Fig. 25a-b

Gebel es-Silsilah Shrine 11 (after Caminos)

483

Fig. 26

Ahmose-Humay, TT224, passage

484

Fig. 27

TT224 façade

485

Fig. 28

Qenamun’s father, TT93

486

Fig. 29

Qenamun’s mother’s name, TT93

487

Fig. 30

Pehsukher in Qenamun’s tomb (after Davies)

488

Qenamun’s mother and the king Fig. 31

Paser before Amunhotep II

489

Fig. 32

Amenmose in Syria (Author’s photo)

490

Fig.33

Kings in Montuiywy’s tomb

491

Fig.34

Pehsukher and Neith before Amunhotep II

492

Fig. 35

Sennefri in Lebanon (after Strudwick)

493

Fig. 36

Iamunedjeh’s stele

494

Fig. 37

Marseille stele

495

Fig. 38

Iamunedjeh in TT56 of Userhat

496

Figs. 39-40

Userhat before Amenhotep II (after Beinlich-Seeber)

497-8

Fig. 41

Amenemheb-Mahu autobiography

499

Fig. 42

Baky offers to Amenhotep II

500

Fig. 43

Mahu and Baky with Amunhotep II

501

Fig. 44

Mahu’s garden estate

502

Fig. 45

Baky suckles young Amenhotep II

503

Fig. 46

Inscription of Baky owning a tomb

504

Fig. 47

Minmose statue BM2300

505

xiii

Fig. 48

Dedy’s funerary cones (after Davies & Macadam)

506

Fig. 49

Kings in Dedy’s tomb

507

Fig. 50

Radwan sketch of above scene

508

Figs. 51-2

Tjanuny records troops

509-10

xiv

Abbreviations

ÄA

Ägyptologische Abhandlungen

ÄAT

Ägypten und Altes Testament

ACE Studies

Australian Centre for Egyptology Studies

AEL

Ancient Egyptian Literature

AEO

Ancient Egyptian Onomastica

ÄF

Ägyptologische Forschungen

AL

Année Lexicographique. Égypte Ancienne

A#E Law

A History of Ancient #ear Eastern Law

ARCE

American Research Center in Egypt

ASAE

Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte

ASE

Archaeological Survey of Egypt

AV

Archäologische Veröffentlichungen

BACE

The Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology

BAR

J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BdE

Bulletin de l'Institut d'Égypte

BES

Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar

Beiträge Bf

Beiträge zur ägyptischen Bauforschung und Altertumskunde

BIFAO

Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire

Bijdragen Tot

Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-, en Volkenkunde

BiOr

Bibliotheca orientalis

xv

BMMA

The Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

BMRAH

Bulletin des Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire

BSFE

Bulletin de la Société Française d'Égyptologie

CAA

Corpus Antiquitatum Aegyptiacarum

CAH

Cambridge Ancient History

CA#E

Civilizations of the Ancient #ear East

CASAE

Cahier, Supplément aux Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte

CdE

Chronique d'Égypte

Cônes Funéraires

G. Daressy,“Recueil des cônes funéraires,” in: MMAF 8, Part 2

C#RS

Centre de Recherches d'Histoire Ancienne

C#WS

Centre of #on-Western Studies

Corpus

N. de G. Davies and M.F. Laming Macadam, Corpus of Inscribed Egyptian Funerary Cones

CRIPEL

Cahiers de Recherches de l'Institut de Papyrologie et d'Égyptologie de Lille

DE

Discussions in Egyptology

EAZ

Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift

EEF

Egypt Exploration Fund

EES

Egypt Exploration Society

FIFAO

Fouilles de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire

GM

Göttinger Miszellen

HÄS

Hamburger Ägyptologische Studien

HäB

Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

xvi

JARCE

Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt

JEA

The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

JEOL

Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap Ex

JESHO

Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient

J#ES

Journal of #ear Eastern Studies

JSSEA

The Journal of the Society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities

KRI

K. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions

LAAA

Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology

LdÄ

Lexikon der Ägyptologie

LÄS

Leipziger Ägyptologische Studien

MÄS

Müncher Ägyptologische Studien

MÄU

Münchener Ägyptologische Untersuchungen

MDAIK

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts für ägyptische Altertumskunde in Kairo

MIFAO

Mémoires publiés par les membres de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire

MMAF

Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire

MonPiot

Fondation Eugène Piot, Monuments et mémoires

MRTO

Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian #ew Kingdom

#AWG

#achrichten von der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen

OA

Oriens Antiquus

OBO

Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

OED

Oxford English Dictionary

xvii

PdÄ

Probleme der Ägyptologie

PM

B. Porter and R. Moss, Topographical Bibliography I.1

PMMA

Publications of the metropolitan Museum of Art

PSBA

Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology

RdE

Revue d'Égyptologie

RIDA

Revue Internationale des droits de l’antiquité

RPTMS

Robb de Peyster Tytus Memorial Series

RT

Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes

SAGA

Studien zur Archäologische und Geschichte Altägyptens

SAK

Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur

SAOC

Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization

SBL Writings

Writings from the Ancient World, Society of Biblical Literature

SHCA#E

Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient #ear East

TIP

K. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period

TTS

Theban Tomb Series

UGAÄ

Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunder Ägyptens

Urk. IV

Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, Abteilung IV, Heft 17-19

VA

Varia Aegyptiaca

WB

Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache

ZÄS

Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache and Altertumskunde

xviii

Introduction Attaining Office in the Time of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II

I. Purpose of the research The organization of the government1 in ancient Egypt has long been a topic of interest among scholars from all branches of the discipline of Egyptology. Discussions on the structure of Egypt’s administration2 have ranged from general historical overviews,3 to the documentation available for a particular period,4 or reign.5 Previous scholars have also focused on the organization and influence of particular areas of administration within the overall government,6 or on the development of a particular office over time.7

1

In his entry for the Oxford Encyclopedia (Vol.3, pp.314-9) on the ancient Egyptian “state,” Wilkinson says “The structure of the state may be divided for convenience into three broad areas: the king and members of the royal family; the government of Egypt; and the government of Egypt’s foreign possessions” (p.316). The entity which is the government of ancient Egypt is generally further subdivided into state (or central), provincial, religious and military areas of administration. The term “government” is thus used here as an overarching term for the entire (internal) system comprising several different units of administration. The term “administration” can, however, encompass both the entire system or can refer to discrete areas within the government, i.e., religious, civil (central and provincial), royal domain and military, each of which had their own structure and administrative system. My use of this terminology essentially follows the interpretation of the structure suggested by O’Connor in: Social History, pp.204-18 and schematically outlined in Fig. 3.4. See also the entry by Wilkinson cited above; Quirke, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.12-16; Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.16-20; Haring, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.20-3. 2 See note 1. 3 See, for example, Edgerton, JES 6, pp.152-60; Kemp, in: Garnsey and Whittaker, Imperialism, pp.7-57 and 284-297; Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.273-87; Trigger, et al., Social History. 4 Especially significant are the studies of Baer, Rank and Title; Helck, Beamtentiteln; Helck, Verwaltung; Kanawati, Egyptian Administration; Kanawati, Governmental Reforms; Strudwick, Administration; Quirke, Administration; Quirke, RdE 37, pp.107-30. See also McDowell, Jurisdiction (concerning Deir el-Medina); Kadry, Officers and Officials. A list of the principal administrative documents, as well as a succinct discussion of other types of sources that provide information about the administration of ancient Egypt can be found in Quirke, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.23-9. Of the twenty-one sources he mentions, two date to the Old Kingdom, five to the Middle Kingdom, three to the 18th Dynasty, ten to the Ramesside Period, and one to the Third Intermediate Period. 5 These include Bryan, Thutmose IV; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming; der Manuelian, Amenophis II; Murnane, in: Amenhotep III; Schmitz, Amenophis I. 6 Examples include Faulkner, JEA 39, pp.32-47; Gnirs, Militär; Hayes, in: CAH II.1,pp.353-72; Helck, Einfluss; Kees, Priestertum; Kanawati, Akhmim; Leprohon, JAOS 113, pp.434-6; Schulman, MRTO; Schulman, in: CAE I, pp.289-301.

1

Common to almost all of these studies is that their descriptions of the configuration and development of the ancient Egyptian government have focused primarily on discussing the offices themselves and the duties attached to them, and only secondarily on the office-holders as they relate to the positions they held.8 As a result, officials have essentially been turned into symbols of their office(s), which have been regarded as paramount. In reality however, ancient Egyptian officials were not synonymous with their positions. Although a title- and function-based study of the administration can provide a great deal of information about the organizational components of the government,9 it is much less able to contribute to our understanding of how this structure was maintained or changed over time.10 Another consequence of this has been that when the officials are in fact discussed, it is only those who are the most prominent and most visible. While this may be a factor of the available material, it is still important to ask the question “how did these men become visible?” That is, why are they known to us today and how did they attain a level which allows us to know about them?11

7

New Kingdom studies include those by Bohleke, Double Granaries; Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”; Roehrig, Royal urse; van den Boorn, Duties. 8 The most obvious examples of this are Helck’s two main works, Beamtentiteln and Verwaltung, and to a lesser extent his Einfluss. This method has essentially been followed in more recent works on the Old and Middle Kingdoms, e.g.., Kanawati, Egyptian Administration; Kanawati, Governmental Reforms; Strudwick, Administration; Quirke, Administration. It is also noticeable in recent tomb publications of the Archäologische Veröffentlichungen and Theben series. See also general studies such as those of Edgerton, JES 6, pp.152-60; Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.273-87; and in Trigger, et al. Social History. Research on specific areas of the government, especially the military administration, also often takes this approach, e.g.., Chevereau, Prosopographie… du ouvel Empire; Faulkner, JEA 39, pp.32-47; Schulman, MRTO. 9 Thus Kemp, in: Social History (p.80), states in reference to the paucity of administrative documents from the Old Kingdom: “In their place we must rely heavily on the very numerous titles born by officials.” Likewise Leprohon’s conclusion that in the New Kingdom “From the general lack of midlevel management administrative titles, it seems as if the administration itself revolved more than ever around the person of the king.” (in: CAE I, pp.283-4). 10 On this issue see, for example, Cruz-Uribe, in: For His Ka, pp.45-53. 11 Baines and Eyre provide an interesting discussion of this from the point of view of literacy levels in ancient Egypt; Baines and Eyre, GM 61, pp.65-96, esp. pp.65-77. On the topic of the literacy of women in

2

This study takes a rather different approach to examining the structure of ancient Egypt’s government than has previously been applied. What follows is a prosopographical and historical investigation of the officials themselves in order to ascertain how officials obtained their positions during the transition from the reign of Thutmosis III to that of his son Amenhotep II, c.1450-1400 B.C.12 Three questions are posed. First, what were the means by which an ancient Egyptian could attain office? Second, what does this tell us about the underlying structure of the government during this time period? For example, what positions were available to what types of individuals, were there restrictions based on family or one’s relationship to the court or king? Are there trends that can be seen for particular areas of the government? Third, what do these patterns (or lack thereof) indicate about an official’s or family’s influence vis-à-vis the king in achieving and retaining a position? The originality of this dissertation lies in its fresh, and in some respects less burdened, approach towards understanding the underlying framework of Egypt’s administration.

II. Historical Background The time frame of this examination is limited to the transition between the sole reign of Thutmosis III and his son Amenhotep II for specific reasons. The first is that a central tenet of the present work is that the composition of the government can be better understood by focusing on the officials themselves, rather than on the titles they held. In order to answer the questions raised above, each official needs to be examined in great detail, and a circumscribed time period allows for this more than a broad survey of the

the New Kingdom, see Bryan, BES 6, pp. 17-32.

3

entire 18th Dynasty. Second, despite the narrow chronological focus, there is an extremely rich body of data available within the cultural material belonging to the officials themselves, specifically information found in tomb and shrine inscriptions and decorations, statues, stelae, funerary cones and equipment, papyri and graffiti.13 An important part in choosing this particular portion of the mid-18th Dynasty is that this was a historically significant and dynamic period during which changes in foreign affairs (i.e., ongoing campaigns in the Near East), as well as domestic developments, appear to have had a considerable impact on the structure of the government.14 Thus, this brief review of the historical events leading up to the sole reign of Thutmosis III will help to situate the current study. At the end of Second Intermediate Period (c.1650-1550 B.C.), as the Hyksos were being driven out of Egypt and the country once again became unified under a single Egyptian king, Ahmose, founder of the 18th Dynasty, began the process of reorganization.15 On the military front, this involved a series of campaigns into southern Palestine designed to drive out the remaining Hyksos, assert Egypt’s newfound strength, and solidify Egypt’s borders with the southern Levant. In addition, campaigns were

12

These two kings reigned during the mid-18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom. A quick review of Porter and Moss, Topographical Bibliography I.1, and Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, as well as the numerous monographs, articles and tomb publication that relate to this period, clearly demonstrates this. 14 The burgeoning of the military and its influence during the New Kingdom in general has been widely discussed; cf. Faulkner, JEA 39, pp.32-47; Gnirs, Militär; Helck, Einfluss; Säve-Soderbergh, avy; Schulman, MRTO; Spalinger, Aspects. Most recently, Redford has re-visited foreign activity in the time of Thutmosis III, while Spalinger has done the same with the New Kingdom military in general; cf. Redford, Wars; Spalinger, War. On a variety of domestic developments, religious and civil, see, for example, Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion; Boorn, Duties; Dorman, Senenmut; Dziobek, Denkmäler; Gitton, Les Divines Épouses; Robins, in: Images and Women, pp.65-78. 15 Vandersleyen is still the primary work on Ahmose; cf. his monograph Amosis, RdE 19, pp.123-59 and RdE 20, pp.127-34, and also La vallée du il ii. Also relevant are Bietak, Avaris; Lacovara, Deir el-Ballas; Oren, The Hyksos; Smith and Smith, ZÄS 103, pp.48-76; Wiener and Allen, JES 57/1, pp.1-28. For recent and succinct reviews of the period, cf. Bourrieau, in: Oxford History, pp.185-217, esp.210-17; Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.218-23; Quirke, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.3, pp.260-5. 13

4

needed in the south in order to regain control of Lower Nubia and its resources, as well as defeat the Kushite Kingdom which had risen during the Second Intermediate Period.16 Domestically, Ahmose’s concerns centered on establishing a strong dynastic line, reasserting royal control over the northern portion of Egypt (north from Cusae), which had previously been under the rule of the Hyksos, and developing an administrative organization to run the newly reunited country. Demonstrating devotion to the god Amun, the chief god of Thebes and now the national deity, was also an important activity for the Theban-based kings.17 The prominent role that the royal women played in this early period is well known and often discussed by scholars.18 Ahhotep’s apparent governance of Egypt and military activity during her son Ahmose’s minority is attested to on his year 18 Karnak stele.19 The act of marrying one’s (half-)sister was a policy begun by Ahmose whose goal was to consolidate royal power and stabilize the family’s control of the dynastic line.20 The Donation stele, also erected in Karnak by Ahmose, records the establishment of the office “God’s Wife of Amun” (GWA) by Ahmose on behalf of his wife Ahmose-Nefertari. He bequeaths the office and its associated holdings to Ahmose-Nefertari and her chosen successors in perpetuity.21 The GWA performed specific temple rituals as a priestess,

16

On this topic see most recently Morris, Imperialism, esp. pp.27-30, 38f., 41ff., 56ff.; cf. Kemp, in: Imperialism, pp. 7-57 and 284-297; Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.98-122, 125-55; Weinstein, BASOR 241, pp.1-10. 17 Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.218ff. 18 Tetishery, grandmother of Ahmose, was honored during his reign, while Ahhotep and Ahmose-Nefertari were prominent in the reigns of their husbands and sons. See, for example, Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.226-30; Eaton-Krauss, CdÉ 65, pp.195-205; Gitton, L’épouse du dieu; Robins, Wepwawet 2, pp.10-14; Robins, GM 62, pp. 67-77; Robins, Women, pp.42-52. 19 CGC 34001; cf. Urk. IV, 14-24. 20 Cf. Vandersleyen, CdÉ 52, pp.234ff.; Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.226ff. 21 On the Donation stela and the office of God’s Wife in general, see Graefe, Gottesgemahlin; Harari, ASAE 56, pp.139-201; Menu, BIFAO 77, 89-100; and the various works by Gitton: Gitton, Les Divines Épouses; Gitton, L’épouse du dieu; Gitton, BSFE 75, pp.31-46; Gitton and Leclant, in: LdÄ II, cols. 792-812. See

5

which gave her religious power within the cult. In addition, the land holdings attached to the position meant significant economic power.22 By placing this office, which had its own priesthood, land, and endowments, in the hands of the royal women, Ahmose not only strengthened the link between the national deity and the royal family, but increased the latter’s wealth as well.23 In addition to strengthening the role of kingship, Ahmose was concerned with the administration of his newly re-unified country. As van den Boorn has shown, the Duties of the Vizier was composed sometime during the reign of Ahmose, and hence reflects the administrative organization that he was attempting to establish.24 According to van den Boorn, this was to be a “less complex, more direct type of government. His (i.e., Ahmose’s) aim was apparently to establish a powerful and pervasive royal authority based on an administration with more efficient, personal and direct ties between its various echelons … to transform it into an efficient and more direct system under a strong and powerful kingship.”25 Van den Boorn suggests that once Ahhotep died, Ahmose needed to replace this “personal and trustworthy assistant’,” and that instead of looking to the royal family he began a “policy to seek the support of personal delegates for the enactment of his reorganizations.”26 The establishment of the position “Viceroy of Kush” to oversee the governance of Nubia, and the development of the vizier’s position with regard to Egypt proper were the two most important officials for this purpose.27

also Bryan, in: Mistress of House, pp. 31f.; Robins, Women, pp.44ff., 149-56; Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.64-78. 22 Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.71, 73. 23 Redford, History and Chronology, pp.70ff.; Robins, in: Images of Women, p.66. 24 Boorn, Duties, pp.333-76; cf. the review by Lorton, CdÉ 70, pp.123-132. 25 Van den Boorn, Duties, p.349. 26 Van den Boorn, Duties, pp.347f., 355, 359, 370f. 27 Van den Boorn, Duties, p.355.

6

Van den Boorn interprets the Duties as a reflection of Ahmose’s refocusing of the vizierate to become essentially “the main civil office supporting royal government,”28 granting the vizier authority as the director of the royal domain, head of the civil administration and also making him the king’s personal delegate.29 It is the latter role that the vizier’s close relationship with the king emerges, since the activities are those where the vizier serves as a mediator, representative and spokesman on the king’s behalf.30 The danger in installing too much power on one individual is of course that the individual will assert his authority to a degree that becomes dangerous to the king’s control. Van den Boorn states that “the daily salutation (and information) ceremony of section 3” of the Duties demonstrates both Ahmose’s concern over this possibility and how the king remained in command of his extremely powerful vizier.31 Yet this seems to be contradicted by the fact that during or shortly after the reign of Ahmose, Aametu and his two successors, User and Rekhmire, were able to form a vizierate dynasty, in a sense creating the “independent centre of power” that Ahmose was attempting to prevent.32 Van den Boorn resolves this by suggesting that the hereditary nature of the vizierate at this time, as well as its possible family connection to the other major position, viceroy of Nubia, “may have been a planned policy on the part of the king … a re-establishment of the position of the vizierate of the 13th dyn. … but now in support of a strong monarchy.”33

28

Van den Boorn, Duties, p.375. These are van den Boorn’s “three main aspects,” which he details in Duties, ch.3, pp.309-31. 30 Van den Boorn, Duties, ch.3.2.3, pp.320ff. with fig.11, and p.355f. 31 Van den Boorn, Duties, p.355. 32 The existence of this family of viziers is not new information, but was noted already by Dunham, JEA 15, pp.164-5 and Davies, Rekh-mi-Rē' I, p.101-2. See also the discussions by Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.42-52, 57-63 and Helck, Verwaltung, pp.285-98, 433-41. This family is re-visited and discussed at length in Chapter 1, see pp.74-100 33 Van den Boorn, Duties, p.370f. He in fact credits the family of Aametu with four generations of viziers, 29

7

Moving ahead to the mid-18th Dynasty and the events following the death of Thutmosis II, Dziobek34 would certainly agree with van den Boorn’s statement. The exact length of Thutmosis II’s reign is uncertain, but it was quite likely short, since he died when his heir, Thutmosis III, was still a young child.35 The explanation for how Hatshepsut was able to assume kingship, rather than remain as regent for her nephew and stepson, is still not completely understood. Hatshepsut’s self-legitimization strategy can be seen in her Birth and Coronation scenes, which were placed on the walls of her mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri.36 Her divine birth as the daughter of the god Amun and Thutmosis I’s wife Ahmose, combined a hereditary claim with a divine right to the throne. Hatshepsut’s presentation, acceptance, and coronation before Amun and the gods of Egypt, as well as Thutmosis I and the royal court demonstrated that she was the chosen heir.37 Although these scenes are extremely interesting for what they impart concerning how Hatshepsut wished her assumption of royal power to be viewed by her subjects, they tell us very little about how this was actually effected. Indeed, although Hatshepsut presents herself as the chosen successor of Thutmosis I,38 it is clear from other monuments that this was not, in fact the case.39 The different theories explaining Hatshepsut’s accession were outlined by

the first being an unknown ancestor of Aametu; cf. Duties, pp.368ff. 34 I a referring here to his reconstruction of User’s involvement in Hatshepsut’s accession; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler. 35 The only known date is for year one, though Thutmosis II is often credited with up to eleven years. On this subject are several articles by Gabolde, e.g., SAK 14, 61-87; Karnak 9, 1-82. 36 Featured on the north side of the second colonnade in her mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri. Cf. Urk. IV, 215-34, 255-58; BAR 2, 187-213, 215-242 37 This in fact draws upon an example set by her father, Thutmosis I, on his stele at Abydos, wherein the priests of Osiris proclaim him as “born of Osiris.” Urk. IV, 94-103; BAR 2, 90-8. 38 Cf. the inscriptions found on the upper terrace of Deir el-Bahri, where there were chapels to both Hatshepsut and Thutmosis I. Urk. IV, 241-74. 39 Murnane, Coregencies, p.116.

8

Dorman in his monograph on Hatshepsut’s steward Senenmut.40 Most scholars viewed her as some sort of usurper to the throne, based in large part on the assumption that that Thutmosis III carried out an immediate defacement of Hatshepsut’s monuments, either as an act of retribution, 41 or out of political necessity.42 Dorman, however, convincingly demonstrated that the intentional mutilation did not begin until much later in Thutmosis III’s sole reign, c. year 46, thus removing the motivation behind the earlier theories.43 In addition, inscriptions such as that from the tomb of Ineni (TT81) seem to indicate that her assumption of power was fairly gradual.44 Some scholars have suggested that Hatshepsut’s position as GWA was a prominent factor, or perhaps motivator, in her ability to assume the throne as co-regent / king.45 The high level of wealth and influence that this title carried for both Ahmose-Nefertari and Hatshepsut is suggested by their selfidentification as GWA much more often than the various royal designations “king’s daughter,” “king’ sister,” “great royal wife,” or “king’s mother”.46 The extent of this power is especially visible during Hatshepsut’s tenure as god’s wife47 and during her transition from regent to king, when she passes the title to her daughter Neferure and links the management of the domain with that of the palace and the temple of Amun.48

40

Dorman, Senenmut, Ch.1, pp.1-17, esp. pp.10-14. For example, Helck, Verwaltung, p.542; Wilson, Burden,pp.175-7; Hayes, in: CAH II.1, pp.318-19. 42 Thus, Redford, History and Chronology, p.87. 43 Dorman, Senenmut, esp. Ch.3, pp.46-65. though I would mention that Bryan, following van Siclen (GM 79, p.53) has suggested that the late date of the defacement and its continuation b Amenhotep II may indicate that Thutmosis III initiated it in order to ensure Amenhotep II’s succession to the throne; cf. Bryan, in: Mistress, p.34 with notes 70-2, in: Oxford History, pp.243f., 248, and in: Amenhotep III, p.31 with note 20. 44 Bryan, Mistress, p.32; BAR 2, 341-42; Urk. IV, 59-61. 45 Thus, Redford, in: History and Chronology, Ch.4, pp.73ff.; Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.76ff. 46 Bryan, in: Mistress of House, p.31; Robins, Women, p.43f., 151f.; Robins, in: Images of Women, pp.73-6. 47 During the reign of her husband, Thutmosis II, Hatshepsut is visible performing cult activities throughout Karnak with Neferure behind her. Bryan, Mistress, p.32; Robins, Women, fig.2. 48 As witnessed through the titulary of Senenmut, who serves as steward for all three, and as tutor to princess Neferure, Hatshepsut’s daughter and successor as “god’s wife.” Bryan, Mistress, p.32. Cf. Dorman, Senenmut, pp.201-11 for a list of Senenmut’s titles, these three positions fall on pp.204-6. 41

9

These actions certainly make it plausible that Hatshepsut may have been able to utilize her authority as GWA to consolidate a power base and create officials especially loyal to her. Although the idea that there were competing “factions” or “parties,” some that were loyal to Hatshepsut and others who sided with the young Thutmosis III, has generally been discarded,49 Dziobek has recently revived the concept that there was some type of bureaucratic involvement in Hatshepsut’s rise.50 According to Dziobek, faced with a young child (Thutmosis III) as the king upon the death of Thutmosis II and a potential crisis, the highest officials of the time came together and made a “state decision” for the benefit of the entire country. Fearful of lengthy queen-regency and not wishing to bring in a non-royal as Hatshepsut’s new husband and co-regent for Thutmosis III, these officials opted to install Hatshepsut herself as pharaoh. This “cabinet” included men such as the vizier User, herald Intef, treasurer Djhuty, overseer of granaries Minnakht, and steward Senenmut.51 Dziobek believes that the late date of Hatshepsut’s proscription, as well as the fact that several of her officials, and also their descendants, continue to serve under Thutmosis III, indicates that Hatshepsut was not a usurper to throne. Rather, it further supports the idea that they helped to orchestrate Hatshepsut’s rise only out of necessity, and also ensured a smooth transition from the regency of Thutmosis III to the co-regency with Hatshepsut and back again to his

49

Thus Redford, who is careful to distinguish his own theories from those of, for example, Hayes (CAH II.1, pp.318-9). Cf. Redford, History and Chronology, Ch.4, p.57-87, esp. pp.62-5, 77. See on this issue also Dorman, Senenmut, pp.10-14. 50 Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, pp.134-6 and Denkmäler, pp.131-48. Unless otherwise noted, the statements made in the following paragraph all refer back to these pages. 51 The discussion of these men can be found in Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, pp.132-4 and Denkmäler, pp.132-43. User and Minnkaht are included in the corpus of officials used in the present study. See Ch.1, pp.79-87 and 121-32, respectively.

10

regency. For Dziobek, the implication is that Thutmosis III already had a well-established elite formed at the court when the co-regency ended and Thutmosis III began his 32 years of sole rule. Much of the preceding discussion has focused on providing a brief review of opinions concerning domestic developments within Egypt prior to the sole reign for Thutmosis III. Yet, another important aspect of this time period was the military activities. It has long been recognized that the expulsion of the Hyksos ushered Egypt into a new phase militarily.52 Generally referred to as Egypt’s “Imperialistic Age,” the kings who were most involved in expanding Egypt’s influence over portions of SyriaPalestine were Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III, and while essentially every pharaoh campaigned in Nubia, it was Thutmosis I who finally removed the Kushite threat.53 It is also important to mention that certainly prior to the sole reign of Thutmosis III, and most likely for some time thereafter, the evidence for a clear Egyptian presence, in the form of garrison-towns and troops, in Syria is minimal, though the opposite was probably true for the region of Gaza.54 This is quite different from the Egyptian presence in Nubia, which immediately resulted in the refurbishment of Middle Kingdom fortresses, and erection of

52

See the literature cited in notes 14-15 above. However, it should be noted that more recently Redford has taken the view with regard to Syria-Palestine that prior to year 22 of Thutmosis III, i.e., the beginning of his sole reign, the “extent of Egyptian involvement in the early 18th Dynasty was modest and in many respects ‘traditional’.” Redford, Wars, p.185. 53 Kemp, in: Imperialism, pp. 7-57 and 284-297; Morris, Imperialism, pp.30ff., 48ff., 68ff., 115-29; Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.148-62; Redford, Wars, pp.185-94. 54 Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.192-213; Redford, Wars, pp.185-94, 255-7; Morris, Imperialism, Ch.2 pp.38ff., 136ff.; Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, pp.251-8. In Syria, this in fact does not clearly occur until the Ramesside Period, or perhaps late 18th Dynasty around the reign of Horemheb; cf. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.203-7; Morris, Imperialism, pp.268ff., 339-42. However, Morris (pers. comm.) also argues for a larger Egyptian presence in Syria-Palestine than is usually assumed during the reign of Thutmosis III. She bases this in large part on the Horemheb Decree, interpreting his repeal of the practice of garrisoning and providing for troops up and down the Nile River during the reign of Thutmosis III as applying to foreign policy as well. For a recent translation of the text, see Murnane, Texts, pp.235-40, the relevant section is on p.237f.

11

new temples and associated towns.55 In general the campaigns of Thutmosis I into northern Syria have been viewed as little more than skirmishes and a hunting expedition in Niye.56 However, Redford has taken a different approach. He characterizes Thutmosis I’s expedition to the Orontes River and northern Syria as “a resuscitation (if not an outright innovation) of a concept of military confrontation which involves something more than a mere razzia or punitive attack.”57 Whether due to Thutmosis I’s premature death, as Redford would interpret, or because Thutmosis I’s campaign still accomplished little more than a raid, there is little doubt that it was not until after year 22 of Thutmosis III that the Egyptians could be said to be in any way in “control” of large portions of Syria-Palestine.58 Almost immediately upon starting his (second) regency in year 21, Thutmosis III began a program of constant military activity that lasted throughout most of his thirty-two years of sole rule.59 Of all the pharaohs of the early to mid-18th Dynasty, Thutmosis III was the most prolific in acquiring and retaining control of territory throughout the Near East.60 This new era of expansion necessitated a larger and more organized army than Egypt had ever had, resulting in what Helck described as homines novi taken from out of the military and placed in civil and court positions.61 Helck also suggested that despite

55

Kemp, in: Imperialism, pp. 21-57 and 284-297; Morris, Imperialism, pp.68ff., 180ff.; O’Connor, in: Social History, pp.255ff. 56 For example, Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.234. 57 Redford, Wars, p.186. 58 As Redford strongly states; cf. Redford, Wars, p.193f., pp.255-7. 59 Morris, Imperialism, pp.115ff.; Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel, pp.155ff.; Redford, Wars, esp. pp.191ff.; Weinstein, BASOR 241, pp.10-15. 60 Redford provides the most recent, and excellent, discussion of Thutmosis III’s campaigns, the changing nature of the relationship between Egypt, Syria-Palestine and the contemporary Near Eastern powers, and comments of Thutmosis III’s administration of the areas under Egypt’s sway; cf. Redford, Wars. 61 Most recently Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.247. Helck was the first to undertake a study of the development and changes within the military during the 18th Dynasty, and his conclusions have essentially been followed; cf. Helck, Einfluss, esp. pp.34ff.

12

the stronger military presence, during Thutmosis III’s reign the top administrative officials were primarily promoted up out of the priestly ranks, especially those of the Amun temple at Karnak.62 Furthermore, he asserted that familial connections were important to determining who was granted high civil office.63 Dziobek seems to have affirmed this idea to some extent, suggesting that the elites paid increasing attention to the continuation of their own families’ positions of power during this period.64 More recently, it has been suggested that although Thutmosis III had the established elite at his disposal, to some degree he also made use of the men who accompanied him on his campaigns.65 Underlying all of these explanations is still the assumption that a division existed between the established and the so-called “new class” of military elite in terms of what types of offices they could hold. Thus, it is generally assumed that the highest positions, such as vizier and overseer of the seal, were still reserved for men from established families, while military officials could have court connections, but were not involved in the administration of the palace per se.66 Since the time of Helck’s Verwaltung,67 the view has been that the accession of Amenhotep II in many respects revolutionized the makeup of the court. Helck argued that there was an entirely clean break between the governments of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, in which Amenhotep II eschewed the elite families of his father in favor of childhood friends who were sons of his nurses, and children of the court.68 He also

62

Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8. Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8. 64 Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.147. 65 Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 66 Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming; cf. Helck, Einfluss, pp.33, 41ff., 71f. 67 Helck, W., Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und euen Reichs (Probleme der Ägyptologie 3), Leiden-Koln: E.J. Brill, 1958. This massive volume, published in 1958, is still considered the standard work for the period, despite the fact that it is largely out of date. 68 Helck, Verwaltung, pp. 537-8; Helck, Einfluss, pp.35-6, n.1, 66-71. 63

13

concluded that men who served in the military campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, and became civil officials following their soldierly exploits, were the benefactors of similar royal favor, and that they strove to conceal their military origins.69 Der Manuelian’s work on the reign of Amenhotep II led him to the conclusion that several military officials who began under the reign of Thutmosis III were kept on by Amenhotep II because he “recognized their worth and experience.”70 However he also concurred with Helck that Amenhotep II had a “newly initiated policy of surrounding himself primarily with officials he had grown up with and knew personally.”71 The foregoing review has attempted to bring out the complexities of the situation leading up to and, to some extent, during the period of Thutmosis III’s sole reign to the early years of Amenhotep II. The various conclusions that have been made about the nature of the administration during this period, and how officials acquired and retained their positions are precisely those that are being challenged in the current study.

III. Prosopographical Studies As a study of both an individual’s life and career, prosopography is an historical inquiry that should encompass both genealogical and biographical research. However, many prosopographical studies seem either to concentrate on only one of these, while the second is afforded little or no serious attention, or to treat them as essentially separate entities. This naturally results in a rather one-sided discussion, with the focus often on the titles that pertain to an area of administration, and a lengthy list of officials appended to

69

Helck, Einfluss, p.71-3. der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p. 168. 71 Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p. 168. 70

14

the larger work.72 A main goal of this dissertation is to reintegrate the different types of information such that the career and family of each official can be presented as fully as possible. This will make it possible to more clearly define the means by which officials obtained office and begin to answer questions concerning the composition of the government and possible tensions between well-placed families and the king. Although the current examination represents a divergence from more traditional prosopographical studies, it nonetheless draws upon the methodologies developed by this earlier work. Thus, a review of some of these, especially those that deal with the New Kingdom, is necessary. Since Helck’s Verwaltung73 is still considered the standard work on the subject of the New Kingdom administrative structure, it will be examined first. Following this is a discussion of more recent approaches, such as those of Bierbrier, Kitchen, and Davies.74 Helck’s monumental Verwaltung in many ways set the tone for subsequent discussions of the administration and the officials who formed it. The Verwaltung is divided up into chapters that clearly demonstrate that although it is a book about the administration of the Middle and New Kingdoms, it deals with selective portions of the administration. Helck examines what are generally perceived as the main areas of

72

The classic example is Helck’s Verwaltung. In a similar vein see also Chevereau, Prosopographie du ouvel Empire; Englemann, ZÄS 122, pp.104-137; Gratien, Prosopograhie des ubiens; Kees, Priestertum; Kees, Hohenpriester; Schulman, MRTO; Strudwick, Administration. Even the prosopographical studies on which my own methodology is modeled follow this model to some extent; cf. Davies, Who’s who; Vittmann, Priester und Beamte. It is also a common method of presenting the officials in a lager study on a particular king’s reign, although in his case the abbreviated treatment is quite understandable; cf. Bryan, Thutmose IV; der Manuelian, Amenophis II. 73 Helck, W., Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und euen Reichs (Probleme der Ägyptologie 3), Leiden-Koln: E.J. Brill, 1958. In addition, Helck deals with New Kingdom involvement in the Near East, the military in the 18th Dynasty, and New Kingdom temple economy, respectively, in his monographs Beziehungen Ägyptens, Einfluss and Materialien. Likewise, his Beamtentiteln is still a major resource for Old Kingdom research. 74 Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, pp.1-7; Davies, Who’s Who; Kitchen, TIP.

15

administration, i.e., vizierate, treasury, palace and land.75 Within each section he presents a discussion of the titles, focusing on how they are defined, and the functions attached to them.76 Helck uses the titles to discuss the positions themselves, bringing in the officials who held them when documenting inscriptions that demonstrate the variations in the titles, or what duties were attached to it. In the few cases in which Helck includes the people who held these offices in his analysis of the positions, the resulting discussion is essentially chronological and without much additional information about the officials or their families.77 Helck’s prosopographical notes on particular offices and the officials who held them are a telling example of what are often considered the most important offices, and generally the most discussed.78 In the Verwaltung, the positions of vizier, treasurer, high steward, overseer of granaries, overseer of the treasury, and mayor of Thebes are all treated, despite the fact that the earlier portions of the Verwaltung in fact cover several other areas and titles within the government. Helck also included a chapter providing basic genealogical information for the officials treated in the prosopography. This method of dividing the discussion and presenting a prosopography based foremost on titles has since become the standard in the scholarly literature that deals with overall studies of the government, the administration during a particular king’s reign, and investigations on the development of an area of administration or specific title over time.79

75

Noticeably left out due to their treatment elsewhere, are the military (cf. Helck, Einfluss) and priesthood (cf. Kees, Priestertum). 76 Helck, Verwaltung, Chapters 1-20, pp.1-285. 77 I.e., mayor (HAty-a), butler (wbA), fan-bearer and standard-bearer (TAy xw, TAy srit) 78 Helck, Verwaltung, Chapters 21-22. 79 See the literature cited in notes 3-6 above.

16

In the summary that completes the volume,80 Helck makes several sweeping conclusions about the evolution of New Kingdom administration. Some have been borne out by subsequent studies,81 while others have been modified.82 A suggestion made by Helck that is especially significant for the current study is one that has essentially been accepted and integrated into following discussions about New Kingdom government. This is Helck’s conclusion that there is a “sharp break” between the administrations of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II.83 He posited that up through the reign of Thutmosis III administrative officials were primarily promoted up out of the priestly ranks, family retention of position was not unusual, and officials that did not come from an established family were uncommon. In contrast, Amenhotep II surrounded himself with “boyhood friends” from the court who thus had personal relationships with their king. The theory that at this time there was an introduction of new men into an established system has had a great impact on all studies that came after Helck, and while some have admitted that Helck’s characterization is probably too simplistic, none have yet offered alternatives.84 Similar conclusions that have come from Helck’s volume on military influence during the 18th Dynasty,85 include the theory that military officials came from a lower social strata, could not pass on their positions, and are not found in ranks outside the military later in

80

Chapter 23, pp.532-47. For example, Helck’s remark that a reorganization of the administration was undertaken following the expulsion with the Hyksos that included the creation of the office “king’s son of Nubia.” Cf. Helck, Verwaltung, p.537. In confirmation of this, see, for example van den Boorn’s comments in Duties, pp.339ff. (obs.19), 349f., 368ff. 82 Such as Helck’s assumption that the growth of the military during Thutmosis III’s sole rule was in part due to a reaction against the “passive” reign of Hatshepsut; cf. Helck, Verwaltung, p.537. 83 Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8. 84 The simplicity of Helck’s statements has, to some extent, already been pointed out, though no alternatives have yet been offered; cf. der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.168 (who nonetheless essentially follows Helck), and to a greater degree by Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.353 ff.; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 85 Helck, Der Einfluss der Militärführer in der 18. Ägyptischen Dynastie, (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte 81

17

life, while the so-called “front soldiers” moved into court and palace positions and “hid” their military backgrounds.86 Since the Verwaltung’s publication in 1958 a significant amount of new material has come to light through excavation, publication, and new research, all of which makes Helck’s work in need of re-assessment and revision.87 Other scholars have taken this on for particular offices, but none have yet attempted a wider-scale project for the New Kingdom that encompasses multiple offices and officials.88 A main goal of this study is to reevaluate and re-examine the trends and changes that Helck suggested occurred during the Thutmosis III – Amenhotep II period. Although the system of government may appear to be working along a particular line on the surface, by focusing on the officials themselves, and utilizing a multi-dimensional examination that studies how officials attained their positions, as well as their overall careers and their families, nuances are more likely to be noticed that provide insights into the underlying framework of job acquisition and the bureaucracy. Although Helck’s Verwaltung is the most relevant work to the present effort in terms of time period and subject matter, there are other, more recent, prosopographical studies whose methodologies are much closer to that being employed here. They each follow the approach that the ability to draw historical conclusions from prosopographical research relies on extensive genealogies, an understanding of the kinship terminology,

und Altertumskunder Ägyptens 14), Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1939. 86 Helck, Einfluss, pp.28-33, 71-3. 87 Warbuton comments that the work is “out of the[sic] date and based on speculative interpretations about the character of the Egyptian state and the degree to which conclusions can be drawn from titles.” Warbuton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.3, p.583. Likewise, in a recent study on New Kingdom Memphis, Martin has again drawn attention to the “lack of a comprehensive New Kingdom prosopography for the whole country.” Martin, in: Abusir and Saqqara, pp. 102-3. See also his n.19 for a list of some publications which have produced prosopographical information for the New Kingdom. 88 For example, Bohleke, Double Granaries; Bryan, ARCE 1981; Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des

18

and connections between private individuals and known historical figures through which to establish a firm chronology.89 Several of the more germane include those by Vittmann, Kitchen, Bierbrier, and Davies. These will now be reviewed. Vittmann undertook a genealogical and prosopographical study of priestly and civil officials in Saite period Thebes.90 He states in his introduction that while he had intended to include all officials from the Saite Period, he was restricted to focusing on Theban-based individuals due to the genealogical information available.91 Further, the methodology Vittmann followed allowed for the presentation of only those officials for which extensive genealogical information was known, except in cases where their inclusion was necessary for chronological purposes of tracing the particular office through the Saite Period.92 Thus, he omitted persons who were mentioned perhaps only once with an obscure title and no filiation.93 Vittmann’s criteria still allowed him to examine not just the highest office holders, such as viziers and high priests, but several lower level families as well. The results of his investigation primarily concern establishing genealogies of the various officials he was able to document. However, it also produced important socio-historical information about the relationship between these officials and the royal line from Osorkon II through Takelot III.94 In addition, Vittmann was able to demonstrate the ability of these Theban families to retain their titles, both priestly and mayoral, though several generations.

Amun”; Gnirs, Militär; van de Boorn, Duties. 89 Most explicitly stated by Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, p.1; Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp.xiii-xvi. 90 Vittmann, G. Priester und Beamte im Theben der Spätzeit. Genealogische und prosopographische Untersuchungen zum thebanischen Priester- und Beamtentum der 25. und 26. Dynastie. Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 1 Wien: Afro-Pub, 1978. 91 Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, p.1. 92 Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, pp.2-3. 93 Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, p.2. 94 Though, as Bierbrier notes in his review, Vittmann also tended “to treat each family grouping in isolation

19

Kitchen’s work on the Third Intermediate Period (1100-650 B.C.) is one of the most important studies on this difficult phase of Egyptian history.95 He examined the royal families, as well as the elite officials and families that were connected with them, or represented the beginnings of other royal lines. The often confusing and overlapping nature of the families and rulers present during this time, as well as the often concomitant dynasties based in different cites or areas of Egypt, made Kitchen’s task enormously complex. Especially important for his study were the high priests of Ptah in Memphis, the Theban high priests of Amun, and other high-ranking dignitaries from Thebes and Heracleopolis. For the Theban high priests of Amun and for the some of the Tanite kings in the 21st Dynasty, much of the information on family relationships came from the women involved. Kitchen was able to establish a relative chronology through his reconstruction of the family lines, as well as the lines of succession in the offices held by the families. By combining this relative chronology with the few absolute dates known for some of the kings and elites, Kitchen was able to produce a much clearer version of events for the Third Intermediate Period in terms of actual regnal lengths and the roles that kings and various important officials (and their wives) played during this period.96 His collection and use of the massive amount of material he gathered thus enabled him to “reconstruct the basic chronology of the 21st-25th Dynasties, and therewith to present an historical outline”.97 Bierbrier’s studies98 of some of the families represented in the Late New

rather than to construct an integrated schema.” Bierbrier, BiOr 36, pp.306-9 with Table 1. 95 Kitchen, K.A., The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 110 - 650 B.C., Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1986. 96 Kitchen, TIP, esp. Part I, Part III, Part IV. 97 Kitchen, TIP, p.xi. 98 Bierbrier, M.L. “Terms of Relationship at Deir el-Medîna,” JEA 66 (1980), pp. 100-107; Bierbrier, M.L.

20

Kingdom at Deir el-Medina was undertaken to “determine more exactly the possible maximum lengths of some of the reigns in this period [Dynasties 19-26] and to illuminate certain historical trends with regard to the priestly class.”99 The detailing of numerous family histories for both the noblemen of Dynasties 19-25 and the workmen of Deir elMedina allowed Bierbrier to comment on two essentially different but equally important broader issues: the accession of Ramesses II and the method of succession to office during the Ramesside and early Third Intermediate Period. Based on these histories, Bierbrier was able to contribute a generational timetable to the period between Ramesses II and XI, allowing him to make significant contributions to the discussion on the accession of Ramesses II.100 In addition, he was able to demonstrate that high offices during the Ramesside Period were essentially hereditary. While occasionally these families fell out of power, they almost always regained their standing within the given career at a later point, often through marriage. Moreover, these positions were remembered down the line as later relatives claimed the right to be installed in a particular office based on their family.101 In his study of the workmen, Bierbrier concludes that the hereditary method of succession did not stop with the nobility, but also made its way into the lower levels of society, as demonstrated by the position of chief workman on the right and left, which were each passed down through

The Late ew Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300-664 B.C.): a genealogical and chronological investigation, Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1975; Bierbrier, M.L. “Genealogy and Chronology: Theory and Practice,” in: R.J. Demarée and A. Egberts (eds.), Village Voices: Proceedings of the Symposium "Texts from Deir elMedîna and Their Interpretation", Leiden, May 31-June 1, 1991 (CNWS 13), Leiden: Centre of NonWestern Studies, 1992, pp.1-7. 99 Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, p.xii. 100 Bierbrier’s findings enable him to discard the 1304 date, while lending further support to the 1279, and 1290 dates for Ramesses II’s accession; cf. Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp. 109-113. 101 Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp.1-18, 113-14.

21

multiple generations, and had connections with the office of deputy.102 Bierbrier’s work clearly shows that when family and titular histories are examined in conjunction, they become a valuable asset for investigating the bureaucratic system, as well as providing further information on the amount of time that elapses between reigns and even dynasties. Indeed, as Bierbrier states in his conclusion to The Late ew Kingdom, Apart from chronological information, the study of the careers of individuals and families reveals certain interesting data about the officials and the descent of offices in the late New Kingdom.103

Davies’ prosopographical study on the numerous families of workmen known from Deir el-Medina was aimed at examining “the pedigrees of the major families from the village of Deir el-Medina.”104 He was able to demonstrate that these offices were also largely hereditary in nature, and extremely intertwined among the various families. As a result, a much clearer picture was gained of the successions of the office holders, and their functions.105 Davies was also able to connect several officials and families with the reigns of particular kings, providing better chronological information on the Late New Kingdom.106 The foregoing review of previous proposopographical work demonstrates that the current study is not without scholarly predecessors. Although I am adapting the methodologies developed and employed in the work of Bierbrier, Kitchen and others, a

102

Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, pp.19-44, pp. 113-116. Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, p.113. Vittmann also found this to be the case, as for example in the case of the “overseer of the god’s wife”, where it became apparent that sons of apparently low ranking officials were able to attain this rather upper level position, perhaps due to royal favor; cf. Vittmann, Priester und Beamte, p.202. 104 Davies, Who’s Who, p.xxiii. 105 This is especially true in the case of the scribal families; cf. Davies, Who’s Who, Appendix A, pp.123103

22

fundamental basis for the research remains Bierbrier’s assertion that the ability to draw historical conclusions from prosopographical investigation depends on the ability to establish firm genealogies and chronological connections that connect the families with known historical figures.107 I am adding to this the assertion that in order to contribute significantly to our socio-historical knowledge of ancient Egypt, the careers of the officials examined must be considered in tandem with their family backgrounds. Linking together these three topics will, it is believed, enable us not just to ask but also to answer questions revolving around how offices were transmitted before, during, and after the transition between kings.

IV. Methodology Despite the narrow chronological period being studied, there is an extremely rich body of data available within the cultural material belonging to the officials themselves, specifically information found in tomb and shrine inscriptions and decorations, statues, stelae, funerary cones and equipment, papyri and graffiti. While collecting and examining this data, the titular, autobiographical and genealogical information contained within these sources was always of primary interest. The quantity and clarity of these three types of information helped to determine which officials to include for examination in this dissertation. It must also be stated that the Theban tombs, which represent a significant percentage of the overall data sources, were often unfinished in antiquity and are today in varying states of preservation. This is a limitation of the data that is unavoidable and has the result that in some cases our knowledge of an official’s family and career would be

142.

23

substantially increased had the tomb autobiography or duty-related scenes been extant or less damaged. The original data set that was compiled contains every official known or thought to have served during the Thutmosis III – Amenhotep II period, and the list generated includes over 100 individuals.108 Each official was initially given the same treatment, wherein all the available information about an official was collected. As mentioned above, the material comes from both monumental and portable artifacts. The collection of the data involved not only textual documentation, but also required particular attention to the way in which these texts were displayed, namely, the associated and supplementary decoration in tomb scenes, and the type and placement of other inscribed artifacts within tomb, temple or secondary chapel. For Theban tombs, which the majority of the examined officials owned, an eight-month field season was undertaken in order to investigate and record the many that are unpublished or inadequately published, and to check the published documents against what is visible on the walls today.109 Once the materials were collected, they were examined for their genealogical, titular, and autobiographical content. The assumption was made that, in order to discuss an official in terms of how he started, progressed and ended his career, a sufficient

106

This appears throughout his discussion, but see esp. Appendix A, pp.123-142. Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, p.1-2. 108 Where an official could not be dated precisely by the presence of a cartouche on one or more of his monuments, stylistic criteria and inscriptional evidence was used. Studies that were consulted with regard to the dating of the tombs, one of the major sources of information, include Dziobek, Datierungsmethode; Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole; Shedid, Stil der Grabmalereien. The “inscriptional evidence” refers to particular epithets that were employed during this period to indicate an official’s participation on the military campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, such as “one relating to the legs of the lord of the two lands” and “follower of the king on his marches”. 109 Preliminary fieldwork was carried out in May 2000 and February 2001, which was supported in part by The Department of Near Eastern Studies, The Johns Hopkins University and by the Explorers Club Foundation in the form of a ‘Field Research Grant’, awarded in May 2000. The majority of the fieldwork was undertaken between February and September of 2002 and was funded by the American Research 107

24

amount of information must be present on and retrievable from his monuments. This follows established methods of prosopographical research, discussed above, which rely on familial and chronological connections to make historically relevant conclusions.110 Several criteria were established to decide if enough data existed and these were applied equally to all officials regardless of the types of monuments that were available for study. Ownership of a tomb did not lead to automatic inclusion, despite the fact that in general we can equate a tomb with an indication of the recognized (upper) status of the individual who owned it.111 Likewise, an extensive number of monuments did not necessarily lead to an official’s final presence in the corpus. The essential qualifying criterion for being placed in the selected list was that at least one monument needed to include some combination of titular, autobiographical and genealogical information. Because the goal of the present study is to produce more than simply a list of officials who held positions during the time frame being examined, men who would simply “fill out” the chronological aspects are not used in the present discussion. The decisive factors that led to an official’s inclusion or exclusion in this dissertation are perhaps best presented in list form: 1) An official for whom extensive titular, career and genealogical material was available was automatically included. 2) If there was no information about an official’s family, either ancestors or

Center in Egypt (ARCE) in the form of a USBECA Fellowship, awarded in May 2001. Full inscriptional and photographic documentation was carried out in each tomb. 110 Especially relevant are Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Kitchen, TIP. 111 This is based on the fact that the ability to have a tomb built and decorated indicated that the owner was recognized by the king as an upper level or honored man of status. For several excellent discussions dealing with the planning of the Theban Necropolis and the possible correlation between status and tomb placement, see J. Assmann (ed.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen and N. Strudwick (ed.), Theban ecropolis.

25

descendants,112 the official held only one title, and no career information could be gleaned from tomb scenes or other inscriptions, he was automatically excluded. 3) If a single-titled official had familial information which would permit a suggestion either as to how he obtained his position, or how his status was influential for his children, then he was included. If there was autobiographical information that allowed for comments to be made about how positions were achieved despite the lack of knowledge about any family connection to the beginning or furthering of the career, then the official was included. Likewise, if the genealogical data allowed for commentary on the official’s career despite the lack of autobiographical details, he was included. 4) An official who held more than one title, but for whom there was no context in which to trace the progression of the career, and who lacked any familial information was excluded. The resulting selection reduced the number of officials to a little less than half the original number, but did not limit the discussion to only those “uppermost” officials whom scholars have extensively discussed. Rather, a cross-section of the government could be examined that incorporated men from multiple levels (i.e., servant (sDm-as) to vizier) of all areas of the administration (palace, religious, military and civil). The ability to present such a broad spectrum was an initial concern of the project, because it was not at first clear whether there would be sufficient material to talk about a 3rd priest of Amun in the same way as there was for the vizier. Fortunately, this is not the case, and thus it is not a factor of the available evidence that has led to previous scholars concentrating on

112

Simply knowing the names of family members is not sufficient, titles must also be available for one or more relatives which can be related in a significant way to that of the official being examined. Likewise full genealogical information without any preserved titles would have resulted in automatic exclusion had this been encountered.

26

the highest levels of office.113

V. Data Analysis Two components of the data that are especially important to this study are the titular and genealogical information contained within the collected material. The passage of titles provides a means of tracing a family’s control over an office or position. However, ancient Egyptians held different types of titles, only some of which actually had responsibilities attached to them. In order to determine the relationships between officials and the various people they chose to portray on their monuments, it is necessary to understand how ancient Egyptians defined their relationships to each other. The following section discusses the use of the terms “office” and “title” in this study and presents a review of the research that has been done on ancient Egyptian kinship terminology. Following Quirke, an office is understood as a position to which regular duties and functions were attached.114 The means for tracing the passage of an office and the progression of a career is through the titles by which an office is called, e.g., vizier, overseer of the granaries, soldier. Therefore, “title” becomes essentially interchangeable with “office”, and is used as such throughout the dissertation. An important feature of this dissertation is that the offices/titles that are included are entirely dependent upon the information available about the men who held them. A further distinction should be made

113

In the case of the priesthood, the work of Kees had long ago shown that it was at least possible to investigate the lower echelons as well; cf. Kees, Priestertum and ZÄS 85, pp. 45-56; and more recently Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”. This is also to some degree true for the military; cf. Helck, Einfluss; Schulman, MRTO; Gnirs, Militär. 114 According to Quirke, the “administrative title” is “the official expression of tasks undertaken on a regular basis by a person”, which is “recognizable from its use, in more than one source, as a single

27

between those “titles” which are markers of status, and those which are indicators of positions with actual duties.115 An “honorific title” is one that was granted as symbol of rank or in recognition of service, but which entailed no tangible responsibilities on the part of the bearer. “Epithets” are generally understood as descriptive phrases, which can relate either to status or to functions in a particular office.116 During the New Kingdom an official would list his titles in order from rank to function, thus those placed at the beginning are generally standard honorifics that almost every official would have held.117 Next are epithets and finally titles, though these two categories could sometimes be interwoven such that an epithet might describe the title it precedes or follows. Thus, the titles were positioned in a specific order, with the most prestigious generally found closest to the official’s name. One exception to this rule is that honorific titles which denote a particularly close relationship to the king could also occur closer, or even adjacent, to the official’s name.118 The study of the kinship structure and terminology of ancient Egypt has been sporadic within the field of Egyptology, and has not received significant attention by anthropologists. Extensive work on the kinship structure and terminology has been done

element identifying a person in addition to the name”; cf. Quirke, in: Studies Simpson, p.670-1. 115 This dissertation generally follows the work of Quirke in distinguishing an epithet or honorific from a proper title; cf. Quirke, in: Studies Simpson, pp. 665-677. Another source frequently consulted in this regard was Guksch, Königsdienst. A useful study on epithets of the Middle Kingdom that is often applicable to the New Kingdom is Doxey, Epithets. For autobiographies and its development as a genre, see Lichtheim, Maat; Loprieno, in: History and Forms, pp. 39-58, esp.43-9(para.5-6), 51-2 (para.8); Gnirs in: History and Forms, pp.191-242. 116 Though as Quirke points out, epithets can sometimes be used as titles and titles turned into epithets through the addition of adjectives; cf. Quirke, in: Studies Simpson, pp.670ff. 117 Helck, LdÄ VI, cols.596-601. 118 This is especially true of the “title” Xrd n kAp “child of the court”, the interpretation of which is poorly understood. Feucht, Das Kind, pp.266-304; Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.38-47; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.

28

only for the Middle Kingdom,119 and to a lesser extent the Ramesside period.120 Unfortunately, the New Kingdom as a whole has not been comprehensively studied,121 nor is it appropriate in the context of this dissertation to do so.122 Nonetheless, given the overall summary nature of ancient Egyptian kinship terms and their subsequently wide range of meaning, a few comments are necessary. For ease of reference a chart that summarizes the findings of the major treatments of the topic can be found at the end of the book (Fig.1, p.457).123 In general, the vocabulary the ancient Egyptians employed to denote kinship was restricted to the simplest modes of expressing filiation: father (it), mother (mwt), brother (sn), sister (snt), son (sA), daughter (sAt), husband (hAy), and wife (Hmt).124 In order to convey a further degree of relationship, for example nephew, a combination of terms was often used, such as sA n snt.i “son of my sister”. In addition, during the mid-18th Dynasty a shift begins in which the word for sister (snt) becomes used instead of Hmt to denote a

119

Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen; Franke, LdÄ VI, cols. 1032-36; Lustig, Ideologies; Robins, CdÉ54, pp. 197-217; Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.152-68. 120 Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Bierbrier, JEA 66, pp.100-7. See also the work of Toivari-Viitala on the status and roles of women at Deir el-Medina; cf. Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina. 121 This is the case despite the work of Sheila Whale on the representation of the family in the private tombs of the 18th Dynasty; cf. Whale, Family. In her brief treatment of kinship terminology (pp.239-40) Whale essentially reiterates Franke’s work on the Middle Kingdom, and thus adds little to the discussion of kinship terminology employed in the New Kingdom. 122 In preparation of the short discussion that follows a much longer document was initially prepared. 123 This table is a compilation of several different studies on the subject of ancient Egyptian kinship terminology. For discussions of ancient Egyptian kinship terminology see, Bierbrier, JEA 66, pp.100-107; Clère, Comptes rendus 6, pp.35-36; Cerny, in: Studi Calderini, pp.51-5; Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen; Franke, LdÄ VI, cols. 1032-36; Lustig, Ideologies; Robins, CdÉ 54, pp.197-217; Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.152-68; Matthieu, Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3/49, pp.45-75. Articles on filiation include Berlev, Palestinskii Sbornik 9/72, pp.13-42; Sethe, ZÄS 49, pp.95-9;Vernus, RdE 23, pp.193-9; those on terms for in-laws include Englebach, ASAE 22, pp.124-38; Fischer, in: Egyptian Studies I, pp.19-21; Roquet, BIFAO 77, pp.119-27; Smith, JEA 44, p.122; Ward, ZÄS 95, pp.6572; other articles of interest are those of Legrain, RT 31, pp.1-10; Matthieu, Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3/49, pp.45-75; Piehl, Sphinx 3, pp.1-6. 124 Clère, Comptes rendus 6, pp. 35-36. In addition, the word for child could be expressed in a number of ways, including Xrd (Middle – New Kingdoms), Sri(t) in the Late Egyptian stage of the language, and Hwn(t) (Ptolemaic Period and sporadically in the New Kingdom); cf. MacDonald, BACE 5, pp.53-9.

29

man’s wife.125 Lineage could be specified by either a descriptive or factual formula. The first indicates that a person is born to (ir n) his father and born of (ms n) his mother, while in the New Kingdom the latter is a simple “A, son (sA) of B” statement that can be repeated until the desired ancestor is reached.126 Gay Robins examined both the “simple” and “compound” (made up of two or more basic terms) uses of the basic kinship terms and found that in most cases only the basic terms are used, while the more complicated forms are rarely attested. Instead, the reference point is altered (i.e., from Ego to Ego’s spouse) to allow for a simpler term to be employed.127 Harco Willems incorporated anthropological research into his study of Egyptian kinship terms of the Middle Kingdom and generated a list of complex rules that he views as forming a foundation for the ancient Egyptian terminological system.128 He found that in their employment of the terminology the ancient Egyptians seem to have mainly drawn distinctions between lineals (direct ascent or descent from ego, i.e., father, mother, children) and non-lineals (i.e., siblings, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece), rather than between generations.129 Detlef Franke’s authoritative work on the ancient Egyptian kinship structure and terminology of the Middle Kingdom,130 subsequently summarized

125

Cerny, JEA 40, p.25, 27-8. The means for expressing filiation in fact develops over time. In the Old Kingdom the formula used is A sA.f B, “A, his son, B”, while in the Middle Kingdom this changes to A sA B “A’s son B”. This switches in the New Kingdom such that A sA B reads “A, son of B”; cf. Sethe, ZÄS 49, pp. 95-99; Berlev, Palestinskii Sbornik 9/72, pp. 13-42; Robins, CdE 54, p.198 with n.(3). 127 Robins, CdÉ 54, pp.197-217. Most of her data comes from Middle Kingdom stelae, with some additional information from New Kingdom tombs, such as that of Paheri at el-Kab. 128 Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.152-68. 129 “… every kinship system differentiates lineals by generation. … The main distinction, in the Egyptian terminology is not one between generations, but rather between lineals (for whom the terms it, mwt and sA(t) were used; the lineals of ego’s spouse and possibly also his ChSp [Children’s Spouses] apparently also come under this heading) and non-lineals (including those of ego’s spouse), who were all termed sn(t).” Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, p.162. In the anthropological literature, collateral is used to indicate non-lineal kin. 130 Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen. This was reviewed by both Robins and Willems; cf. Willems, Bijdragen Tot 141, pp.186-8; Robins, BiOr 41, pp.602-6. 126

30

for the Lexikon,131 goes well beyond that of Robins and Willems.132 However, for our purposes here, it is enough to state that the findings of Willems and Robins are essentially confirmed. Franke states that the Egyptian system at its core was bilateral133 and descriptive. The same terms were used for siblings and cousins (sn/snt). In addition, lineals and collaterals were always strictly distinguished, whereas generations were not.134 Thus, ancient Egyptian kin terminology was able to express all relationships using the basic, compound or extended meanings of the terms, regardless of line of descent or the gender of ego.135 The significance of this is that, for example, the statement “A sA B,” can mean not only “A, son of B,” but also “A, grandson of B,” which considerably changes the nature of the relationship. Judith Lustig reviewed the ancient Egyptian kinship terminology, meaning and structure as employed by Egyptologists in her Ph.D. thesis on kinship, gender, age and class relations during the Middle Kingdom.136 After contributing and incorporating more recent anthropological methodology and theory, Lustig’s findings essentially agree with

131

Franke, LdÄ VI, cols. 1032-36. Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen. For example, Franke distinguishes between kinship and descent, whereby kinship (Verwandtschaft) is based on heredity, and descent (Abstammung) follows legal and social rules (pp.1-10). He examines not just the meanings and uses of the kinship terms themselves, but also attempts to reconstruct the various terms employed for different kinship- and descent-groups, taking into account these “rules of descent” (Abstammung[sregeln]). This is not the place for a long discussion of his findings, however it would be extremely interesting to examine them with regard to the phrase “staff of old age” (mdw iAw), with which Franke does not deal. Franke also incorporates anthropological research and theory in his treatment of how the ancient Egyptian kinship system relates to other, modern, systems and what it conveys about ancient Egyptian social structure. 133 This refers to the rules governing the type of descent, which are understood as a “social allocation and has nothing to do with genealogical relationships or the recognition thereof”; cf. Murdock, Social Structure, p.15. According to Murdock, a system of bilateral descent indicates that a person is associated “with a group of very close relatives irrespective of their particular genealogical connection” (p.15). 134 An example of this is that snt, “sister”, could be used to refer to a sister, aunt, niece, or sister-in-law, but never a daughter or daughter-in-law. The word for father (it) could also denote grandfather, father-in-law, or ancestor generally. 135 The preceding three sentences come from Franke; cf. Franke, LdÄ VI, cols. 1032-36; Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen, pp.154-77. See also the review by Robins, BiOr 41, pp.602-6. 136 She used the Middle Kingdom tombs at Meir as the basis for her research; cf. Lustig, Ideologies, esp. Ch.3, pp. 45-65. Lustig discussed in particular the work of Robins, Willems and Franke cited above. 132

31

those of her Egyptological predecessors.137 She views Franke’s genealogical chart138 as “an ideal reconstruction of the Egyptian terminological system”.139 Most of the New Kingdom data comes from the Ramesside Period (19th-20th Dynasties) as represented at the workmen’s village and associated tombs of Deir elMedina. Bierbrier, Davies and Toivari-Viitala have utilized the extensive genealogical material that is available from the Deir el-Medina sources for the purposes of studying broader social issues.140 Although the approach each takes involves much less theoretical work than that done by Willems and Franke, whose primary goal was to understand the kinship terms themselves, nonetheless, each contributes to our understanding of the kin terms and how they can be interpreted. Bierbrier’s survey of the kinship terminology as it is employed at Deir el-Medina lead him to the conclusion that “terms of relationship in tomb-reliefs and stelae usually do indicate an actual relationship rather than a vague affinity, but the terms themselves may have a wider meaning than has hitherto been supposed.”141 Toivari-Viitala’s study on the status and roles of women at Deir el-Medina reviews the various methods of identifying a woman or wife (Hmt, Hbswt, snt, nbt pr), as well as the terms for mother (mwt), and female children (sAt and Srit).142 The distinction that Toivari-Viitala makes between literary (i.e., tombs and stelae) and non-literary material is a rare example of attention to the contextual description and use of kinship terminology. This methodology enables her to determine that there was a difference, for

137

Lustig, Ideologies, pp. 58-65. Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen, fig. 3, p.163. 139 Lustig, Ideologies, p.59. 140 Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom; Bierbrier, JEA 66, pp.100-7; Bierbrier, in: Village Voices, pp.1-7; Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina; Davies, Who’s Who. 141 Bierbrier, JEA 66, pp.106-7. One example of this is the use of the term sn “brother”, to denote a brotherin-law; cf. Bierbrier, Late ew Kingdom, p.xiv. 142 Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina. 138

32

example, in the use of the term snt in literary rather than non-literary texts. It occurs more frequently in the former, where it generally denoted a wife or sister, while in the latter snt was usually applied to a collateral relative.143 In the present work the interpretation of the kin terminology generally follows the results of the literature presented above. Because the period under investigation has not been comprehensively studied, new information and evidence for the shifts seen between the Middle Kingdom and Late New Kingdom were always watched for. Extensive commentary about familial relationships as indicated by the kin terminology employed is offered when it is deemed relevant to the argument being presented. For example, in the discussion of the steward of the vizier Amenemhat, who depicted numerous family members on a wall of his tomb (TT82), a substantial review of how the people represented were related to Amenemhat demonstrates that he inherited almost all of his titles from both consanguines and marriage-related family.144

VI. Structuring of the data When approaching the topic of official advancement one must first consider the different ways in which an office could be obtained. Although there are, naturally, any number of possibilities, five basic methods suggested themselves: appointment, heredity, nepotism, friendship, and merit. These are of course discrete categories, but the reality is that many cases probably involved more than one of these factors. The questions thus raised are, which played the stronger role for a given official, and how were different

143

Toivari-Viitala, Women at Deir el-Medina, pp.29-30. This is especially interesting given that during the mid-18th Dynasty a shift began to take place in which snt “sister” became the more common term used to denote wife in a literary context; cf. Cerny, JEA 40, p.25, 27-8. This would be an extremely interesting further line of inquiry.

33

methods intertwined? Each official presented is discussed with these issues in mind, and basic conclusions are drawn at the end of the individual discussed. General conclusions are placed at the end of each chapter, with a final chapter that brings the study into the broader socio-historical context of the mid-18th Dynasty and the transition between Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. Here it is appropriate to indicate exactly what is meant by the terms listed above, and to discuss briefly the types of evidence that might show these systems at work in ancient Egypt.

VIa. Appointment The hypothesis that there existed in ancient Egypt different methods by which an official could obtain his job must be understood in the context of the king’s role in ancient Egyptian society. Numerous studies on the institution of ancient Egyptian kingship, and on the Egyptians’ own perception of it,145 have demonstrated that the king was not simply the ruler of Egypt, but the “holder of a divine office” through which he acted as “absolute monarch, the chief executive officer of the state … chief justice, … (and) supreme high priest.”146 This has led to a conception of ancient Egypt’s administrative structure as essentially “pyramidal” in nature, with the king at the apex.147 Even more schematic, or linear renderings place the king above all other branches.148

144

See Ch.1, pp.100-110. See, for example, portions of each chapter in Trigger, et al. Social History and the various contributions in O’Connor and Silverman, Ancient Egyptian Kingship. Concise surveys include Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp. 273-7 and Bonhême, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.238-45. 146 Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.273-4. 147 See, for example, Trigger, in: Social History, pp.1-70, esp. 44-61; Kemp, in: Social History, pp. 71-182, esp. 71-85, 96-112. 148 See, for example, the discussions in O’Connor, in: Social History, pp.183-278, esp. 204-18 with fig.3.4. Quite different approaches and interpretations have been suggested by Cruz-Uribe, in: For His Ka, pp.4553, Lehner, in: Dynamics, and Müller-Wollerman, BES 9, pp.25-54. Cruz-Uribe focuses on fluctuating “spheres of influence” between the king, families, and particular offices, while Müller-Wollerman and 145

34

Following from this, the king (in theory) was responsible for the appointment and promotion, as well as the demotion and even removal, of all his officials.149 Thus, there was an underlying assumption in ancient Egypt that all officials were “ultimately conferred in their posts”150 by the king. In practice however, the king could not possibly have controlled so many diverse areas without delegating at least some his of “royal” authority.151 It is most likely that the highest office-holders of each administrative department would have been granted the authority to appoint lower level officials. Scholars have therefore concluded that with regard to appointment, the king concerned himself mainly with those who attained the highest levels, such as the vizier, treasurer, high priest of Amun, and king’s son of Nubia (viceroy).152 These upper level officials, and certainly the vizier, were probably responsible for appointing their subordinates.153 However, official autobiographies often simply state “I was x,” and even when a chronology of upward mobility can be discerned, the statements are still often the same,

Lehner, the latter following the work of Schloen (House of the Father), discuss the patrimonial nature of the bureaucracy. 149 See the various “Amts-” entries by Helck , LdÄ I, cols. 226-32, as well as his entry on “officialdom”, idem., cols.672-5. Examples are presented below. 150 Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia II, p.576. 151 Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.68f; Leprohon, in: CAE I, p.273, 281; Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, p.76f.; Wilkinson, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.3, p. 316f. But for a different interpretation, cf. Cruz-Uribe, in: For His Ka, pp.45-53 152 This was essentially true in all periods of Egyptian history. In general see Edgerton, JES 6, pp.152-60; Hayes, CAH II.1, pp.353-63; Helck, LdÄ I, cols. 226-32, 672-5; Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.273-87; O’Connor, in: CAE I, pp.319-59; Trigger, et al., Social History. The syntheses in Oxford Encyclopedia provided by Doxey (Vol.2, pp.68-73), Warburton (Vol.2, pp.576-83), Wilkinson (Vol.3, pp.314-9), Quirke (Vol.1, pp.12-16), Pardey (Vol.1, pp.16-20), and Haring (Vol.1, pp.20-3), are especially useful. For a recent and brief overview of the administrative structure of the Old through Late Periods and how it relates to the law see Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.98-108, 258-66, 294-307, 783-92 and the literature cited therein. On Old Kingdom administration see Strudwick, Administration, and Kanawati, Egyptian Administration and Governmental Reforms. For the Middle Kingdom, see Quirke, Administration, and RdE 37, pp.107-30. New Kingdom sources include Helck, Verwaltung; McDowell, Jurisdiction (Deir el-Medina); Murnane, in: Amenhotep III, pp.173-221; O’Connor, in: Social History, pp.204-18; Van den Boorn, Duties, esp. pp.313ff., 325ff., 344ff., 365ff. 153 See the references cited above. For the role of the vizier in appointing officials directly under him and in

35

though now set in a narrative context.154 This would seem to indicate that due to the implicit belief that all officials were placed in their posts, whether by the king or by a delegate, the actual act of being appointed is generally not expressed. Helck stated that on those occasions that an official records his selection for a position, inscriptional and pictorial evidence demonstrates that it is consistently the king who is named or depicted as ceremonially conferring it.155 This led him to conclude that appointment was apparently undertaken through the decree of a king, and that only when kingship was weak did this not occur.156 The accuracy of Helck’s theory will be examined throughout the current study, but it now seems appropriate to review briefly some of the evidence on which he based his remarks. The 5th Dynasty vizier Senedjemib recorded in his Giza tomb a letter sent to him by the king. The content of this “royal decree” (wD-nswt) informs Senedjemib, who was already the chief justice and vizier, that he “shall serve as overseer of all works of the king.”157 Senedjemib’s abilities had apparently distinguished him such that he was rewarded with a promotion and additional responsibilities.158 Similarly, the Middle Kingdom stele of Ikhernofret reports how the king (Sesostris III) sent him on a journey to Abydos “because it is a fact that you profited from My Majesty’s tutelage when as My Majesty’s foster son, a sole pupil of my palace, you grew up. My Majesty appointed you as a companion when you were a young man of twenty-six years of age. My Majesty did

adjacent areas, cf. Van den Boorn, Duties, pp.310ff., 325ff.; James, Pharaoh’s People, Ch.2, pp.51-72. 154 A perusal of the autobiographical inscriptions included in Lichtheim’s AEL Vols.1-3, and Lichtheim, Autobiographies, demonstrates this nicely. See also Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.191-241, esp. pp.219ff. where she chronicles the stylistic development of the autobiography from the Old Kingdom through the Late Period. 155 Helck, LdÄ I, col.227. 156 See in general the references cited in Helck’s “Amts-” entries, LdÄ I, cols. 226-32, esp. cols. 227,228, 231, as well as his entry on “officialdom”, Helck, cols.672-5, esp. col. 673. 157 For a translation, see Wente, Letters, p.18-19, no.3

36

this because I saw you as one of excellent conduct, keen of tongue, who had come from the womb as one wise.”159 Ikhernofret apparently performed his duty well, as he eventually became the overseer of the two houses of gold, overseer of the two houses of silver, and chief treasurer for his king. From the New Kingdom, the speech of the courtiers in the vizier Rekhmire’s tomb, Tutankhamun’s “Restoration Stele,” and Horemheb’s coronation inscription each provide examples of the king’s apparent role in appointing officials. In Rekhmire’s tomb the courtiers proclaim of Thutmosis III that he “confirms every office and furnishes the temples with regulations and guiding principles of every sort, he being secure on his seat and the children of the nobles on those of their fathers.”160 Although this is a general statement of the king’s responsibility, Tutankhamun and Horemheb explicitly state that they refurbished the temples and (re-)installed the priests from among sons of officials and troops, respectively.161 The New Kingdom inscription of Nebwenenef provides a slightly different example of royal appointment. Nebwenenef, the high priest of Onuris and Hathor, and overseer of priests from Imen to Abydos, is selected by the Amun oracle from among a list of names presented to him by Ramesses II to be installed as high priest of Amun in Karnak.162 Although not directly stated, the text certainly implies that Nebwenenef had proven himself at Abydos and was thus promoted to be the high priest of the most important temple complex in ancient Egypt at the time.

158

Wente, Letters, p.18-19, no.3. Wente, Letters, p.24, no.10. Cf. Lichtheim, AEL I, pp.123-5 and Autobiographies, pp.98-100, no.42. This portion of the inscription is also in the form of a royal decree. The stele, originally set up at Abydos, is now in Berlin, (no.1204). 160 Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.xvi, cols. 11-13. 161 See the translations in Murnane, Amarna Texts, pp.212-14, esp. p.213 and pp.230-33, esp. p.233. Bennet, JEA 25, p.13, n.36., also notes the comparison between the two texts. 162 KRI III, pp.283-5. 159

37

In the preceding examples it is the king who remarks upon his official’s distinction. However, during the later Old Kingdom it also became common to include self-laudatory phrases and narrative-style accounts of one’s career in autobiographies.163 This practice continues and develops throughout ancient Egyptian history, in inscriptions found not just in tombs, but on statues and stelae as well.164 In general, these officials credit their own abilities, as opposed to their families, as the reason for being noticed and subsequently advanced by the king. Thus Weni,165 when he is made “count and governor of Upper Egypt”, relates that this happened because he was “worthy in his Majesty’s heart,” and implies that his service in the palace prior to this promotion was what brought him to the king’s attention.166 Likewise the Middle Kingdom treasurer Tjetji states “He (i.e., the king) made me great, he advanced my rank, he put me in the place of his trust … the treasure was in my hand, under my seal.”167 New Kingdom examples of this type also exist, but as many of these will be dealt with in subsequent chapters, it is superfluous to mention them here.168 Also of interest are documents that indicate royal involvement in a seemingly hereditary position. One of the Coptos Decrees, dating to the end of the Old Kingdom,

163

As, for example in the 6th Dynasty autobiographies of Weni and Harkhuf. See Lichtheim, AEL I, pp.1827 for convenient translations. 164 For an excellent overview of the development of the genre, see Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.191241, esp. pp.219ff. Lichtheim, Autobiographies, covers the Middle Kingdom in particular, while Lichthiem, Maat, surveys texts from the Old Kingdom through Late Period. There is as yet no comprehensive treatment of New Kingdom autobiographies. 165 Weni was an important official of the 6th Dynasty whose tomb at Abydos was recently re-discovered by Janet Richards. 166 Lichtheim, AEL I, p.21. 167 Lichtheim, AEL I, p.91. The stele, now in the British Museum (no.614), was originally set up at Tjentji’s Theban tomb. 168 In general, during the New Kingdom these officials commonly refer to their “excellence” (mnx) and “trustworthiness” (iqrw). See, for example, the autobiographies compared in Urk. IV, 1515-39. The most recent work on the self-representation of New Kingdom officials is Guksch, Königsdienst.

38

offers an example of this.169 The king elevates the overseer of prophets Idi to the position of governor of Upper Egypt and overseer of prophets between the first and seventh nomes of Upper Egypt. In this newly granted capacity Idi serves under the direction of his father, the vizier, governor of Upper Egypt, and overseer of prophets Shemay. In the decree, the king says to Shemay that he (i.e., the king) “has commanded that he (i.e., Idi) serve as magistrate, that he act exemplarily in these nomes in accordance with your (i.e., Shemay’s) command, and that he be your spokesman. … It is [in complete harmony] that he shall act in conjunction [with you].” 170 The last portion of the inscription implies a situation similar to that of the mdw iAw, or “staff of old age.”171 According to Blumenthal, the term or method employed in the Old Kingdom that parallels that of mdw iAw was imyxt “successor”.172 Although this phrase is not used here, the sense seems nonetheless the same. Idi, who was already following in his father’s footsteps as overseer of prophets, was further promoted by the king in order to act as the deputy or assistant to his father, who was presumably reaching an advanced age. The similarity between this example and that of the New Kingdom vizier Aametu and his son User, discussed in detail in Chapter 1, is striking. The issue of royal involvement in a hereditary position can also be seen in the autobiography of Khnumhotep II of Beni Hasan.173 Lloyd argues that although his hereditary claims to the position of nomarch were valid, royal appointment was needed in

169

Coptos Decree M, dated to the 8th Dynasty; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.102. A translation is provided in Wente, Letters, p.21, no.7. 170 Wente, Letters, p.21. 171 The use of this term is reviewed in Chapter 1, Section Ib., pp.64-9. 172 Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, p.91. 173 Khnumhotep II was the owner of Tomb 2 at Beni Hasan; cf. Newberry, Beni Hasan.

39

order to gain the position.174 He goes on to propose that this should be viewed as a “legitimizing” strategy used by Khnumhotep II to strengthen his position.175 Others have suggested that nomarchs in place at the beginning of the 11th and 12th Dynasties retained their positions due to their loyalty to the kings who founded them.176 Although the actual level of the king’s involvement cannot, perhaps, be ascertained with certainty, what is clear is that the appearance of being appointed by the king was an important image for Khnumhotep II to project.177 Instances of an official losing his position due to negligence or misconduct are also known.178 An excellent example of a king removing an official from his post comes from Cairo Stele 30770, dated to the 17th Dynasty.179 In this case a priest of Min who had stolen a sacred relic from the temple is caught, and in response the king issues a punishment decree that affects not only the current office holder, but his descendants and any potential supporters as well. The king states: Have him expelled from the temple of my father Min and have him stripped of his temple rank from son to son and heir to heir, he being cast upon the ground and his food stipend, his title deed, and his meat taken away.180

In addition, the king issues a further statement that should anyone petition on the thief’s behalf, or “any king or potentate (sxmw-ir.f)” pardon him, not only will the rank and its holdings be taken from the priest and his descendants, but:

174

Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.27 ff. Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.30. Cf. Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.51-67, esp. pp.59ff. 176 See, for example, Callender, in: Oxford History, pp.152, 172-6; Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-102; Seidelmeyer, in: Oxford History, p.135f., 142f. 177 This example is discussed at length in Chapter 1, Section Ia., pp.60-64. 178 See Helck, LdÄ I, cols. 231-32 for a brief list. 179 Lorton, JESHO 20, pp.53-4; Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.256, 268, 301, 346-7. Translations are in Breasted, ARE I, 339-41; Wente, Letters, pp.25-6, no.13. 180 Wente, Letters, p.26, no.13. The king in question is Nebkheperre Intef. 175

40

not anyone of his family or of the relatives of his father and mother shall be allowed to be inducted into this rank, but this rank should be conferred on the seal-bearer of the Lower Egyptian king and overseer of a work-center Minemhat, and its food stipend, its title deed, and its meat given to him, it (the rank) being confirmed in his possession in writing in the temple of my father Min, lord of Coptos, from son to son and heir to heir.181

With this clause it becomes evident that although hereditary succession was an oftpracticed event, perhaps especially amongst temple personnel,182 the king did have the final word, and could demonstrate his authority when he so chose. Finally, there are examples in which it is not the king, but an upper-level official who wields the authority to make decisions regarding appointments. Documents recording legal disputes involving the inheritance of land and possessions (including offices) from the Old Kingdom through Late Period indicate that the claims could be brought before the king, vizier, or local courts (DADAt and qnbt).183 Even the dead could be appealed to for legal assistance, as is quite evident in the so-called “Letters to the Dead,” which are known from the Old through New Kingdoms.184 Although the examples are few, it seems as though when an upper-level official is

181

Wente, Letters, p.26, no.13. On this issue, see, for example, Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.68f., 71ff.; Helck, LdÄ IV, cols. 1084-97; Sauneron, Priests, pp.42-50. 183 Logan, JARCE 37, p.70. Many of these fall under the category of the imyt-pr, discussed above. In the Old Kingdom there is no evidence beyond that of the “royal decrees” for the king’s involvement; cf. Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.94, 98-108. During the Middle and New Kingdoms the king’s involvement is apparently more direct, cf. Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.258-66 and 294-307. Some of the more interesting New Kingdom documents that record legal disputes include the Inscription of Mes (Allam, JEA 75, pp.10312; Gardiner, Inscription of Mes; Gaballa, Mose; Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.292, 334) and the Ramesside will of the woman Naunakhte (Cerny, JEA 31, pp.29-53; Pestman, in: Gleanings, pp.173-81; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.211-2, 215-6; Jasnow, in: AE Law, p.335). See also the documents form Deir elMedina that deal mostly with economic disputes; McDowell, Jurisdiction. 184 The fundamental work is still that of Gardiner and Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead. For more recent 182

41

consulted or petitioned, the superior in question is one who would have direct influence over the subordinate. The Duties of the Vizier clearly states that the vizier was in fact responsible for choosing at least some of his subordinates.185 In addition, as van den Boorn has demonstrated, the Duties provides a great deal of information about the structure of the judicial and administrative areas of the ancient Egyptian government and the vizier’s role in running them.186 Thus, we learn that the vizier was the “primary deputy of the king” and as such acted as “a ‘functional extension’ of the king’s power” in both the pr-nsw (palace) and civil administration.187 Two examples that demonstrate different aspects of the vizier’s role date to before and after the composition of the Duties.188 From the Middle Kingdom we have a document of the vizier Intefoker in which he composes a list of stewards in the Thinite nome who are allowed to use palace boats.189 His authority to determine the names is based on the fact that one of his “titles” is “one who commands the stewards of the palace administration who are in the Thinite nome.”190 A rather different picture is provided by a Ramesside letter sent from the chief of police Mininuy to “[his] lord”, the vizier Khay.191 The end purpose of the letter is unclear, but Mininuy seems to be using it to remind his

translations, cf. Wente, Letters, pp.210-20. As for example in CG 25975 where assistance is requested in regaining possession of a house (p.211, no.340). 185 The best preserved form of text comes from the New Kingdom (reign of Thutmosis III) tomb of the vizier Rekhmire. Sections 17 and 19 are the ones referred to here; cf. Van den Boorn, Duties, pp.250ff., 276ff., 310ff. 186 Van den Boorn, Duties, esp. his discussion of the “activities of the vizier,” pp.309-331. 187 Van den Boorn, Duties, esp. pp.310-24, with fig.11. The quote comes from p.322. 188 I follow van den Boorn’s re-dating of the text to the early 18th Dynasty, and probably the reign of Ahmose; cf. van den Boorn, Duties, pp.334-76. Compare the review by Lorton, CdÉ 70, pp.123-32, esp.125-6. 189 From Papyrus Reisner II, Section G; cf. Wente, Letters, p.44, no.43.. Intefoker was vizier during the reign of Sesostris I. 190 Wente, Letters, p.44, no.43. Two of the stewards are listed as being sons of stewards. 191 O. Toronto A 11, rt.12-30, dated to the reign of Ramesses II.

42

superior, who presumably appointed him,192 that he is a well-respected official who, as a policeman of western Thebes (i.e., the cemetery zone), “was appointed chief of police, being handsomely rewarded on account of the goodness of [my] conduct.”193 An example of an appeal for an appointment into an apparently hereditary priestly position is provided by a section of the Late Period Papyrus Rylands 9.194 Here we learn of a man named Horwedja who asks the priest Peteese, an upper-level official “for an office as priest, as his father has also always been a priest”.195 Peteese requires that he prove his hereditary claim to the position, and thus Horwedja brings evidence demonstrating that his father was a priest of Amun at Taiwadj. He is subsequently granted the same office as his father, and also Peteese’s daughter as a wife.196 This brief review suggests that contrary to Helck’ assertion, the involvement of the king or a superior was not mentioned in a consistent manner among documents that record an official’s appointment. This seems to concur with Warburton’s statement that “[m]any offices … required royal approval, whether tacit, real, or pro forma.” 197 Thus, it appears that with regard to appointment, transmission of office could occur in three ways. The king could be an essentially inactive participant, that is, the king’s approval was both expected and implied, and therefore no proclamation was necessary. In contrast, the king, or his delegate, could take an active role and in fact appoint the official to his position, whether hereditary or not. This suggests that the approval of the king was necessary and

192 Duties, Section 17: “It is he (i.e., the vizier) who appoints the overseer of police;” cf. van den Boorn, Duties, pp.250f. 193 Wente, Letters, p.46, no.48. 194 P. Rylands 9 is dated to the 26th-27th Dynasties. It was originally published by Griffith, Catalogue Rylands. The relevant text appears in Col.ix, cf. Pestman, Marriage, p.8; Vittmann, Papyrus Rylands 9, pp.143-4, 445-49. 195 Pestman, Marriage, p.8. 196 Pestman, Marriage, p.8; Vittmann, Papyrus Rylands 9, pp.143-4, 445-49. 197 Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.576.

43

not absolutely expected. Finally, reference to an appointment by the king could represent a mere formality, wherein mentioning that the king sanctioned the assumption of the position perhaps reinforced it. The ability to determine the degree or actuality of the king’s (or his delegate’s) involvement may be reflected in the terminology employed, or in the pictorial record. For example, presentation scenes of the official before the king from the Amarna Period and later depicting an official receiving gold collars from the king are generally interpreted as denoting actual ceremonies.198 In addition, even from the brief review above it appears that the ancient Egyptians themselves used several terms to express appointment: iri ‘to make, act (as)’,199 rdi ‘to place, appoint (as, to)’,200 sxnt ‘to advance, promote’,201 and dhn ‘to appoint’.202 Since different terminology seems to have been used by the ancient Egyptians, it is possible that each of these verbs may have had different implications for the contemporary reader. One may have indicted tacit approval, while another would imply formal approval conducted in ceremony at the king’s palace. The scenes and inscriptions that form the body of the data will be examined closely when discussing each official in order to determine if there is evidence for active, passive, or formalized appointment. However, since, as it has been stated, there existed for the ancient

198 As for example in the tombs of Parennefer at Amarna and Horemheb at Saqarra. See in general, Davies, Rock Tombs; Kemp, Anatomy, pp.261-317; Martin, Hidden Tombs, pp.35-100. 199 See Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.26, no.3, with reference to Urk. IV, 545.7; Urk. I, 106.9; Urk. IV, 1112, 9. WB I: 109, 26-31. Meeks, AL I:37, 77.0383. Meeks, AL II:41-2, 78.0416. Meeks, AL III:28-30, 79.0288. 200 See Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.154f., with reference to Bersheh I, 33; Beni Hasan I, 25, 46-7; Urk. IV, 897.14. WB II:466, 13; 467, 26, 37-8. Meeks, AL I:223-4, 77.2452. Meeks, AL II:227-8, 77.2459. Meeks, AL III:175-6, 79.1804. 201 See Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.242, with reference to Urk. IV, 259.2, 992.14; Urk. VII, 66.12. WB IV:255, 12-17; 256, 1-2, 9. Meeks, AL I:342, 77.3820, with reference to Helck, Merikare, 36; ChapHatsh, 136,l.8, 139. Meeks, AL II:346, 77.3771 with reference to Dendera VIII, 115, 15. 202 See Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.315, with reference to P.Kahun 11.19; Beni Hasan I, 25, 107; Urk. IV, 3.9, 663.2. WB V:479, 6-11, 18. Meeks, AL I:438, 77.5082, with reference to ChapHatsh, 130 l.8, 136

44

Egyptians an underlying assumption that all positions were appointed, a chapter on appointment is not included. Rather, when evidence for stated or implied appointment appears, it will be discussed in conjunction with the other possible methods for obtaining office in order to more clearly understand the interplay between the concept of appointment and the practice of job acquisition.

VIb. Heredity203 Heredity refers to a method of succession in which an official acquires his title(s) and position(s) as the designated heir of his father or family member through a (legally) recognized system of inheritance.204 In ancient Egypt, the eldest son was the ideal heir and a structure existed to ensure that he would inherit his father’s property, possessions, and often titles.205 However, it is also important to understand that the son did not inherit to the exclusion of the remainder of his family, but rather as the executor or trustee of the estate.206 The ancient Egyptians also recognized that the ideal was not always realized and so they established means for adoption and methods to designate someone other than the eldest son as heir.207 Another method of ensuring that a son inherited the position of his father was to place him as a “staff of old age,” making the son an assistant, deputy, or

l.7; Zivie, Giza 66 l.4. Meeks, AL III:339, 79.3581, with reference to KRI II: 331, 8. 203 The following discussion is a short abstract of the lengthier document that introduces the chapter dealing with this method of acquiring office. 204 OED, 2nd edition, 1989 (web), under: “heredity”, entry 1., “hereditary, (a.) n.”, entries 1. and 3., and “inheritance”, entry I.1. 205 In general, see Mrsich, LdÄ I, cols.1235-60; Allam, in: Oxford Encyclopedia III, pp.158-61; Allam, OA 16, pp.89-97. More specifically, Pestman, in: Laws of Succession, pp.136-9; Janssen and Pestman, JEHSO 11, esp. pp.167-9; Eyre, JEA 78, pp.215-6; Johnson, in: Mistress of House, pp.175-85; Lüddeckens, Ägyptische Eheverträge, pp.279-83. 206 Eyre, JEA 78, pp.215-6; Johnson, in: Mistress of House, pp.179 ff.; Lüddeckens, Ägyptische Eheverträge, pp.276-86; Théodoridès, RIDA 17, pp.140-5. 207 The imyt-pr (transfer-deed) document, marriage, and formal adoption could all be utilized for this purpose. Johnson, in: Mistress of House, pp.177-84; Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73; Allam, LdÄ I, cols. 66-7;

45

even replacement for the father.208 It also appears that the inheritance of a title and office could be both legitimized and revoked by the king.209 Despite the legal means by which ancient Egyptians could designate successors, their concept of the “ideal heir” would seem to imply that hereditary right may have been recognized even without a precise document or term describing it.210 This type of inheritance through lineage certainly seems to have been possible for some Middle Kingdom officials,211 and so its presence in the New Kingdom will also be assessed.

VIc. "epotism Traditionally the term nepotism refers to an arrangement whereby an official receives his position based not on merit, ability, or hereditary right but by virtue of being related to a person in a position of authority or influence.212 Nepotism by definition is not part of a recognized system of inheritance. Thus, stating that an official obtained his employment through nepotism usually indicates that he was given that position by a relative in preference to an eligible non-relation regardless of his actual qualifications. The concept of acquiring a post through personal friendship is also a form of nepotism,

Eyre, JEA 78, pp.207-221; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp. 199-221. These methods will be further discussed in Ch. 1. 208 This term, mdw iAw, first appears in the Old Kingdom and is found sporadically into the later New Kingdom. Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass; McDowell, Care of the Elderly. It will be fully discussed in Ch.1, Section Ib., pp.64-9. 209 In the former case see for example the discussion by Lloyd on the inscription of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hasan, Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.21-37. The inscription on Cairo stele 30770 (17th Dynasty) is an example of an office being taken away, cf. Lorton, JEHSO 20, pp.18-21; Wente, Letters, pp.25-6, no.13. These topics are further discussed in Ch.1. 210 On this issue, and the possibility of “(residual) ‘rights of primogeniture’”, see Johnson, in: Mistress of House, pp.183-4. 211 As for example Khnumhotep II, a Middle Kingdom official in Beni Hasan, who inherits his position from a maternal uncle. Khnumhotep will be discussed in Ch.1, Section Ia., pp.60-4. Recent treatments of Khnumhotep’s autobiography are Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.21-37 and Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.51-67. This may be the case for the vizier User and his nephew and successor Rekhmire, who will be discussed in Ch.1, pp.79-95

46

and can apply to “friends, protégés, or others within a person's sphere of influence”.213 Through nepotism, a close relationship to the king or an upper-level official could potentially be beneficial for one’s career. When dealing with the issue of nepotism in ancient Egypt we must be careful not to assign our own, generally disapproving, views upon it. Although the modern concept of nepotism often carries a negative connotation, it is not clear to what extent this may, or may not, have been true in ancient Egypt. During the early Old Kingdom, it is clear that there was a degree of royal nepotism in the filling of the highest positions, such as that of vizier.214 Although this practice was already ending in the later Old Kingdom, this has been attributed to a change in policy “which can only have originated with the king, to open the higher state offices to men without affiliation to the royal family.”215 Though royal nepotism was waning in the late Old Kingdom, there is no evidence to suggest concentrated disapproval of the early Old Kingdom pharaohs’ nepotistic practices.216 While transfers of office and property through an imyt-pr, or “transfer document,” could be contested,217 these involve inheritance as opposed to nepotism. In general, there seems to be a lack of evidence for legal sanctions against nepotism.218 This seems to suggest that this was a “normal” part of ancient Egyptian society, and may even imply

212

OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: “nepotism, n.”, entry 1.a. OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: “nepotism, n.”, entry 1.b. 214 Helck, LdÄ I, cols.672-5; Helck, Beamtentiteln, pp.136-142; Strudwick, Administration, pp.338-9; Schmitz, Königssohn, pp.43ff., 103ff., 159ff. 215 Strudwick, Administration, p.338. 216 Cf. Strudwick, Administration, pp.338ff., who suggests that political controversies may have instigated the change in policy. Malek, in: Oxford History, pp.101 ff., seems to indicate that the increasingly bureaucratic nature of the later Old Kingdom was the cause. 217 I follow Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73 in the translation of this term. See Chapter 1, Section Ic, pp.69-73. 218 In a basic survey of the various different types of legal disputes, claims, or other documents that record some kind of court intervention, none appeared to deal with this issue. Likewise, in Jasnow’s survey of the documentation concerning the law in ancient Egypt, the topic of complaints against sons obtaining positions through their fathers or other family members did not appear; cf. Jasnow, in: AE Law, pp.93213

47

that it was relatively common practice.219 However, there may have been at least some degree of moral sanction attached to the nepotistic act.220 The genre of literature known as “Didactic” consists of works that generally fall under the broader categories known as “Instructions” and “Laments.”221 The former, as might be deduced from their title, “teach right living … in the form of advice and exhortation,” and “inveigh against wrongdoing.”222 In the New Kingdom “Instruction of Amenemope”223 a particular set of maxims seems relevant to the discussion: Do not falsify the temple rations, Do not grasp and you’ll find profit. Do not remove a servant of the god, So as to do favors to another.224

The text, which is composed of thirty chapters, follows a pattern of “drawing the portraits of opposite character types” in order to emphasize the differences between right and wrong, good and evil.225 Since it is meant as a set of instructions composed by Amenemope for his son on how to conduct himself in all aspects of his life, it is interesting to note that one of the things he should not do is defrock temple priests on

140, 255-359, 777-818. 219 The imyt-pr, for example, was generally employed when the transfer was one that involved circumstances outside the normal inheritance. See most recently Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73; cf. note 218 above. 220 Baines discussion on the concepts of morality and ethics and their manifestation in ancient Egyptian sources demonstrates the difficulties involved in dealing with this material. Cf. Baines, in: Religion, pp.130-61. See also Lichtheim, Moral Values. 221 This is also often called “Wisdom Literature.” In general see the articles in LdÄ III, cols.964-992 (grouped under “Lehren”) and several works by Lichtheim; cf. Lichtheim, Moral Values; Lichtheim, in: History and Forms; Lichtheim, Maat; Lichtheim, Wisdom Literature. See also Baines, in: Religion, pp.123200; Williams, JAOS 101, pp.1-19; Jasnow, Wisdom Text; and several contributions to Loprieno (ed.), History and Forms. 222 Lichtheim, in: History and Forms, p.243. 223 Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.146-63; Shirun-Grumach, LdÄ III, cols.971-4. 224 Lichtheim, AEL II, p.151. The lines come from Ch.5, VI,14-17.

48

behalf of a third party.226 Although this is the only example I am aware of that makes such a statement, it is interesting nonetheless to consider the possibility that the ancient Egyptians did look askance upon nepotism. In contrast, however, the restoration of the temples and their clergy that was asserted by both Tutankhamun and Horemheb could potentially be viewed as creating a system that would inevitably lead towards nepotism. As Tutankhamun states on a stele set up at Karnak: he (i.e., Tutankhamun) installed lay priests and higher clergy from among the children of the officials (srw) of their cities, each one being the son-of-a-man whose name was known227

And so, too, for Horemheb in his coronation text: And he (i.e., Horemheb) equipped them (i.e., the temples) with lay priests and lector priests from the pick of the home troops (i.e., the army).228

By placing sons of upper levels officials as priests, these two kings were potentially instituting a system in which it could come to be expected that a well-placed administrator, by virtue of his position, would be able to install his sons in the clergy. It has been suggested that by the New Kingdom there was a long-standing tradition of “elite” members of society filling the ranks of the palace, civil, religious, and

225

Lichtheim, in: History and Forms, p.258. The Hm-nTr, or “servant of the god,” was a lower or perhaps mid-level priest within the temple. See Helck, LdÄ IV, cols.1084-97; Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.69. 227 The text comes from Tutankhamun’s “Restoration Stele” which was erected at Karnak. Translation from Murnane, Amarna Texts, p.213. See also Bennet, JEA 25, pp.8-15. Bennet also notes the comparison with the Horemheb text, cf. Bennet, JEA 25, p.13, n.36. 228 The text comes from the back of a dyad, now in the Turin Museum. Translation from Murnane, Amarna Texts, p.233. 226

49

military administrations, over which the king was the supreme head.229 In addition, as was noted above, both the king and his highest officials had the authority to place men in office.230 This may indicate that acquiring one’s job through nepotism or personal friendship in the New Kingdom may have relied more on family connections than royal ones. There would appear to be different ways in which it might be possible to attain a position through nepotism or friendship. The first is “direct nepotism” through a family member who is either himself of high enough rank to assist a younger relative, or has the position and ability to influence his superior in favor of his family. Evidence for this type of nepotism might be found by examining the titles that family members held in order to determine if there appears to be a familial sphere of influence. A second kind of nepotism may have been practiced by certain upper-level officials who had especially close relationships with their sovereign. Roehrig, for example, demonstrated that the “men and women entrusted with the upbringing of the royal children (both male and female) were highly honored members of Egyptian society in Dynasty 18.”231 This contact may have afforded them a great deal of influence with the king, which they could use to enhance their own child’s position in a type of “indirect royal nepotism.” In this scenario, we might expect to find a significant disconnect between the careers of the child and those of their ancestors. Like the nepotistic possibilities mentioned above, obtaining a position through personal friendship could occur either with a member of the upper elite or with the king. The difference, however, is that the official who is the beneficiary is also the one

229

Helck, LdÄ I, cols.672-5; Leprohon, in: CAE I, pp.280-5; Edgerton, JES 6, pp.152-160; O’Connor, in: Social History, pp.209ff. 230 See section Va. “Appointment” and the literature cited therein. 231 Roehrig, Royal urse, p.1

50

asserting influence. The possibility of job acquisition or career advancement due to one’s connection to an official of higher status is not one that has been considered previously. It may be that an official’s personal relationship to someone in authority is difficult to demonstrate except in regard to the king. However, the fact that upper-level officials were able to appoint their subordinates,232 suggests that although direct evidence is perhaps lacking, it is nonetheless likely that men tried and were sometimes able to use friendships with well-placed officials in obtaining jobs. Marriages between mid- or lower-level officials and the daughters of their superiors may be an indication of this type of connection. However, we must be careful in applying this too readily, since evidence of whether the marriage produced the promotion or the promotion resulted in the marriage is rare.233 Previous scholars have suggested that the phrase Xrd n kAp, “child of the court (or nursery),” should be interpreted to mean that its bearer was most likely raised in the royal court.234 The possibility of growing up at the palace and being educated in the court is certainly indicated on a Middle Kingdom stele where the king says: “you profited from My Majesty’s tutelage when as My Majesty’s foster son, a sole pupil of my palace, you grew up.”235 Helck concluded that Amenhotep II surrounded himself with these “court pages”.236 He also posited many of the men who served in the military campaigns of

232

See section Va. “Appointment” and the literature cited therein. If the marriage came first, then it enters into the category of familial nepotism, whereas if the job came first it could in theory be either through friendship or merit. 234 On the Xrd(w) n kAp in general see Feucht, Das Kind, pp.266-304 (pp.272-293 provides a list of Xrd n kAp during the 18th Dynasty, though some are missing) and Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.38-47. The latter is essentially an English summary of the material covered in the relevant section of her book. For a brief discussion of the bearers of this title in the reign of Thutmosis III, see also Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 235 This is from the Middle Kingdom stele of Ikhernofret ( Berlin Stele 1204); cf. Wente, Letters, p.24, no.10; Lichtheim, AEL I, pp.123-5 and Autobiographies, pp.98-100, no.42. 236 Helck, Verwaltung, p.538. See also der Manuelian, Amenhotep II, pp.168-9, and contra this, Bryan, 233

51

Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II became formed “wartime friendships” with their kings that resulted in their appointment as civil officials following their soldierly exploits.237 This implies that it would also be possible to benefit from royal favor based on links created in adulthood. The evidence that led Helck to these conclusions will be reevaluated and combined with a detailed examination at the relevant officials. The objective is to determine whether Helck’s explanations cover the totality of the circumstances that led to an official’s rise in career.

Vd. Merit Merit is in theory the most straightforward and easily understood reason for official advancement. The position is awarded based on a man’s ability and competence rather than his familial or political affiliations.238 However, merit can also be defined as being entitled to reward or gratitude, either implied or explicit.239 In ancient Egypt however, the question must be asked whether it was possible for individuals to rise in social status and career through their own abilities. As reviewed above, the supreme decision maker was the king, and his closest advisors were men such as the vizier, overseer of the seal, and possibly royal tutors.240 To whom among the decision makers would the official’s abilities be demonstrated and reported, and how could we determine whether this occurred? It seems that the most likely place in which we might find evidence for

Thutmose IV, pp.353 ff. 237 Helck, Einfluss, p.71-2. 238 OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: “merit, n.”, entry I.1.b., after 1881 and “merit system”, under entry IV, Compounds. 239 OED, new edition, 2003 (web), under: “merit, n.”, entry I.1.b. 240 O’Connor, in: Social History, pp.209ff.; van den Boorn, Duties, pp.313 ff., 344 ff.; Bryan, in: Thutmosis

52

meritorious rise is in the statements made by the officials themselves. The autobiographies of the 18th Dynasty may be especially fruitful in this regard because it is during this time period that actual life accomplishments and personal characteristics become integrated within the ritualistic phrases that had formed the framework for this genre since the late Old Kingdom.241 According to Gnirs, statements about professional achievements seek to demonstrate not only historical information, but also to represent the deceased as having achieved distinction due to personal qualification and initiative.242 Thus, the phraseology common to many New Kingdom autobiographies asserts one’s own capabilities and performance, such as “his trustworthiness (iqrw) made his place,”243 “my lord praised me on account of my excellence,”244 and “my heart (i.e. intelligence) advanced (sxn) my place and my trustworthiness (iqrw) caused that he (i.e., the king) place me in the council chamber.”245 Eyre asserts that “the private ‘autobiography’ is a speech of self-justification, addressed by the tomb owner to posterity, and to a lesser extent to his contemporaries.”246 As such, it should be kept in mind that when examining the inscriptions of these men we are provided with the image of how they have chosen to be remembered. In order to ascertain whether these statements might have some truth to them, there must be other types of evidence that support such a claim. This evidence might be found in statements where the deceased claims to have been appointed or promoted to a post on account of

III, forthcoming. 241 Gnirs, in: History and Forms, p.228. These “ritualistic phrases” include, e.g., the recital of virtuous conduct, appeal to the living, and negative confessions; cf. Lichtheim, Maat. 242 Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.230-1. 243 Urk. IV, 1522.9: ir.n iqrw.f st.f 244 Urk. IV, 1533.5: Hswn win b.i Hr mnx.i 245 Urk. IV, 1533.8: in ib.i sxnt st.i iqrw.i di.n.f wi m sH 246 Eyre, in: History and Forms, p.422.

53

his actions. There is also the possibility that a very regular route to advancement, with no obvious outside connections that might assist an individual in achieving a position, would indicate that the promotions were based on the person’s abilities. Likewise, a distinct absence of information about family background may suggest that an official did not view his family as an important to his career, and may help us to conclude that the official in question rose through his own recognition. One of the “models” being examined in this study is Helck’s theory that service in the military campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II resulted in a class of elite military men.247 Although Helck seems to credit this entirely to the personal friendships that were created out of warfare, it seems possible that in fact the political environment of the period merely provided another path through which capable officials could rise to prominence. A detailed examination of an official’s career as it compares with his own self-depiction may help to distinguish between truly merit-based advancement and officials whose position and status were primarily made possible by royal favor or friendship.

VII. Data presentation The data examined and evaluated in this dissertation is presented according to the different methods of obtaining office described above, with the exception of appointment.248 It is important to mention that although these categories are being used to structure the ensuing chapters, this is not meant to imply that an official’s position was attained entirely through this single method. The author is aware that in some cases

247

Helck, Einfluss, pp. 28ff, 41ff., 69ff..

54

overlap may exist between these discrete classifications, and it may be difficult to ascertain whether or not there was a single determining factor behind an official’s elevation, rather than a product of several paths to office. This format was chosen because it will better enable us to look and the how and why of office transmission, as opposed to simply the fact that titles changed hands. As stated at the outset, this study represents a new approach to examining the structure of the government in ancient Egypt. Thus, it requires a design that will allow us to address the questions that are being asked. How were offices obtained? What do the methods of transmission indicate about the composition of the government? What is the relationship between familial influence and a connection with the king in the acquisition and retainment of positions? In this one respect, the following study is attempting to ascertain the culture of officialdom, as opposed to merely describing its existence. Several drawbacks to the studies arranged by title-based categories have already been mentioned.249 However, it is worth reiterating that the main reason this structure was not chosen is that titles tend to obscure the trends under discussion here, namely, the means by which the men of ancient Egypt attained their positions, and not who they were, or what they accomplished while in office. Likewise, a purely chronological ordering would make it difficult for the reader to gain a sense of commonalities and differences in how particular positions were obtained through time. Nonetheless, for the study to be both readable and usable some type of classification system must be used. Within the categories chosen, every effort has been made to avoid rigidity while simultaneously exposing the underlying methods by which

248

The reasons for this are stated in the preceding discussion.

55

officials could obtain their positions. The individual chapter titles have been chosen in an attempt to demonstrate the fluidity within and between these categories. Except for the chapter that deals with heredity, which has a lengthy introduction,250 short introductions preface each chapter to inform the reader of the types of information that will be sought, how the particular method for obtaining office might present itself in the data, and the importance of attention to detail. In an effort to avoid biasing the reader or presenting the data as already conclusive, but still to make comprehension of the material easier, within each chapter the officials are arranged chronologically – those who served only Thutmosis III, those of the co-regency, and finally Amenhotep II. This will allow us to discern the chronological changes taking place for each method of obtaining office, e.g., if a particular method is more prevalent during one period than another. The officials are introduced simply by name, with a brief subheading indicating the position(s) held and the method(s) by which his office was attained. Each official receives a lengthy treatment that demonstrates how he attained office and why he was included in a particular chapter as opposed to another. In some cases, the “overlap” mentioned above will result in an official being discussed at length in one chapter and referred to briefly in another.251 Conclusions placed at the end of each chapter are intended to summarize and synthesize the information that has be presented in that chapter, and reference to the larger socio-historical context is kept to a minimum.

249

See above, pp.1-3, Section III, pp.14ff. This chapter has a much longer introduction due to the fact that there is an abundance of documentation about legal methods of inheritance in ancient Egypt. 251 For example, a man who acquires an upper level position through his own merit and was then able to 250

56

Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the presence of a hereditary system for the transmission of office, and the role of the law in determining inheritance. There are four subsections that are presented at the beginning: lineage, staff of old age (mdw iAw), legal recourse (e.g., the imyt-pr, adoption), and appointment. The men discussed here can generally be seen to be using at least one of these methods as a primary means of passing on their office(s). Chapter 2 deals with the issues of nepotism and personal friendship as they relate to obtaining a position. In order to reflect the different sources of nepotism, in this chapter the officials are grouped under the headings “Family Influence” and “Personal Influence.” In the first, familial spheres of influence within an area of administration and the role played by a family member’s personal relationship with the king are examined. The latter section considers officials who stress a personal relationship to the king as the primary reason for their elite status. In addition, examples of elite, as opposed to royal, friendship leading to career advancement may also surface. Chapter 3 concerns the possible existence of merit-based promotion and the evidence of such that might be found in the autobiographies of mid-18th Dynasty officials. Finally, in Chapter 4, the data and initial conclusions presented in the previous three chapters are brought together, synthesized, and placed in the overall historical context of the mid-18th Dynasty. The three questions asked at the outset of the dissertation, (what were the means by which an ancient Egyptian could attain office, what does this tell us about the inner structure of the government during this time period, and what do these patterns (or lack thereof) indicate about an official’s or family’s influence vis-à-vis the king in achieving and retaining a position) will each be reviewed. Officials who

use his status to influence the career paths of his children, either through heredity or nepotism.

57

particularly demonstrate how the approach taken in the present work has changed earlier theories will be presented.

58

Chapter 1 The Power of Heredity: Inheritance252 and Influence253

I. Introduction In ancient Egypt, the concept that an official’s (eldest) son would assume the position of his father as the latter reached old age, or upon his death, was the “ideal” situation.254 That this certainly did occur is supported by a variety of different documents, e.g. legal records, narratives, mythological texts and tomb inscriptions.255 The goal in this chapter is to discuss those men who obtained their positions through a recognized system of hereditary succession. This includes the “legal” passage of exact titles through the “staff of old age” as well as the situation wherein a family’s control over a position makes the inheritance of the title clear, although there is a lack of formal wording. Before discussing men for whom this was possible in the mid-18th Dynasty, I will review the system of hereditary succession that existed prior to the New Kingdom in ancient Egypt, and present the different ways in which the passage of titles and offices to designated 252 An inherited transmission of office is recognized by the passage of exact titles within a family, with or without legal wording being applied. The term “family” denotes both blood relations (consanguines), and those who enter through marriage. 253 Familial influence is in fact a form of nepotism, which is treated in the next chapter. Its inclusion in this chapter is secondary to direct inheritance, and only discussed in a few cases where it is significantly intertwined with inherited positions and serves as an additional marker for a family overall power. 254 Mrsich, LdÄ I, cols.1235-60; Pestman, in: Laws of Succession, pp.136-9; Allam, LdÄ II, cols.101-03, Allam, OA 16, pp.89-97; Théodoridès, in: Legacy of Egypt, pp. 296-7. The importance of this concept to the ancient Egyptians with regard to royal succession is revealed in the Ramesside mythological narration of the “Contendings of Horus and Seth”. Published by Gardiner, Chester Beatty I, pp.8-26, pls.I-XVI,; See Allam, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.137-45; and the translations by Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.214-23 and Simpson, Literature, pp.91-107. For a discussion of the kinship terminology employed see Egberts, JSSEA 14, pp.5759; Leach, Royal Anthropological Institute ews 15, pp.15-21; Robins, CdÉ 54, pp.202, 205-8; Franke, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen, p.64, Tabel E pp.69-72, pp.330-2; Willems, Bijdragen Tot 139, pp.161 ff., esp. Genealogy VII. See Gardiner, Chester Beatty I, p. 14, pl.I, p.16, pl.V and p.19, pl.VIII for the relevant lines. 255 Jasnow provides an excellent synthesis of many of these, with full literature, in: A E Law, pp.93-140, 255-359, 777-818. On property and inheritance in particular see pp.120-6, 276-9, 328-36, 801-4. See also McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.199-221.

59

heirs could be effected. These have been divided into the following three broad categories: lineage, the “staff of old age” (mdw iAw), and “legal” methods such as the imyt-pr and adoption. The possibility of inheriting one’s office must also be understood in relationship to the role of the king in ancient Egypt. As stated earlier,256 although the king was nominally responsible for appointing all officials, in reality this was probably often delegated to several of the highest officials. In addition, actual statements of being appointed, or references to it, are widely varied in nature. Following the discussion of hereditary passage outlined above, the issue of appointment and its interaction with hereditary methods of office transmission will be returned to briefly.

Ia. Lineage It is generally understood that there existed in ancient Egypt a “hereditary aristocracy of officials.”257 During the early Old Kingdom most upper level officials connected to the central government and priestly administration were related in some way to the king or royal family, but by the 5th Dynasty the number of non-royal officials was rapidly expanding.258 The formation of “priestly dynasties” began to occur during the Old Kingdom, and this practice continued throughout ancient Egyptian history, reaching a climax in the later New Kingdom.259 Although the provinces may have retained a higher

256

See the Introduction to the book, Section VIa., pp.34-45. Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.576 258 Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.71f.; Roth, Egyptian Phyles, pp.207-17; Strudwick, Administration, pp.337-46, esp. p.338; Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.577f., 579. 259 Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.71f.; Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, pp.198203; Haring, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.21f.; Sauneron, Priests, pp.42f. 257

60

level of autonomy throughout the Old Kingdom,260 the authority of the nomarchs rose significantly during the First Intermediate Period, and this was not entirely curtailed with the re-unification of Egypt and concomitant rise in royal power that the Middle Kingdom brought.261 Thus, while already in the later Old Kingdom there is some evidence for the hereditary succession of office,262 this seems to have burgeoned during the Middle Kingdom, especially for regional nomarchs and viziers.263 The autobiographical inscription found in the Beni Hasan tomb (BH 3) of Khnumhotep II, the governor of this region under Amenemhat II, provides us with an excellent example of this situation.264 The family of Khnumhotep II, from his paternal grandfather through to his own sons, apparently dominated the rulership of the 16th and 17th nomes, and possibly had influence within the 15th nome of Upper Egypt.265 Throughout his autobiography, Khnumhotep II makes reference to his paternal and maternal lineage thereby establishing his hereditary right to the governorship of MenatKhufu. Thus, we have a situation where Khnumhotep II, as the son of both a count and a

260

The changing involvement of the king and central court in their control over the provinces during the Old Kingdom is still debated. Compare Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia, Vol.2, p.71f.; Haring, in: Oxford Encyclopedia, Vol.1, p.22f.;Leprohon, in: CA E I, pp.279-80; Pardey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, p.17f.; Strudwick, Administration, pp.340f.; Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.582f. 261 A useful summary of the events of the First Intermediate Period is Siedelmeyer, in: Oxford History, pp.118-47; and likewise Callender in: Oxford History, pp. 148-83 (esp. pp.152, 172-6) for the Middle Kingdom. 262 Malek, in: Oxford History, p.116f. 263 The families come mainly from Asyut, Beni Hasan, Meir, and Bersheh, though the viziers also come from Thebes. See Callender, in: Oxford History, pp.174-6 Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.21-37; Lustig, Ideologies; Allen, in: Studies Simpson, pp.1-26; Allen, in Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29; Brovarski, in: Studies Dunham, pp.14-30; Willems, Chest of Life; Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-102. 264 Treatments of the autobiography and its implications for heredity, the role of royal favor in obtaining and keeping bureaucratic office, and events during Middle Kingdom are Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.51-67; Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.21-37; Ward, GM 71, pp.51-9. See also the discussion by Jansen-Winkeln of the end of the autobiographical inscription; cf. Jansen-Winkeln, GM 180, pp.77-80. On the information gained from the Middle Kingdom coffins at Beni Hasan and elsewhere, see Willems, Chest of Life, esp. pp.60ff. For the original publication of the Beni Hasan tombs see Newberry, Beni Hasan. 265 Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.28. The 15th, or “Hare nome,” was centered at el-Berhseh. In the text, the th 16 , or “Oryx nome,” is also referred to as “Menat-Khufu.” The 17th, or “Input-nome” is generally translated as the Cynopolitan nome. For a convenient list, cf. Helck, LdÄ II, cols.385-408.

61

daughter of a count, states that he is appointed by the king to “the inheritance of my mother’s father in Menat-Khufu”.266 However, he also documents that prior to his inheriting this position it had passed from father to son on his maternal side, implying that his maternal uncle did not have any sons to succeed him.267 Khnumhotep II’s emphasis on the importance of his entire lineage in the passage of office also sets the stage for his sons to follow in hereditary positions of rulership. His eldest son Nakht is given the office “of ruler of the Cynopolitan Nome to the inheritance of the father of his mother”, succeeding his maternal grandfather because his mother Khety was probably an only child.268 The middle son Khnumhotep (III) was appointed as a “door of the foreign lands”, resulting in a career more closely connected with the palace as an expedition-leader, rather than with the family governorship.269 Although Khnumhotpe (III) apparently did not inherit his father’s position, his father’s (and family’s) influence may have enabled Khnumhotep (III) to attain a post that involved leading missions on behalf of the king.270 The youngest son, also named Khnumhotep (IV), was appointed as “mayor”, and therefore probably inherited his father’s station in the Oryx Nome.271

266

Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.22, 2a. Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.22, 2bIII. 268 Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.23, 2cV. 269 Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.23, 2cVI, p.34 note 43; Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, p.57. 270 These expeditions may well have centered around, or started out from the area of Middle Egypt that Khnumhotep (III)’s family controlled. However, for the interpretation that Khnumhotep III was raised in the palace and thus “promoted away” from his father’s inheritance by the king, see Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.59ff, and the brief comment by Willems, Chest of Life, p.61f. 271 Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.23, 2cVI; Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, p.58; cf. Ward, GM 71, pp.51-9. Khnumhotep IV was the son of a second wife, the treasurer Tjat. It is certainly possible that Khnumhotep III was originally intended as the successor, but was moved into another, tangentially related, position because his father was still able to perform his duties. Thus Khnumhotep IV succeeded him. 267

62

By using a combination of direct descent and marriage the family of Khnumhotep II spread and strengthened its power base in Beni Hasan and the surrounding area.272 However, it is possible that heredity alone was not strong enough to cement their positions. Lloyd’s interpretation of Khnumhotep II’s autobiographical inscription is that royal favor was often considered important in strengthening a position within a particular family, particularly in the case of local administration.273 Lloyd suggests that “the major point of emphasis throughout the biography is the legitimacy of royal decision-making when appointments are made.” 274 Furthermore, “the kingship factor is clearly perceived as operating in counterpoint with hereditary family claims in creating and validating power”.275 Although Khnumhotep II’s inscription contains the ‘royal praises’ so common to other autobiographies,276 they seem to affirm what is already a recognized hereditary position, rather than to establish it. Likewise, the direct juxtaposition of hereditary claims with royal appointment or favor may also imply that for local administrators the king’s sanction was important, though not necessary.277 In contrast to this, the contemporary

272

A similar situation happened at Meir, where the rulership of the 14th nome passed through at least five generations of the same family and at Bersheh, where five or perhaps seven generations held the title of ruler of the Hare nome. In both cases a combination of direct descent and marriage was utilized. See Lustig, Ideologies, esp. pp.90 ff.; Willems, Chest of Life, esp. pp.68 ff., 82 ff.; Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80102; Brovarski, in: Studies Dunham, pp.14-30. See Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.21-9 for a discussion of the four Bersheh rulers who were also viziers. 273 Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, pp.27 ff. He holds the view that for Khnumhotep and his family the “validation of [hereditary] claims by royal support is consistently seen as essential.” (p.30) 274 Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.27. 275 Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.27. 276 For example, the autobiography of the Old Kingdom official Weni; the Middle Kingdom stele of Ikhernofret from Abydos (Berlin Museum 1204), Montuhotep from Abydos (CG 20539) and of Meri (Louvre C3); Amenemhat’s inscription in his tomb at Beni Hasan (no.2). 277 This is somewhat contra Lloyd (in: Studies Griffiths, pp.27-8) who states that “although the role of inheritance is emphasized, this point is immediately followed by an acknowledgement of the importance of royal favour in gaining the position.” (emphasis added). It is outside the scope of this study to comment at length on the relationship between the king and his nomarchs, and their so-called “decline,” during the Middle Kingdom. The two main hypotheses seem to be that either the king stopped “appointing” sons to their father’s positions in an intentional effort to decrease their power and eliminate the office (Cruz-Uribe, VA 3, pp.107-11) or rather that the king brought these sons into the court, thereby shifting alliances and wealth such that the “provincial élite would be transformed into members of the residence élite.” Cf.

63

officials whose positions and duties kept them in closer contact with the king and the court (i.e. vizier, overseer of the seal, great steward) would have had their status recognized through the placement of their (Theban) tombs near the mortuary temples of the kings they served. This monumental recognition would thus supplant the need for textual repetition of the king’s attitude towards them seen in the tombs of local administrators such as Khnumhotep II.278 Although only one example has been discussed here, the similarities between this case and those of several other nomarchal and vizieral families from this time period clearly demonstrates that a recognized system of hereditary succession to office existed among both the central and provincial the elite.279 In the case of Khnumhotep II, it was apparently effected by a combination of familial control and royal acknowledgement and/or sanctioning through “appointments”. Although not directly stated, the situation may have been rather similar to the one provided by a son being made a “staff of old age” for his father, which forms the subject of the next section.

Ib. Staff of Old Age (mdw mdw iAw) iAw Our understanding of what the phrase mdw iAw, “staff of old age,” actually meant to the ancient Egyptians is somewhat hindered by the paucity of recorded uses; there are Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.63ff. Similarly Lloyd, in: Studies Griffiths, p.30f., who suggests that Khnumhotep II’s statements may reflect a need to justify his position. 278 For excellent discussions of the contemporary “highest officials”, i.e., the viziers, overseers of the seal, and great stewards, see Allen, in Studies Simpson, pp.1-26 and Allen, in Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29. The majority of these officials were of Theban origin, like the ruling family. Several were obviously favored by their kings and were thus granted tombs in the cliffsides surrounding of the mortuary temples of Montuhotep II and Amenemhet I. Allen (in Theban ecropolis, p.26) suggests that the Bersheh officials who were both nomarchs and viziers appear to have been given the latter position in recognition of their support to the Theban royal family. Their appointment, as well as those of a few other non-Thebans to the highest positions would have enabled the ruling family to cement their control over Egypt. See also the literature cited in notes 263 and 272 above. 279 See the literature cited above.

64

only eight examples. In these eight documents, it was a son who was generally named as the mdw iAw for his father, although in one case a daughter seems to have fulfilled this role for her mother.280 Designation as a mdw iAw seems to have involved the formal recognition of an official’s successor and his placement as an assistant or deputy to the official.281 These texts, which were recently examined by Blumenthal and reviewed in part by McDowell, are discussed below.282 The earliest mention of the “staff of old age” comes from the Instruction of the vizier Ptahhotep, where, in the “prologue,” Ptahhotep states; “May this servant be ordered to make a staff of old age”, and later “let my son occupy my place”.283 However, although this text is set in the Old Kingdom, its composition probably dates to the early Middle Kingdom.284 The remaining seven sources are spread evenly in the Middle and New Kingdoms, on varying types of monuments.285 On a papyrus from the Middle Kingdom archive at Kahun the father Mery states: “I am giving (transferring) my office of phylarque to my beloved son Intef called Iuseneb, as a “staff of old age”, because of my having grown old. Cause that he be appointed (dhn) at this moment!”286 280

The Judicial Stela of Amarah, see below. On this term and the evidence for its use, see Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp.84-97; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.201-3; Janssen, Getting Old, pp.70-8; Shehab el-Din, DE 37, pp.59-64. 282 Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp.84-97; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.201-3. 283 Lichtheim, AEL I, p.63; Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, p.84. 284 According to Blumenthal (in: Form und Mass, p.91), the term mdw iAw does not appear until the later Middle Kingdom, although it may have its origin in several metaphors found in the autobiographies of the First Intermediate Period and early Middle Kingdom, e.g. son of old age (sA n iAw), support of old age (Ts iAw), father of the orphan, etc. 285 Middle Kingdom: pKahun III/1 and VIII/1 (Griffith, Hieratic Papyri I, pp.29, 55-6 and II, pl. 11, 22); Tomb 2 of Djhutyhotep at el-Bersheh (Newberry, Bersheh I, pl.33, Urk. VII 46). New Kingdom: TT131 of User; TT97 of Amenemhat; Cairo statue CG 583 of Amenhotep son of Hepu, all discussed by Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp.86-90. Only the late New Kingdom (19th Dynasty, reign of Ramesses V) Judicial Stela of Amarah is left out of Blumenthal’s discussion; cf. Janssen and Pestman, JEHSO 11, p.165; Théodoridès, RIDA 11, pp.45-80; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.220-1. 286 P. Kahun VII/1, l.17-19; Griffith, Petrie Papyri, pp.29-31, pl.XI. See also Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, p.86; Logan, JARCE 37, p.57; Pestman, Marriage, p.138, n.4; Théodoridès, Heritage, pp.304-5 and Idem., Maat, p.386. The quoted text reads: iw.i Hr rdi pAy.i mty n snw n sA.f mry Intf Ddw n.f Iw-snb r mdw iAw xft-ntt wi tn iAw.kwi imi dhn.tw.f m tA At. 281

65

In the tomb of the nomarch Djhutyhotep at Bersheh (Tomb 2)287 a scene on the rear wall of the shrine provides an intriguing look at the occasional disparity between the use and practice of the term mdw iAw.288 Djhutyhotep stands before his father Kay, and the inscription above mentions the placement of Djhutyhotep as a successor (sti). Kay, however, is called a mdw iAw, presumably referring to the role he filled for his father Neheri.289 Neheri was both nomarch of Bersheh and vizier under Amenemhat I.290 When Neheri became vizier, his son Djhutynakht (V) became nomarch, while Kay was placed as a mdw iAw for his father as vizier, whom he eventually succeeded.291 Willems suggests that although Kay was the intended successor to Neheri as nomarch, the appointment to vizier changed this. The term sti, would thus refer to Djhutyhotep’s position as the successor to Kay as a staff of old age for Neheri.292 However, the two terms may rather reflect the fact that Djhutyhotep was marked to inherit his paternal uncle Djhutynakht (V)’s position of nomarch while Kay was still acting as a staff of old age. I would argue that Kay was called a mdw iAw because he in fact functioned as an assistant to Neheri, while Djhutyhotep was simply marked as the designated heir to the position, without any corresponding duties prior to his becoming nomarch. Likewise in the New Kingdom there are tomb inscriptions that contain the phrase mdw iAw, e.g. in the mid-18th Dynasty tombs of the vizier User and the high priest of

287

The tomb was published in two volumes, Newberry, El Bersheh I and Griffith and Newberry, El Bersheh II. 288 Newberry, El Bersheh I, pl.33. 289 Urk. VII, 46; Breasted, ARE I, pp.308-9; Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp.84-6; Willems, JEOL 28, pp. 80-102; 290 Following Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-1 and Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, p.23. 291 Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.23; Brovarski, in: Studies Dunham, p.22f., 26f.; Willems, JEOL 28, pp. 80-102. Griffith gives an account of the genealogy on pp.4-14. This has since been revised by Willems, JEOL 28, pp.80-102. 292 Willems JEOL 28, pp.80-102. With regard to the vizierate, see also their mention in Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.21-6.

66

Amun Amunemhat.293 Both of these officials will be discussed in detail below, but here it is important to mention that although they are both made a “staff of old age” for their fathers, the implementation of this position is different for each of them. User becomes co-vizier alongside his father the vizier Aametu, while Amenemhat is placed as a wabpriest for his father, whose titles are well below those of high priest.294 In the case of Amenhotep son of Hapu, we learn from his scribal statue (CG 583) that he was in charge of young recruits to the army and “assigned them to divisions in the place of their family, the staff of old age being as his beloved son”.295 This implies that the sons replaced rather than assisted their fathers.296 This also appears to be the case for the New Kingdom artisans at Deir el-Medina. Although the term mdw iAw does not seem to be employed, it is clear from the textual and artifactual evidence that there is a strong hereditary component to being a second or third generation artisan within the Deir el-Medina village.297 The clear distinction that is made between sons who are apprentices under their fathers and those who function in the same capacity, though perhaps at a junior level, suggests that the duties involved for a mdw iAw were different depending on the position to which it pertained. The final usage of this phrase seems to indicate that the right of inheritance could depend on a child’s actions towards their elderly parent. On the Judicial Stela of Amarah 293

In User’s tomb (TT 131) it is found three times within the so-called “Co-installation of the Vizier”, and in the autobiography of Amenemhat’s tomb (TT97). 294 They are discussed by Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp. 87-90, and by McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.201-2. 295 McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, p.202; Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, pp. 86-7. 296 This practice is perhaps what the Middle Kingdom chief of police Bebi was referring to when he stated “I bequeathed my task to my son while I was still alive.” Boeser, Beschriebung II, pl.10 lines 8 ff. Cf. Ward, in: Land Tenure, p.69; but also Logan, JARCE 37, p.57, who translates swD.n.i wpt.i as “I handed over my household ….” 297 McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.208-10; Davies, Who’s Who. This is suggested by the concurrent usage of titles and can be seen in the “address lines” of several letters, for example O. Berlin 11247 (Ramesses II): “Addressed by the draftsman Pay to his son, the draftsman Pre[emhab]”; see the translation in Wente, Letters, p.142, no.185.

67

from the late New Kingdom, all the possessions of the couple Paser and Tameheyt are to be given to their daughter.298 First, their son, the second prophet of Amun, Hor declares that everything that belonged to his father Paser now belongs to his sister, the chantress of Khnum Irytekh. Following this his mother the chantress of Horus of Anuba, Tameheyt, declares that everything that her husband Paser left to her should also be given to “Irytekh, my daughter, for she has made for me a staff of old age.”299 It may also imply that Irytekh became a chantress of Horus when her mother became too old. The scarcity of documents that mention mdw iAw led Blumenthal to conclude that the staff of old age was neither the usual nor the most common method used to ensure the transfer of office from father to son.300 Nonetheless, Janssen views it as a “special administrative title” from the Middle Kingdom and 18th Dynasty that was used “to describe a son who was appointed, by the Pharaoh or by a bureaucrat, to act as the deputy and future successor of his father.”301 On the other hand, Shehab el-Din sees it as a “metaphor for son as helper or assistant” that “was temporal and never considered an actual office title.”302 Although the documentation is too limited to make sweeping generalizations, it seems to me that the meaning of the term mdw iAw could vary depending on the situation for which it was invoked. Certainly it was a metaphor, and probably it was temporal, but the son who was made as a staff of old age could apparently be either a deputy under his father or take over his father’s duties. Perhaps then it also had something to do with the type of position, since the latter case is only 298

Janssen and Pestman, JEHSO 11, p.165; Théodoridès, RIDA 11, pp.45-80 = Maat, 559-98; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.220-1; Jasnow, in: A E Law, pp.335-6; Fairman, JEA 24, p.155 pl.xi. 299 McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.220-1. 300 Blumenthal, in: Form und Mass, p.92. She uses the Coptos Decrees O (Urk. I, 299), M (Urk. I, 300-301) and R (Urk. I, 304-6), the Stèle Juridique (CG 52543) and the case of the vizier Rekhmire (Urk. IV, 108593, esp.1076.4) as examples to support this. 301 Janssen, Getting Old, p.77. 302 Shehab el-Din, DE 37, p.64.

68

implied for soldiers and artisans, while the former seems to be that followed by the civil and religious officials.

Ic. The “imyt imytimyt-pr”, pr adoption, and other “legal” methods of ensuring succession There are a number of ancient Egyptian legal texts that deal with the topic of inheritance.303 The division, whether actual or in name only, of one’s property and belongings between the surviving members of the family was an act that was commonly documented, and occasionally disputed.304 The imyt-pr or ‘transfer deed’ (literally “house-document”) seems to have been used as a means of ensuring (or preventing) the transfer of one’s property and belongings to a particular person upon one’s death.305 Although these are mainly concerned with the transfer of property and belongings, there are some that more directly relate to the passage of titles and include the official’s position(s) in the group of items being transferred. An office could also be sold, a fairly common practice with regard to mortuary endowments during the Old and Middle Kingdoms.306 This practice would seem to indicate that the official had at least some degree of control in deciding how his post should be filled, independent of the king’s

303

There are many more texts than can be mentioned here. Some of the more famous, such as an inscription from the Old Kingdom tomb of Metjen, Middle Kingdom Hekanakht Letters, and the New Kingdom Inscription of Mes, are left out because they deal essentially with land holdings and mortuary endowments, and not the transmission of titles or offices. For a recent discussion of many of these texts, and their placement within the history of ancient Egyptian law, see Jasnow, in: A E Law, pp.93-140, 255359, 777-818. See Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73, for an excellent synthesis of the imyt-pr document. 304 It was commonly the case that the eldest son “inherited” his father’s possessions, becoming the head of the household, and was thus required to provide for his siblings and mother as their share of the inheritance. Pestman, in: Laws of Succession, pp. 58-77; Janssen and Pestman, JESHO 11, pp.137-170; Eyre, JEA 78, pp.215-16. This is also reflected in the Middle Kingdom “Tale of Sinuhe” in which Sinuhe, prior to his return to Egypt, spends a day “handing over my possessions to my children, my eldest son taking charge of my tribe; all my possessions become his – my serfs, my herds, my fruit, my fruit trees.” Lichtheim, AEL I, p.231 (l.249-240). 305 This appears to have been in use especially when the intended heir was not the obvious one. Johnson, in: Mistress of House, p. 177; Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73; Jasnow, in: A E Law, pp.127-9. 306 Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73; Jasnow, in: A E Law, p.123-4; Johnson, in: Mistress, pp.176ff.

69

approval. Adoption of orphaned boys, slaves, relatives, or even wives, was another way in which ancient Egyptians manipulated rules governing inheritance.307 Numerous examples exist of documents that record the endowments which can be established for the purposes of perpetuating one’s funerary cult.308 The contracts of Hapidjefa, a high priest of Wepwawet and nomarch of Asyut during the Middle Kingdom, provide perhaps the classic example of the usufruct system attached to land endowments that was in place in ancient Egypt.309 All ten contracts are concerned with the establishment of Hapidjefa’s funerary cult, for which he endows several temple priests and officials with land, servants, cattle, etc., enabling them to provide for his cult. In four of the contracts Hapidjefa makes it explicit that it is the office itself which is endowed, as opposed to the person or family holding it at the time the contract is made.310 Thus, the land and other supplies must pass to the next office holder, regardless of kinship; they cannot be separated from the office and given to a son who does not assume responsibility for perpetuating the cult.311 Indeed, there are records of disputes that occurred over this very issue.312 Also of interest for our purposes is that in Contract III, Hapidjefa endows 22 temple days to a group of wab-priests, stating that this comes from

307

Allam, LdÄ I, cols. 66-7; Eyre, JEA 78, pp.207-21; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.217-20. Many of these are discussed by Ward, in: Land Tenure, pp.63-77, esp. pp.64-6. See also Logan, JARCE 37, pp.49-73, esp. pp.51-5. 309 Reisner, JEA 5, pp.79-98; Théodorides, RIDA 18, pp.108-251; Beinlich, LdÄ I, cols. 1105-7. Harari, ASAE 56, pp.151-6, comments on the public function of the contracts. Spalinger, JAOS 105/1, pp.7-20, provides an economic analysis of the passage of revenues, as opposed to the religious and legal discussions more commonly undertaken. 310 In Contract III (Reisner, JEA 5, p.84): “these days shall pass to every future staff of officials of the temple because they are the ones who offer for me this bread and beer” and again in V (Reisner, JEA 5, p.85): “these three temple days shall pass to every future wardrobe-keeper.” Similarly in Contract IX Reisner, JEA 5, p.87): “this land which I have conveyed to him shall belong to every future overseer of the cemetery-workmen, to every commander of the desert, and to every future desert-guard because they are the ones who are to offer for me this bread and beer” and in Contract X (Reisner, JEA 5, p.88): “this land shall pass to every future overseer of the desert, because he it is who shall offer for me this bread and beer” 311 Ward, in: Land Tenure, p.66. 312 Johnson, in: Mistress, pp.176ff, p.215 n.3; 308

70

his paternal inheritance “inasmuch as I am the son of a wab-priest like each one of you.”313 This indicates that Hapidjefa’s father had bequeathed these days along with the office wab-priest itself.314 The Donation Stele, which records the purchase of the office of 2nd priest of Amun by king Ahmose for his wife Ahmose-Nefertari, provides a similar example. Here an imyt-pr is used to establish that the office, and all of it endowments, is now to be passed “from son to son, heir to heir” in perpetuity.315 In the imyt-pr the eldest son is sometimes named as the heir, but in many of these documents the possessions are divided between the spouse and children, transferred to the wife before being passed on to the children, or passed to a brother when children were not present and no adoption was made.316 The Dynasty 17 Stèle Juridique from Karnak provides an example of this last case.317 This text records an imyt-pr made by Kebsi for the “man of his family” Sobeknakht, interpreted by Spalinger to be a half-brother.318 Kebsi appoints Sobeknakht as the inheritor of his position of governor of el-Kab, which he inherited from his father Imeru, who in turn inherited it from his childless brother.319 Sobeknakht apparently also had to pay 60 debens worth of goods for the transference of 313

Reisner, JEA 5, p.84. Reisner, JEA 5, p.95; Spalinger, JAOS 105, p.12 315 Logan, JARCE 37, p.63f. 316 Where the eldest son is the sole heir see for example, the Old Kingdom inscriptions of Wepemnofret (Goedicke, Privaten Rechsinschriften, pp.31-43; Jasnow, in: A E Law, p.125-6) and of Heti (Jasnow, in: A E Law, p.124-5; Théodoridès, Heritage, p.29; Urk. I, 162). For an imyt-pr made first for the wife, see for example P. Kahun I.1 (Eyre, JEA 78, p.219; Johnson, in: Mistress of House, p.178; Logan, JARCE 37, p.58f.; Parkinson, Voices, pp.108-110) and the New Kingdom Senimose stele (Spalinger, Studien Westendorf, pp.631-652; Jasnow, in: A E Law, p.334; Logan, JARCE 37, p.64f.). Also of interest here is P. Kahun VII.1 in which an imyt-pr made for the wife is revoked in favor of a new one for the son. (Théodoridès, Heritage, pp.304-5; Jasnow, in: A E Law, p.271-2, 278; Logan, JARCE 37, p.57f.). An heir could also be bypassed in favor of grandchildren, as is documented in the Old Kingdom tomb of Metjen, cf. Urk. I, 2.9-11. Or he could inherit everything to the inclusion of other siblings as in the Third Intermediate Period (reign of Osorkon III) Stèle de l’apanage; cf. Breasted, ARE IV, 405; Kitchen, TIP, p.311; Jasnow, in: A E Law, p.780. 317 Dated such by Spalinger, Studien Westendorf, p.643; See also Théodoridès, RIDA 12, pp.132-3; Lacau, Stèle Juridique; Logan, JARCE 37, pp.60-3; Harari, ASAE 51, pp.273-97. 318 Spalinger, Studien Westendorf, pp.645-646. Later in the text Sobeknakht is referred to as a brother of Kebsi (l.10). 319 Lacau, Stèle Juridique, esp. pp.7-9, 17. 314

71

office from Kebsi, 320 implying that an office could effectively be purchased by a person in the right position. Papyrus Kahun II.1 provides an interesting example of payment for office “in which a son lays claim to a sum promised to his father in exchange for an official position”.321 The father had made an imyt-pr for the purpose of transferring his offices to another individual for which payment had not been received. The son claims that when his was near death he said to his son, “If the financial principal which … Iyemiatib swore to me is not given to you, Then you should petition for it from the Officials who will hear it (the case). Then the financial principal will be given to you.”322 These types of transactions may also indicate that an imyt-pr was perhaps a way to legitimize such a sale. Adoption can also be used to provide a “line of inheritance” and ensure that a childless couple is taken care of in their old age.323 That both aspects were important is suggested by the phrases “Let the possessions be given to him who buries”324 and “As for him who has no children, he adopts an orphan instead to bring him up.”325 Thus there were various methods of adoption, both formal and informal, and it could be used for relatives, slaves, and even orphans.326 The most famous example is the so-called

320

Spalinger, in: Studien Westendorf, p.646. Parkinson, Voices, p.110; cf. Logan, JARCE 37, p.59f. 322 Logan, JARCE 37, p.59; cf. Parkinson, Voices, pp.110-111. 323 Eyre, JEA 78, p.215; see also McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.217-20; Allam, Das Altertum 19, pp.3-17. 324 P. Bulaq 10; cf. Janssen and Pestman, JEHSO 11, pp.167-9; Jasnow, in: A E Law, pp. 295, 334-5; Johnson, in: Mistress of House, p.177. 325 O. Berlin 10627; cf. Johnson, in: Mistress of House, p.183, n.94, Allam, Das Altertum 19, p.4; Jasnow, in: A E Law, p.328. 326 Allam, LdÄ I, cols. 66-7. The clearest examples of adoption come only from the later New Kingdom, 19th Dynasty. 321

72

“Adoption Papyrus,” a document from the late New Kingdom.327 In the first part Nebnefer adopts his wife Nanefer/Rennefer because they are childless in order to ensure that his property passes to her and not to his consanguineal relatives upon his death. Following this, Nanefer/Rennefer relates that she has adopted, and thereby freed, three children born by a slave owned by the couple. Finally, the marriage of the eldest adopted daughter to Nanefer/Rennefer’s brother Padiu and Padiu’s subsequent adoption, results in the bequeathing of all her property and belongings to Padiu as head of the household after her husband Nebnefer’s death. Although a particular office is not mentioned in this case, there are examples in which this does seem to occur. The inscription on the stelephorous statue of the royal barber Sibastet describes how he passes on the title of royal barber, which he inherited from his father Nebsehehu, to his slave Imenywi, and marries him to his niece.328 Although not technically adopted, by marrying him into the family and passing on his title, Sibastet provides himself with a “son-like” figure who can look after the presumably childless Sibastet and his wife in their old age.329

Id. Appointment and Heredity The last topic to be treated in the introduction, appointment to office, is one that seems to contradict the chapter’s focus, the power of heredity in obtaining a position. As 327

Allam, LdÄ I, cols. 66-7; Cruz-Uribe, JEA 74,; Gardiner, JEA 26; Eyre, JEA 78; Jasnow, in: A E Law, p.327; McDowell, in: Care of the Elderly, pp.217-8; Johnson, Mistress of House, p.183 (translation). Another “wife adoption” may be recorded in P. Turin 2021; cf. Allam, in: Mélanges Théoridès, pp.23-8; Cerny and Peet, JEA 13; Jasnow, in: A E Law, p.327-8. 328 Louvre statue E.11673. de Linage, BIFAO 38, pp.217-34; Eyre, JEA 78, p.215; Spalinger, Studien Westendorf, pp.638-640, 648-9; Théodoridès, RIDA 12, pp.123-6 ; Jasnow, in : A E Law, p.321. See also Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 329 There is a break in the line, which de Linage restored (and is generally accepted), that indicates that the Nebsehehu was a royal barber in the temple of Bastet at Bubastis, and that this is the position which Imenywi is probably given (de Linage, BIFAO 38: pp.221, 226, 233).

73

the foregoing review has demonstrated, offices could be passed on as a hereditary right, “willed” through devices such as the mdw iAw and adoption, or transferred by means of an imyt-pr. Yet some of the examples presented above include references to an official stating that he was (also) appointed to his office, e.g. Khnumhotep II. In the Introduction to this book a review of examples of appointment to office was presented, and evidence for its use in ancient Egypt was discussed. This does not need to be repeated here. However, the assumption that in ancient Egypt all officials were “ultimately conferred in their posts”330 by the king must be kept in mind when reviewing the evidence for inherited offices. The scenes and inscriptions that form the body of the data will be examined closely when discussing each official in order to determine if there is any evidence for active, passive, or formalized appointment in addition to the stated hereditary right.

Ie. Conclusion We have now seen that the means to achieve hereditary succession to (non-royal) office did in fact exist in ancient Egypt, and that there were several ways in which it could be effected, e.g., through inheritance, the “staff of old age,” and imyt-pr documents. It has also been shown, albeit briefly, that titles could pass to both natural and adopted sons, as well as to brothers, and that they could be sold. In addition, the example of Khnumhotep II suggests that the king sometimes played a role in sanctioning or perhaps directly appointing a son to his father’s position. Some of the cases also indicate that a family’s influence could contribute to the rise of their descendants in different but related

330

Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.576.

74

areas of administration.331 This implies that heredity succession could also lead to a situation where a family’s clear control over one area allows for a son to rise in a related position. When a family begins to have influence in a general area of administration, but not necessarily over the passage of a particular title, nepotism begins to play a prominent role. In the following pages only those officials for whom it can be shown that they attained their exact positions through a system of inheritance will be discussed. The officials who owe their stations primarily to the influence of their families are discussed in the chapter on nepotism.

II. The Officials Ahmose-Aametu, his son User-amun and grandson Rekhmire332 (Three generations of viziers) This family of viziers is the example par excellence of the ability of some officials in the mid-18th Dynasty to retain control over a position.333 Ahmose-Aametu (henceforth Aametu) and two generations of his descendants were able to dominate the vizierate, employing heredity, alliances and the “staff of old age” to maintain this control and spread their family throughout other areas of the government as well. The first vizier, Aametu, was perhaps already part of an established court family. He may have been related to the contemporary line of viceroy’s, and certainly married into the powerful Theban family of the mayor Ineni, who also had strong ties with the Amun priesthood. 331

E.g. Khnumhotep II’s son Khnumhotep who became an expedition-leader, or the Bersheh nomarchs who were also viziers. 332 For ease of reference a basic genealogy that includes only the viziers and the marriage into the family of Ineni is provided on p.458 (Fig.2). A more extensive genealogy will be presented later in the chapter. These newly reconstructed genealogies are based on the research done by myself, as well as that of others, which will be presented in the following discussion of the family. 333 The most recent treatments of this family are Dziobek, MDAIK 45, pp.109-32; Dziobek, User-Amun; Dziobek, Denkmäler; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.

75

This fusion of two important families increased the strength and power of Aametu and subsequently his influence as vizier. He was able to pass on the position to his son Useramun (henceforth User), who was also made a “staff of old age” (mdw iAw) and use his new family connections to spread his offspring throughout the Amun priesthood. The familial nepotism established by Aametu within the Amun precinct continues through the third generation, when it takes on an important role with regard to the vizierate. It would appear that when Rekhmire succeeded his uncle User as vizier both his hereditary claim and his earlier placement within the Amun domain played a significant role. Clearly this family cannot be easily placed in only one “category” for describing their means of obtaining office. However, in the interest of continuity in discussing this large, important and well-known family, and because lineage appears to be the overarching feature of the family’s rise to power, I present them all in this chapter. The position of vizier will be discussed first, followed by a separate section that treats the role of familial nepotism and the Amun priestly domain for the remainder of the family. Information about Aametu’s ancestors and contemporary family is extremely sparse. Aametu’s father’s name is unknown, but the name of Aametu’s mother, Ahhotep, may imply a relation with the court of the first king of the 18th Dynasty, Ahmose, whose own mother was also called Ahhotep.334 In addition, Aametu was possibly related to the family of the early 18th Dynasty viceroy’s of Kush, Ahmose Satayt and his son Ahmose Tjuro, who appear to have controlled this position from the reign of Ahmose through year 3 of Thutmosis I.335 The pattern of their names (i.e., combining Ahmose with a second

334

Suggested by Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.111. Her name is found on a ceiling inscription in the portico of Aametu’s tomb; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.103. 335 Precise dates for Satayt are not known, but Tjuro is already viceroy in year 7 of Amenhotep I, and remains as such at least until year 3 of Thutmosis I; cf. Habachi, Sixteen Studies, p.82 and Urk. IV, 78 and

76

name336) supports this, as does the depiction of Tjuro in the shrine of Aametu’s son User at Gebel es-Silsilah (Fig.3, p.459).337 Tjuro is placed in the bottom register, just below the representation of User offering to his parents, Aametu and Taametu. Although he is called “king’s son, overseer of southern foreign countries, Tjuro”338, no filiation is given, making it also possible that Tjuro was included as a distinguished colleague of Aametu’s rather than a family member.339 However, the nature of the Silsilah shrines as family monuments, and the fact that the persons depicted in the shrines, when identifiable, are exclusively family members,340 leads me to conclude that a kin-based relation between Tjuro and Aametu is the more likely explanation for his presence in the shrine. Assuming a familial relationship existed between Tjuro and Aametu, then this, combined with a probable court connection extending back to the reign of Ahmose, would have made this family extremely powerful. Tjuro, however, was apparently unable to retain control of his position, and thus the viceroy who succeeded him during the reign of Thutmosis I or Thutmosis II was not his son Ahmose-Patjeni,341 but an unrelated man called Seni.342 Aametu in contrast increased his influence by marrying Taametu, a sister

89. On this family of viceroy’s and their monuments, see in general Habachi, Sixteen Studies, pp. 65-89, 91-6, 155-7. See also Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.136-7 for a brief discussion. A funerary cone and statue from Deir el-Bahri can be attributed to Tjuro, suggesting that had a tomb in Thebes. Following Tjuro, the viceroyship moved out of the family’s control, as his descendants for three generations are all called “scribe of the divine offerings of Amun”, a title also held by several descendants of Aametu. 336 A pattern also followed by the royal family at this time, as their monuments indicate; cf. Vandersleyen, LdÄ I, col.100. This similarity is perhaps a further indication that there was indeed a close royal connection. 337 Shrine 17; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.46. 338 The title reads: sA nsw imy-r xAswt rsyt; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.46. 339 I do not think it is simply a question of “close friendship”, as Dziobek seems to suggest; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.136. It was not unusual to include one’s colleagues in contemporary tomb scenes, as banquet guests alongside family members, for example in TT82 of the vizier’s steward Amenemhat and TT56 of the scribe of counting bread Userhat. However this practice was apparently not followed at Silsilah, see below. 340 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.4ff. 341 Ahmose-Patjeni and the next 2 generations were in fact all involved with the Amun priesthood as scribes of divine offerings; cf. Habachi, Sixteen Studies, pp.65-89, 91-6. 342 Habachi, Sixteen Studies, pp. 65-89, 91-6, 155-7;Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.137. The chronology of the viceroys during the 18th Dynasty has been a source of constant debate. The relevant sources are cited in the

77

of the contemporary mayor of Thebes, Ineni, owner of TT81.343 Ineni was also the architect for the tomb of Thutmosis I344 and held a number of upper level positions within the Amun temple, including overseer of the granaries of Amun.345 Based on the names of Ineni’s family it would appear that they, too, may have had a connection to the royal court. His own wife and two sisters were called Ahhotep, while also prevalent are the names Ahmose and Amenhotep, and his father’s name, Intef, hearkens back to the kings of the 17th Dynasty. The marriage of these two families would have enabled Aametu to spread his influence through nepotism to the Amun priesthood, the evidence and results of which will be discussed below. The means by which Aametu entered into the vizierate during the reign of Thutmosis I is uncertain.346 Our evidence for Aametu comes from his Theban tomb (TT83),347 Karnak statue fragment, and from the many different monuments on which he is named or depicted.348 All of Aametu’s titles pertain to his position as vizier, and most

discussion of Usersatet, himself a viceroy of Kush under Amenhotep II; cf. Chapter 2, pp.215-239, with notes 954-7. 343 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.323-6, type IIIb, IVb, Vb. Taametu is depicted in Ineni’s tomb standing behind Ineni and his wife Ahhotep-Tjuiu at the east end of the northwest wall of the portico, PM(5). 344 Ineni mentions his role in the construction of Thutmosis I’s tomb in Thebes in the autobiographical stele in his tomb (TT81), l.11-14; cf. Urk. IV,57-8. 345 Ineni’s tomb, TT81, was published by Dziobek, who reconstructs Ineni’s career as beginning under Amenhotep I and continuing into the co-regency of Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III; cf. Dziobek, Ineni, p.35, 142-3 for the relevant scene and his brief discussion in Denkmäler, p.111. For Ineni’s positions and placement in the Amun domain, see also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, pp.260f., no.244 and her individual discussions of the titles he held. Many of his tomb inscriptions can be found in Urk. IV, 53-74 346 See Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.111 for a plausible reconstruction of Aametu’s lifespan. Helck, Verwaltung, pp.289-96, 435-8, also discusses Aametu and this family of viziers, and some of Aametu’s inscriptions are found in Urk. IV, 489-93 and 1041-2. 347 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.330-1, type IVb. 348 I direct the reader to Dziobek’s discussion of Aametu’s son and successor User, in which he presents a complete list of Aametu’s monuments, with full citations, and includes the titles Aametu held on each; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.103-11. Aametu’s personal monuments include his unpublished tomb in Sheikh Abd el-Qurna (TT83) and a statue from Karnak (Nr. E134). In addition, he is depicted and/or mentioned in TTs 131, 100, 228, 122, and 82, Gebel es-Silsilah shrine no.17, as well as on several statues, stele and

78

are the very same ones that his descendants who held this position also possessed. These include chief magistrate, spokesman of Nekhen, priest of Maat, spokesman who makes peace in the entire land, overseer of the six great law courts, and overseer of the city.349 Thus we have no knowledge of any earlier positions that Aametu perhaps held before becoming vizier that might have led him into this career. What is clear, however, is that it was through his marriage to Ineni’s sister that positions in the Amun precinct became open to Aametu’s descendants. Prior to this the vizierate and the Amun domain were essentially separate entities.350 Aametu and Taametu had some eight sons and five daughters, and it was their second son, User, who succeeded Aametu as vizier during the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III. It is extremely interesting that this should have occurred, when the eldest son, Amenemhat, was already serving under his father as “overseer of the prison (xnrt). According to Dziobek, this would have been in Thebes, and so Amenemhat would also have been the administrator of prisoner records and subsequently the overseer of prisoner administration.351 Sections of the Duties indicate that the vizier administered over the prison and appointed various officials within it, including the overseer of police.352 If, as Van den Boorn suggests, the prison was a “functional extension of the

funerary cones belonging to his relatives. My own work on these monuments confirms the information published by Dziobek. 349 sAb TAyty r Nxn Hm-nTr mAat r shrr m tA r-D //[ r.f ]//, imy-r Hwt wrt 6, imy-r niwt 350 Hatshepsut’s high priest of Amun, Hapuseneb, does bear the title of vizier on his Louvre statue, where it is placed among a list of titles preceding a short biography of his career and work as high priest of Amun. However, this is the only monument on which it appears, and it is placed in the midst of titles such as “great chief in Upper Egypt” and “overseer of temples”. What role Hapuseneb might have played as vizier, or any responsibilities he carried related to this position, as well as when or even if, he acted as vizier, remains unclear. On his monuments, Hapuseneb consistently stresses his position of high priest of Amun and the activities related to it, indicating that this was the title he considered as his most important. Discussions of this can be found in Helck, Verwaltung, pp.286-9, 434 and Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.137-9. 351 Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.116-7. 352 Van den Boorn, Duties, Sec.6-7, pp.120-145, Sec. 17, pp.250-64, pp.309 ff, esp. 317-327.

79

vizier’s administrative apparatus,”353 then it seems quite possible that Aametu may have used his influence as vizier to place his son Amenemhat as overseer of the prison. Indeed, especially if the institution of the great prison was somewhat separate from that of vizier, then it would have greatly benefited Aametu to have his son in such a position of authority. Many scholars have assumed that the priesthood was the route to the vizierate, and that User was perhaps groomed for his position as vizier, while concurrently holding a number of titles within the Amun priesthood.354 However, it seems more plausible that it was Amenemhat who was being groomed, since he was already serving as head of an institution that his father oversaw. Perhaps Amenemhat died early? Or, perhaps Aametu, instead of removing the valuable asset Amenemhat provided, decided to promote his second son User to become his mdw iAw. Neither scenario is provable, but the implications for our understanding of the relationship between the vizierate and the Amun priesthood are quite interesting. Based on his study of User’s monuments,355 Dziobek reconstructed a career for User in which he started as a wab-priest during the reign of Thutmosis I, progressed through the echelons of the Amun priesthood under Thutmosis I-III, and, according to the “Co-Installation/ Appointment” (Berufung) text of User, was made a “staff of old age” 353

Van den Boorn, Duties, p.325. Most recently Dziobek, Denkmäler. He discusses Amenemhat but gives no explanation for why he was not chosen to succeed his father; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.116-7. Dziobek gives a summary of User’s titles and career by monument with complete references and includes an Appendix with a complete list of User’s titles organized both by the monuments on which they occur, and in a second list alphabetically by “functional” title; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.85-101, 157-64. See also Urk. IV, 1029-43. 355 These monuments include two Theban tombs (TTs 131 and 61), a shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah (no. 17), funerary cones, statues, stelae, papyri, and several smaller finds from TT61. In addition he is mentioned or depicted in tombs, statues and other artifacts belonging to family members and colleagues. A complete list of all the monuments with full references and discussion is given by Dziobek; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.85-101. The main publications for User’s tombs are Dziobek, User-Amun; Dziobek, Denkmäler; and Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.129-40. For the Gebel es-Silsilah shrine, cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.57-63, pls.33-4, 45-7. 354

80

(mdw iAw) for his father while still active at Karnak.356 User’s position at Karnak when he became a staff of old age was probably that of “scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun”. In the scene accompanying the co-installation text, the identifying caption refers to User as “scribe of the divine seal,”357 and in column 24 of the inscription above, the fuller version “scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun”358 is used. The title falls about halfway through Dziobek’s recreated order of User’s positions in the Amun temple (see below.)359 The “Co-Installation” of User encompasses the west end of the southeast wall of User’s Theban Tomb (TT) 131.360 It is composed of both a lengthy inscription and a presentation scene that depicts Thutmosis III seated in a kiosk and facing a procession of attendants, Aametu as the aged vizier, and his son User (Figs.4-5, pp.460-1).361 At the opposite end of the wall the upper register depicts Thutmosis III being carried on a palanquin with User, as the new vizier, leading the royal procession to the gate of Karnak temple, followed by officers and a military escort.362 Below this Aametu sits facing User with another lengthy text written in the style of a “teaching”.363 On the opposite wall is

356

The term is mentioned in col. 12 and applied to User in cols. 25 and 27. As it exists today, the title reads: sS nTr /// t //// Wsr mAa-xrw. Between nTr and the ‘t ’ is probably the top of the xtmt sign, while a horizontal ‘m’ or perhaps a pr-sign can be restored after this group. The rest of the title until User’s name is completely lost. In the publication of the tomb, Dziobek reads: sS xtm.w nTr … [Imn]-wsr mAa-xrw, “the scribe and divine sealer …” , with one group missing between nTr and the restored Imn of User(amun)’s name; cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, p.75 text 5h, pl.72. In a later discussion however, Dziobek seems to change his mind about this reading, translating instead “scribe of the divine seal” as an abbreviation for “scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun”; cf. Denkmäler, p.100, 159. I believe that the latter interpretation is correct. 358 sS Htmt nTr m Het nTr n Imn 359 Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.100; cf. also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.265 no.175. 360 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.419-22, type Va. 361 PM(8); cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, pp.73-5, pl.17a, 19, 42-3, 72, 81. 362 PM(9)I; cf. Dziobek,User-Amun, pp.76-7, pl.18-19, 72, 83. 363 PM(9)II; cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, pp.75-6, pl.18-19, 72, 82; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.23-54 pl.2. 357

81

the third text in User’s tomb that completes the set: the “Installation (of the vizier)” text (Einsetzung),364 which has parallels in the tombs of Rekhmire, Amenemopet and Hepu.365 As Dziobek has pointed out in his discussion of the inscription,366 the CoInstallation text is structured by a scheme that is repeated twice and consists of a framing story, speech of the officials and speech of the king. The overarching theme is that of the “royal audience”, which Dziobek interprets as having three elements: the king, his advisors, and the solution to a problem that could be dealt with in different ways.367 Composed of 37 columns,368 the inscription begins with the phrase xpr swt Hmst nswt “a sitting of the king took place.” This sets the context for the entire event, which essentially occurs in the audience-hall of the king. The process of the co-installation or appointment of User as a “staff of old age” has three parts. First, a procession of officials and courtiers enter into the palace, including the vizier (Aametu), and the courtiers tell Thutmosis III that the vizier (Aametu) has reached old age and his back is bowed with the weight of his responsibilities.369 They go on to request that Thutmosis III make for Aametu a mdw iAw, citing as a reason, besides his age, that he has made mAat throughout the land on behalf of the king.370 Following their speech, the king concurs, and asks that they find a suitable candidate who “in executing judgements his voice is well-disposed.”371 The officials, after searching, praise Thutmosis III and inform him that the perfect official to place as a 364

PM(12); cf. Dziobek, User-Amun, pp.77, pl.75, 85-6; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.55-66, pl.3 Tombs 100, 29, and 66. Rekhmire is User’s nephew and successor and is discussed below. Amenemopet followed Rekhmire as vizier in the reign of Amenhotep II, see Ch.2. Hepu was vizier during the reign of Thutmosis IV. 366 Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.16-21. 367 Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.16ff. and Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, p.138f. 368 Dziobek provides a translation with commentary in Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.3-15. 369 Columns 2-8; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.3-4, pl.1. 370 Columns 8-12: iAwt ip.s wnwt.s smrw ipn Dd.sn [wDA.k] ity nb.n r-ntt TAty pH[.n].f Tni nhy m ksw xn m psd.f nt-ow.f th s dmi.s sqA sArt imyt ib.k sAx.n n.k wDa mAat n ky Hr sp pn Ax tA.wy ky diw Hr m mdw iAwt; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.4-5, pl.1. 371 Columns 12-15: [Dd.]j[n].f xft.sn Hwy Dar.tn n.i //// n Hmw.Tn [m]XA-ib Hr spw nw //// m stkn wDawt simA.f xrw[.f]; Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.5, pl.1. 365

82

mdw iAw is Aametu’s own son User, who was already appointed by the king as scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun.372 Finally, Thutmosis III speaks directly to the vizier: 25

Then his Majesty was answering the vizier concerning it, saying: ‘How good is one whose honor is firm, whose love endures in the audience-chamber. 26There is not your blame, there is not your wrongful act, there is not your reproach arriving at the palace. I have witnessed your son User as one efficacious in instituting deeds, straightforward, one who your teachings satisfy, whose heart opens to [all]wisdom. 27[I] will cause that his excellence surrounds you. Then he would act for you (as) a “staff of old age” according as that which one does for one who did what is praised, and who provided an [excellent] place. … [It is] a good thing, replacement by his equal.373

After User’s appointment as a “staff of old age”, Thutmosis III presents a short depiction of what a vizier’s duties entail and the text concludes with User’s presentation to the court as (co-)vizier.374 This text is extremely interesting from both a literary and historical perspective. It is written in the style of a royal narrative (Königsnovelle), a genre which, in the mid-18th Dynasty, had only recently developed.375 Unlike a private autobiography, which can also

372

Columns 16-25, especially 24-25: di.k is sA.f Wsr rn.f m sS xtmt nTr m Hwt-nTr n Imn ntf m hAw it.k nswt bity (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| mAa [xrw] /// w /// [tA-wr] //// [iw rdi.tw] n.f wDw m aH sar.tw smi.f xft-Hr Hmw-ib Htp qd nfr.t sw n.k mdw iAw; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.5-8, pl.1. 373 Columns 25-7: wn-in Hm.f Hr wSd TAty Hr.s m Dd nfr.wy Htp imAx.f mrt.f mn m aXnw(ty) nn wn.k nn sp.k xbn nn srx.k spr r aH iw mtr.n.i sA.k Wsr m mnx m wAH spw aqA-ib Htp sbAw.k swab ib.f r sArt [nbt] di(.i) pXr mnxw.f xr.k ix ir.f n.k mdw iAw mi irt n ir Hsst DbA bw [Ax] ... [sw] sp nfr DbA m mity[.f]; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.8-10, pl.1. 374 Columns 29-36; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.10-12. 375 There are a few examples from before the New Kingdom that are in the style of a Königsnovelle, such as the building inscription of Sesostris I (pBerlin 3029), 13th Dynasty stele of king Neferhotep, and possibly the 17th Dynasty Coptos stele of king Rahotep. Inscriptions prior to the reign of Thutmosis III are also limited and include, the stelae of king Kamose, Thutmosis I’s Abydos stele, and the Coronation and Punt inscriptions of Hatshepsut. On the Königsnovelle, see in general Hermann, Die Königsnovelle and Osing, in: LdÄ III, cols. 556-7; on the military usage of the genre see Spalinger, Aspects, pp.101-20. Most recently Quirke, in: History and Forms, pp.263-76 and Loprieno, in: History and Forms, pp.277-95 have discussed the literary placement and development of this genre.

83

contain narrative, the Königsnovelle focuses on the person of the king, such that it presents a “literary narrative of an episode in a king’s life.”376 Thus, although the content concerns the appointment of User as a “staff of old age” for his father, it is the king who is the protagonist of the text. Dziobek categorizes User’s text as belonging to a subgroup of the Königsnovelle whose characteristic feature is the use of the royal audience.377 Within this are three types, distinguished by the way in which the problem is solved: “advertising a royal decision”, “discussion with the council”, and “mutual efforts at solving a problem;” User’s fits into the last group.378 Redford’s recent monograph on the wars of Thutmosis III separates this type of text from that of the Königsnovelle or “Novella”. When used by Thutmosis III, these “séance texts” include mention of his campaigns, but in the style of “reminisces” or “remembrances” that are often placed in topical, rather than chronological, order.379 According to Redford, in their fullest form the “séance texts” include the date, the appearance of the king enthroned, the introduction of the courtiers, the king’s statement, and lastly the adulation of the courtiers.380 Whether User’s appointment text is characterized as a Königsnovelle, a subgroup within it, or a “séance text”, the important point is that these genres are exclusively the purview of the king and found on royal monuments such as stelae and temple walls. Here, however, an elite individual is employing the text in a private, funerary, setting, where it becomes one of several scenes that describe the life and career of User. User’s ability to depict himself standing before the king twice in his tomb is a marker for both 376

Loprieno, in: History and Forms, p.274. In his discussion of the genre, Loprieno groups a variety of different type of texts under the aegis of the Königsnovelle, commenting that they all focus on the king’s deeds, and hence function as king, but Loprieno does not further subcategorize them; cf. Loprieno in: History and Forms, pp.277-82. 378 Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.16ff. and Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, p.138f. 379 Redford, Wars, pp.101f.;Redford, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 380 Redford, Wars, pp.101f. 377

84

his status and his relative importance in the eyes of the king vis-à-vis other officials. In addition, it is an element of tomb decoration that is newly introduced in the 18th Dynasty, first appearing in private tombs dating to the reign of Hatshepsut.381 The entire composition is extremely formal both inscriptionally and visually, with a clear separation between the person of Thutmosis III and that of his officials. Despite the king’s role as protagonist, the narrative commemorates a specific event in User’s life, the very beginning of his career as vizier. The inscription and the image seem to serve three important purposes, first they reinforce User’s heredity right to the position as the son of the current vizier, second they demonstrate that this right is recognized by the court and the king, and third the use of the phrase mdw iAw in reference to User’s position is an archaism that hearkens back to the Old Kingdom maxims of Ptahhotep,382 and invites the (literate) viewer to recall that User is fulfilling the ideal function of a son for his father. Papyrus Turin 1 provides the probable date of User’s succession to the position of vizier in year five, during the co-regency between Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III, while he was still active in the Karnak temple or shortly thereafter.383 Despite becoming vizier in year five of a 15-year co-regency, only one of User’s monuments carries traces that might indicate it was built during this time. The lintel of his shrine at Silsilah (no.17) is mostly destroyed, but on the portion that remains there is a large defaced area similar to those seen on the lintels of shrines that originally bore the double cartouches of both

381

I.e., the tombs of her overseer of works and chief steward Amenhotep (TT73) and the royal butler Djhuty (TT110), who also depicts Thutmosis III in his tomb. TT73 is published in Säve-Söderbergh, Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs, pp.1-10, pls.i-ix, and TT110 by Davies in Studies Griffith, pp. 279-90, pls. 3544. 382 Probably composed, however, in the Middle Kingdom. See the discussion of sources for the term mdw iAw above, Section Ib., pp.63-8. 383 Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.100-101.; cf. Urk. IV, 1384.

85

Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III.384 This indicates that the shrine was carved during the coregency period, and suffered defacement in the later years of Thutmosis III’s reign when Hatshepsut’s name was obliterated from many royal and private monuments.385 The last attested date for User as vizier is year 28 of Thutmosis III’s reign, provided by a stele in the tomb of his steward Amenemhat.386 However, it is possible that he served until year 34, which is the first certain date for his nephew and successor Rekhmire as vizier.387 On the remainder of User’s monuments the only king that is ever mentioned or depicted is Thutmosis III. This seems to suggest that while User was given permission to construct a shrine at Silsilah shortly after becoming vizier, his ability to begin work on his tombs came at a later date.388 The upper tomb, TT61,389 does not contain depictions of any kings and was finished, so it may have been begun somewhat earlier that the lower tomb, TT131.390 The lack of Hatshepsut’s presence in TT131 is certainly important, implying that its decoration, if not construction, began only after Thutmosis III was again sole ruler, after year 22. The unfinished nature of TT131 may point to User’s death, and end of tenure as vizier, being closer to year 28 than to year 34. The method of User’s entry into the vizierate, as a “staff of old age” for his father, is perhaps indicative of concern amongst the elite during the transition to the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III.391 According to Dziobek, the shift from Aametu to User

384

Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.45. Parallels can be seen on shrines 6, 7, 14, and 23. See also Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.134. 385 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.57. The later date for the program of defacement against Hatshepsut has been convincingly established by Dorman, Senenmut, esp. Ch.3, pp.46-65. 386 TT82; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.70-2, pl.xxv; Urk. IV, 1043. A discussion of Amenemhat follows below, see pp.100-110. 387 This date comes from Papyrus Louvre E. 3226; cf. Megally, Recherches, pp.245, 278-9. 388 Also suggested by Dziobek, Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.21. 389 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.277-9, type IIIa. 390 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.419-22, type Va. 391 Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.147; Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.134-6.

86

occurring at approximately the same time as Hatshepsut became co-regent is significant because the vizier was one of the officials who would have played an important part in her rise to the throne.392 Although Dziobek suggests that Aametu’s actions with regard to User were predicated by concern over his own “dynastic succession,”393 it seems more likely that by having his son made a staff of old age, Aametu may have been trying to give assurance of the family’s loyalty to Hatshepsut’s placement as king. The fact that User’s year five co-regency date comes only from a papyrus, while the text in TT131 is undated may have been User’s way of expressing his fealty to Thutmosis III as sole ruler.394 Once User became vizier he also became an official with significant power and status vis-à-vis the king. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the fact that in addition to the Silsilah shrine and several smaller monuments, 395 User was the owner of two Theban tombs, TTs61 and 131, both located on the Sheikh Abd el-Qurna hillside of the Theban Necropolis, near TT83 of his father Aametu. The architecture and decoration of TTs 131 and 61 reflect their complementary nature. TT 131 is placed at the bottom of the hillside, and has a pyramid superstructure and niched façade that imitates the porticoed tomb of his father Aametu (TT83).The decoration of the transverse-hall contains only scenes related to his career and life. In a direct line of sight, but quite far above TT131, TT61 was built as the completion of the tomb, containing a passage and 392

Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.144ff.; Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.132ff.. Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.147. 394 For a discussion of User’s role in the events surrounding the transitions from Thutmosis III to a coregency with Hatshepsut and back to sole rule again, cf. Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.134ff., and Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.131-2, 144-8. 395 The tombs are published by Dziobek; cf. Dziobek, User-Amun; Dziobek, Denkmäler, Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.129-40. See also Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.277-9, type IIIa (TT61); Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.419-22, type Va (TT131). The shrine is no. 17 at Gebel es-Silsilah; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.57-63. The smaller monuments include funerary cones, statues, papyri and stelae; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.85-101 for a full catalogue. 393

87

rear chamber with niche which was reserved for the funerary and banqueting depictions usually found at the rear of a single tomb.396 In addition, a shaft descends from the courtyard of TT61, leading to a burial chamber decorated with inscriptions and vignettes from the Amduat and the “Litany of Re”, both of which are common to the burial chambers of kings, but are otherwise unknown in non-royal tombs.397 As in User’s use of the Königsnovelle in TT131, User has employed these works for his own benefit, placing himself as a companion of the king on Re’s divine barque, and inserting himself into portions of the text. The fact that User had the ability to construct two complementary tombs to provide for his funerary cult and afterlife, and was able to use royal elements in the decoration of his burial chamber suggests that his power, status, and relationship to Thutmosis III were incredibly strong. Perhaps this, combined with a stable kingship, is why he did not feel the need to ensure the hereditary succession of the vizierate using the introduction of a mdw iAw, “staff of old age”, as his father Aametu did for him. User did have several sons of his own, and at least two of them followed their father in attaining the same positions at Karnak, including scribe of the divine seal.398 Despite this, the position of vizier passed from User to his nephew Rekhmire, a son of his brother, the wab-priest of Amun, Neferweben.399 There is no clear indication of how or why Rekhmire inherited his paternal uncle User’s position between years 28 and 34 of Thutmosis III’s reign, although several 396

Dziobek, MDAIK 45; Dziobek, User-Amun, pp. 37-40, 99-100. See also Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.145 for a brief discussion of the construction and function of the tombs. 397 The version of the Amduat share similarities with the versions seen in the royal tombs of Thutmosis I and Amenhotep II, while the Litany of Re is a complement to the version placed in Thutmosis III’s tomb. Hornung, in: User-Amun, pp.42-7; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.152-5; Dziobek in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.137f. See also Hornung’s discussion of User’s burial chamber and the texts in it, in Hornung, Grabkammer. 398 These are Merymaat and Samenkhet, perhaps his eldest two. They are discussed below. For the complete list of User’s family, cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.103-128. 399 Neferweben is also mentioned in Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.293 no.348.

88

theories have been suggested. Neferweben is named as a son of the vizier Aametu in User’s shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah,400 and as Rekhmire’s father in TT100, Rekhmire’s tomb.401 The original idea put forth by Davies, and based on the work of Dunham on the monuments of the northern vizier Neferweben, was that Rekhmire’s father Neferweben and the vizier Neferweben were the same man.402 Dunham placed Neferweben as vizier between User and Rekhmire,403 and Davies argued that the reason Rekhmire left out his father’s vizier title was because he was originally appointed by Hatshepsut, and it was politically smart for Rekhmire to downplay this.404 Dziobek sees no reason for such a suppression since there are monuments of other officials from the reign of Hatshepsut and later that mention her.405 However, I would caution against this argument if only because we should remember that Rekhmire was likely constructing and decorating his tomb during the period in which Thutmosis III’s program of erasure was being carried out on the monuments of Hatshepsut and those that mentioned her name.406 The only title Rekhmire’s father Neferweben bears in TT100 or the Silsilah shrine is wab-priest of 400

Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.59, pl.46. Neferweben is the third son placed below the seated figures of Aametu and Taametu on the north wall. Here is called sA.f wab n [Imn] Nfr-wbn. This is contra Bryan, in Thutmose III, forthcoming. 401 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.370-2, type Vb. TT 100 was published by Davies in two volumes, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, Text and Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, Plates. Neferweben appears in the bottom half of the “family wall” in Rekhmire’s transverse-hall where he is called wab n [Imn]-ra [Nfr-w]b[n] mAa-xrw ; cf. PM(9), Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p.14-5 and Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.x. He is also mentioned in an inscription at PM(2) where Rekhmire designates himself as “born of the wab-priest of Amun, Neferweben”; cf. PM(2), Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p.31 and Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.xxiv. 402 The sources are: 1) a statue dated by the cartouche of Thutmosis III in the Boston MFA (29.728) where Neferweben has the same titles as User, Iahmes and Rekhmire, i.e., sAb TAyty TAty imy-r Hwt wrt 6 ...imy-r niwt TAty, “chief magistrate, vizier, overseer of the 6 great law courts … overseer of the city, vizier”; cf. Dunham, JEA 15, p.164; 2) two canopic jars dated to the early 18th Dynasty in the Nugent collection where Neferhotep is identified as sAb TAyty TAty; cf. Blackman, JEA 4, 1917, pp.39ff.; and 3) a statue from the temple of Ptah now in the Brussels Royal Museum (E7333), and probably for Ptah of Memphis; cf. Capart, BMRAH 5, pp.114ff.; Gessler-Löhr, in: Gedenkschrift Barta, pp.133-157. 403 Dunham, JEA 15, p.164. 404 Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p.101f. He compares the case of Hepuseneb who also omits from his tomb his appointment as vizier, which did occur under Hatshepsut. 405 Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.132-4; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.131-43. 406 As Dorman was the first to point out, this began after Thutmosis III’s year 46 or 47; cf. Dorman, Senenmut, esp. Ch.3, pp.46-65. See also Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.243f., 248-9.

89

Amun, and there is no evidence to suggest that he ever attained a higher position. Nor is there anything to firmly support a connection between Rekhmire’s father and the vizier Neferweben who was based in the north of Egypt. These factors indicate that Rekhmire’s father Neferweben was not a vizier and did not provide the link between Rekhmire and User. While User was made a “staff of old age” for his father Aametu, no such event was recorded by Rekhmire. Rekhmire’s own “Installation” scene depicts only Rekhmire standing before Thutmosis III, while the inscription makes no mention of his predecessors, or how he obtained this position.407 Rather, it seems to consist of a list of general maxims to follow as vizier, the only title Rekhmire is even mentioned as having. In this it resembles User’s own “Installation” text, which is placed on the wall opposite that of his “Co-Installation” or “Appointment” text. In the text immediately adjacent to Rekhmire’s installation, however, the court officials (smrw pr-aA) state that “Menkheperre (Thutmosis III) … confirms every office”, implying that this is the case for Rekhmire as well. Rekhmire is here depicted exiting the king’s presence with a number of courtiers, and the inscription continues with: Coming in peace from the palace, life prosperity health, by the irypat HAty-a, spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of Maat, overseer of the city, vizier [Rekhmire, (justified ?)], the praises of the lord of the palace were given to him, the governorance of the Two Lands were placed upon [him], acting (?) in the affairs of the [Two Lands] like there was in the face of his father, the overseer of the city and vizier Aametu, justified.408

407

Urk. IV, 1128-39; Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, pp.84-94 and Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pls. xiv-xv; Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.21-4. 408 Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.xvi, cols. 17-21: iit m-Htp m stp-sA anX wDA snb in iry-pat HAty-a r Nxn Hm-nTr mAat imy-r niwt TAty //[Rx-mi-ra (mAa-xrw ?)] /// di n.f Hsw nb aH diw m Hr //(.f ?)// sHrw tAwy irt m xrw //[tAwy]// mi wnt m Hr n it.f imy-r niwt TAty aA-mTw mAa-xrw

90

This is the only clear indication in Rekhmire’s tomb that he was the recognized and confirmed successor to the vizierate. In other duty-related inscriptions Rekhmire also calls himself the “son of” Aametu,409 while in the scene that depicts Rekhmire standing before the hall in which he presumably holds court as vizier he is the “overseer of the city, vizier, [Rekhmire], justified, born of Betau, born to the wab-priest of Amun Neferweben, justified, son of the overseer and the city and vizier, Aametu.”410 This phraseology certainly emphasizes his hereditary right to the position of vizier, and even parallels the steps taken by Thutmosis III with regard to his own right to the throne. As can be seen from ancient Egyptian kin terminology, heredity and kinship did not distinguish between father and grandfather necessarily.411 The words for father (it) and son (sA) were applicable regardless of the generational gap, indicating that it was the direct lineage that mattered. However, it is important to remember that the terminology did distinguish between lineals and collaterals, and thus Rekhmire could not have called himself the “son of” User unless this were actually true. This indicates that User did not “adopt” Rekhmire in order to pass on the office of vizier to him.412 To summarize: Rekhmire was not made a staff of old age, he did not succeed his paternal uncle as a proxy son, there was no link through Rekhmire’s father, and User did not “adopt” Rekhmire. The question remains, by what means did Rekhmire attain the office of vizier? Dziobek suggests that Rekhmire became the successor to User because 409

On the south side of the passage in the temple inspection scenes, PM(14), he labels himself as imy-r niwt TAty mr Hwt wrwt 6 r Nxn Rx-mi-ra mAa-xrw sA mr niwt TAty r Nxn Hm-nTr mAat aA-mTw mAa-xrw 410 The scene is PM(2) and is the only text that records his full lineage. The relevant inscription reads: imy-r niwt TAty //[Rx-mi-ra]// mAa-xrw ms n BtAw ir n wab n //[Imn]// Nfr-wbn mAa-xrw sA imy-r niwt aA-mTw; cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, pp.30f. and Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.xxiv. 411 Refer to pp.28-33 of the Introduction, and the chart, Table 1, p.57. 412 This did occur for the mayor of Thebes Sennefer who was “adopted”, whether officially or not, by his maternal uncle Ahmose-Humay. It is indicated by a change in the kin terminology whereby Sennefer is called “son of my sister” in his uncle’s tomb (TT224), but Ahmose-Humay is called “my father” by Sennefer in his own tomb (TT96 upper). See Chapter 2, pp.239-45, for further discussion.

91

he may have been more fit than User’s own sons to succeed him in this office. Thus the choice of Rekhmire was made as a means of protecting the dynastic succession as it were, because the sons of User were too "mittlemäßig" for further career advancement.413 Another possibility is that Rekhmire’s position within the Amun priesthood played an important role in his advancement. It was mentioned above that Aametu’s marriage into Ineni’s family opened up the Amun priesthood as a place to install his own sons. We have sent that prior to becoming co-vizier, User was an official in the Amun priesthood. Rekhmire, unlike User’s sons, does not seem to have had many of the same Amun and Karnak related titles held by User. Significantly, he did not have any titles that dealt with the divine seal. On the other hand, while User’s sons were essentially priests, Rekhmire’s positions were administrative in nature. This perhaps suggests that a specific path to the vizierate through the Amun priesthood did not exist, or, in contrast, that the Amun precinct played an important role and that Rekhmire’s placement within it was stronger than that of User’s sons. These possibilities will be explored further below. It was mentioned above that Rekhmire does not have an appointment text of any type in his tomb, and his “Installation” text provides no information on how exactly Rekhmire became vizier. However, the implication that Thutmosis III placed him in the position seems to be supported by several statements contained within his extensive autobiographical stele.414 The majority of the inscription, some 34 lines, seems to concern his actions as vizier and self-laudatory statements.415 Only at the very beginning, in the first dozen lines, are there glimpses of Rekhmire’s connection to Thutmosis III. Amongst

413

Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.126-8. The stele was placed on the west wall of the transverse-hall; cf. Urk. IV, 1071; Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, pp.79-84, and Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pls. xi-xii. 415 Urk. IV, 1074-85; Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, pp.79-84, and Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pls. xi-xii. 414

92

the numerous titles and epithets listed in lines 1-6 are included “controller of the kilt” (xrp Sndyt), “foster-child of the king of Upper Egypt” (nswt sDty), “follower of the king of Lower Egypt” (Sms bity), “attendant of Horus” (imy-xt @r).416 While the latter three seem to indicate that a close relationship to the king existed, the first suggests Rekhmire participated in one of Thutmosis III’s sed-festivals.417 Rekhmire also calls himself “an excellent sole one for one who ennobled him”, which seems to tie in with his assertion that he was “a noble second of the king, fourth of him who decided between the two, … advanced of the privy chamber”. 418 Although admittedly these phrases are essentially describing Rekhmire’s high status, since these are placed before Rekhmire seems to attain the position of vizier, they may also be seen as demonstrating his established position vis-à-vis Thutmosis III. The next few lines are very damaged, but Davies interprets them as recording Rekhmire’s promotion to vizier, translating “… I had come forth in the adornments [of the vizier (?), promoted] as priest of Maat”.419 He suggests that the title of “priest of Maat” was obtained after, or in conjunction with, becoming vizier.420 This may well be the case, as it is a title that both Aametu and User held, and one that consistently appears in conjunction with the titles “overseer of the city, vizier”.421 Indeed, Rekhmire himself is called “spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of

416

Urk. IV, 1071-4; Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, pp.79-80, and Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl. xi. Dorman, Senenmut, pp.213ff. 418 The first phrase occurs in line 2, while the remainder appear in lines 3-4; cf. Urk. IV, 1072; Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, pp.79-84, and Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pls. xi-xii. 419 Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p.80, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.xi. Lines 6-7: … Dr prt.i m Xkrw //[nw]// /// //[TAty ?]// [dpn] .kwi m Hm-nTr mAat 420 Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p.80. 421 Aametu is called “spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of Maat, overseer of the city” and “overseer of the city, priest of Maat” on the portico ceiling of TT83; “priest of Maat who is in the palace, overseer of the city” in TT131 of his son User; “spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of Maat, overseer of the city, vizier” in TT122 of his son Neferhotep and (great?) grandson Amenemhat; “overseer of the city, vizier, spokesman of Hierakonpolis, priest of Maat” in TT100 of his grandson Rekhmire. User is also called “spokesman of HIerakonpolis, priest of Maat” several times inTTs131 and 61, Silsilah shrine 17, and CG42218; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.157-64. 417

93

Maat, overseer of the city, vizier” as he exits the palace after having been placed as vizier by Thutmosis III.422 The stress which Rekhmire places on his kinship to User and Aametu certainly indicates that he felt the need to draw attention to the family’s established control over the position, and therefore his right to inherit it. This is perhaps best exemplified on the east wall of the transverse-hall where Rekhmire depicts a “family gallery.” (Figs.6-7, pp.462-3)423 In the upper register a son of Rekhmire offers to his parents, while behind him are seated Rekhmire’s grandparents Aametu and Taametu with nine children and below them Rekhmire’s uncle User and aunt Tjiu with eight children. In the lower register the scene is repeated with Rekhmire’s parents Neferweben and Betau as guests with seven children, and below them Rekhmire’s children and a couple who are likely the parents of either Betau or Rekhmire’s wife Meryt. Although Rekhmire’s parents and inlaws are included, the most prominent placement on the wall is awarded to his predecessors as vizier, Aametu and User. The distinction Rekhmire awards his two ancestors and predecessors as vizier seems to imply that Rekhmire may have been attempting to emphasize his familial right to the position of vizier. Rekhmire’s clear familial link to Aametu and User serves to impress upon others his hereditary claim to the position of vizier, and even parallels the steps taken by Thutmosis III with regard to his own right to the throne. The courtiers accompanying Rekhmire as he exits the presence of the king even proclaim of Thutmosis III that he is mn r st.f msw nw saHw m st itw.sn “enduring upon his throne, while the children of the

422 423

Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.xvi, cols. 17-21. PM(9); cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, pp.14-5, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.ix-x.

94

nobles are upon the seat of their fathers”.424 Rekhmire remarks upon the concept of placing a son in his father’s place425 in his autobiography. Towards the middle, in the section of “I did X” phrases, he states “I established the son and heir on the seat of his father”.426 Rekhmire may have already been planning for one of his own sons to take his place. His eldest and third sons, Menkheperresoneb and Mery, respectively, followed in their father’s footsteps with regard to Karnak, while his second son, Amenhotep, was a scribe of the divine seal of Amun, like User.427 If Rekhmire had carried out the instructions given to him by the king in his “Installation” text, then not only should he have remained as vizier under Amenhotep II, but he should have been able to pass on the position to a family member.428 However, shortly after the accession of Amenhotep II, the vizierate changes hands and families. Perhaps, as Dziobek suggested, the power held by Rekhmire and his extended family was too strong and posed a potential threat to the newly installed king.429 Aametu’s extended family and later generations430 (Involvement in the Amun priesthood) In the above discussion on the heredity of the vizierate within the family of Aametu it has also become evident that this family was firmly entrenched in the Amun priesthood and Karnak generally.431 Aametu, however, reported almost no religious titles,

424

Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p.17; Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.xvi, col.13. As an implied, if not actual, staff of old age. 426 Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p.81; Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.xi, l. 22: mnx.i sA iwow Hr nst (?) it.f 427 See below for further discussion. 428 The two instructions in question are: “The magistrate who acts like this, He will succeed here in this place.” (l.15-16) and “Lo, a man remains in his office, If he acts as he is charged” (l.22); Lichtheim, AEL II, p.23. 429 Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.128. 430 See the extended genealogy, Fig.8, p.464. 431 Most of the family members are included in Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”. 425

95

and apparently none that were connected to a specific priesthood.432 Why then did almost all of Aametu’s sons hold positions in the priesthood? As it was said above, it was Aametu’s marriage to Taametu that seems to have afforded his descendants entry into the Amun priesthood. Taametu’s brother Ineni was the mayor of Thebes, and held a variety of upper level positions within the Amun temple.433 In his publication of Ineni’s tomb (TT81), Dziobek offers several interesting observations. First, Ineni and his wife Iahhotep-Tuiu were childless; second some of Ineni’s brothers held middle and upper level positions in the priesthood;434 and finally, Ineni’s sister married the vizier Aametu, perhaps an indication that Ineni’s family was a distinguished one within the royal court.435 As I argued above, Ineni’s connection to the court is also suggested by the names prevalent in his family.436 Seven of Aametu’s eight sons were all priests, and of these four were involved in the Amun priesthood.437 User, who was discussed at length above, held several Amunrelated positions before inheriting the vizierate.438 Neferhotep was an imy-r Sna n Imn and

432

The only possible reference to a position within the Amun priesthood may occur in col. 24 of the “Coinstallation” text of User, but there is a lacuna here. Although Helck (in: Fs. Grapow, p.107-117) and Davies (BMMA part II, 1926, p.50) restore Aametu a scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun during the reign of Thutmosis I, Dziobek, in comparison with Stele Uriage lines 3-5, has convincingly shown that it is User who is being referred to, see Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.7-8. Although he was also called “divine father, beloved of the god,” this should probably be viewed as an epithet indicating Aametu’s status. Likwise, Aametu’s title of priest of Maat is perhaps really an epithet connected to his function as a vizier. 433 See above, p.77 with note 91. These titles include overseer of the granaries of Amun, overseer of work in Karnak, overseer of work in the king’s tomb, overseer of all offices in the house of Amun, overseer of all seals in the house of Amun. For a complete list, see Dziobek, Ineni, pp.122-3. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.144. Dziobek discusses Ineni’s life and career, Dziobek, Ineni, pp.124-41. 434 For example, Pahery was a steward of the high priest of Amun, and Qen was a priest of Mut. 435 Dziobek, Ineni, pp.143-4. 436 See p.78. 437 The eighth, and perhaps eldest, son was Amenemhat, who was discussed in the preceding section due to his position as overseer of prison, which was probably under the jurisdiction of the vizier; cf. p.79f. 438 Eichler, Verwaltung des "Hauses des Amun”, no.175. According to Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.100-101, User’s movement through the temple ranks can be reconstructed as: xtm(.i) Spss nb m Ipt-swt xtm(.i) Spssw nw tAw nbw m Hwt nTr nt Imn sS aA(w)t nbt Spst sS xtmw nTr sS HD nbw sS xtmt nTr nt Imn [imy-r xtmt nt Imn] imy-r pr.wy HD nbw. The last two titles, as well as a few others were likely held in conjunction with User’s position as vizier because they fall within the framework of the vizier’s total responsibilities.

96

possibly a 2nd priest of Amun (in Karnak or perhaps Deir el-Bahri). Neferweben (the father of Rekhmire) was a wab-priest of Amun, and Amenmes was a scribe of the treasury of Amun.439 Two other sons were priests in the larger Karnak precinct. Nacht(amun) was a wab-priest of Mut, and Aakheperkare was a Hm-priest of Montu, while Hor was a wabpriest, chief lector-priest in the funerary temple of Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I), and possibly overseer of the temple of Amun (referring to that of Thutmosis I).440 As Ineni was certainly well-placed within the Amun temple, it seems he not only was able to introduce his own (younger?) brothers into the temple, but that his position provided Aametu the ability to place his own sons there as well. In this regard it is especially significant that some of Aametu’s sons held the same titles as their maternal uncles, i.e. User and Ineni, Nacht(amun) and Qen, Neferweben and Userhat. This seems to indicate that although Aametu was a powerful official as vizier, it was his marriage that enabled his own sons to flourish in the Amun domain. Thus nepotism began to play a role in how Aametu’s descendants gained their positions. The involvement of Aametu’s family with the priesthood continues with Aametu’s son User and his children. As was mentioned above, User bore several titles related to the Amun priesthood and Karnak. Although User advanced through the ranks of the priesthood prior to becoming vizier, the titles which could perhaps be attributed to him after becoming (co-)vizier are “overseer of the seal-bearers of Amun,” “overseer of 439

In general, see the material provided by Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.112-114. Neferhotep is the owner of unpublished TT122, and is also known from Gebel es-Silsilah 17, TTs100 and 61, and a personal statue (Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.370 and 123); Amenmes is the owner of TT228 (Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.082); Neferweben is known from Gebel es-Silsilah 17 and TT100 (Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.348). On the identification of Neferhotep as the owner of TT122 and the son of Aametu, see most recently J.J. Shirley, 54th ARCE Annual Meeting, Atlanta, April, 2003. 440 Nachtamun is known from Gebel es-Silsilah 17 and TT100. Hor is known from TTs 61 and 100, Gebel es-Silsilah 17, the Senmes stele, and a personal statue; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.435). Aakheperkare is known from TTs 122 and 82.

97

the treasury,” “overseer of the scribes of Amun,” and “overseer of the granaries of Amun.”441 Their infrequent usage suggests that while User may have held these positions as adjuncts to his role as vizier,442 they power attached to them may not have been extensive. This is further supported by the scenes in TT131, only a few of which depict User overseeing work perhaps connected to the Amun precinct.443 Out of User’s 5 sons and 7 daughters, 4 sons and 1 daughter were certainly involved in the Amun priesthood. Baket was a chantress of Amun,444 Samenkhet, Merymaat, Mery and Amenemhat shared various titles,445 and Merymaat held several additional upper level priestly posts.446 In fact, Samenkhet and Merymaat, the two eldest, both had titles that their father also held, namely, wab-priest and scribe of the divine seal in Karnak. Additionally, Merymaat’s priestly position in Deir el-Bahri placed him in the same position as his paternal uncle Hor and Hor’s two sons (Hor and Merimaat), and Merymaat’s own son Aapehti also followed in this position.447 Neferweben, although his own title seems to have been rather lower in the priesthood, may have married into a highly placed Amun priesthood family, if we take the depiction in Rekhmire’s tomb of an

441

Once in TT131 is the sequence “overseer of the seal-bearers of Amun, overseer of the treasury of Amun, overseer of the city, vizier.” On the Uriage stele the grouping “overseer of the treasury, overseer of the granaries of Amun” is placed shortly before the vizier title. In TT83 of Aametu (User’s father), User is called “overseer of the treasury /// overseer of /// overseer of the city, vizier, sAb, overseer of scribes of [Amun].” The title “overseer of the treasury” is listed before vizier three more times in TT131, and once in TT82; it follows vizier once in TT131. Overseer of scribes also appears once in TT131 after the vizier title. 442 Helck, Verwaltung, pp.45ff.; Kees, Priestertum, p.81. See also Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, p.15 and Quirke, RdE 37, p.118 on this trend in the Middle Kingdom. Dziobek seems to follow this for User as well, cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.100-1. 443 User is shown receiving taxes and foreign tribute, and inspecting craftsmen. In the latter his titles include //[ imy-r pr.wy HD nbw ]// xtm Spssw n (?) tAw nbw m Hwt-nTr n //[ t Imn ]//. 444 Smayt nt //[Imn]//. She was not, however, the wife of the steward of the vizier Amenemhat (TT82). 445 wab-priest: Amunemhat, Samenkhet, Merymaat; scribe of the divine seal: Mery, Samenkhet, Merymaat, hem-priest: Mery?, Merymaat. See Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” nos.057, 282, 487. 446 Hm-nTr sn-nw n Imn Hm-nTr n Imn m Dsr Dsrw (Mery may have also held this title) sS iit aAt nbt st it nTr n Imn sS nTr Xtmt aq Hry sStA m pr-Imn wab // m Ipt-swt wab n mAat. 447 Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.126-7. Both Hor and Merimaat were chief hery-heb priests of Aakheperkare like their father, while Aapehty was a 3rd priest of Amun in Djser-djeseru.

98

otherwise unknown couple to be the parents of Neferweben’s wife Betu. The couple consists of the overseer of the nfrwt-cattle of Amun Baki and his wife Itu. They are depicted at the bottom of the family tableau, under the representation of Rekhmire’s parents and their other children.448 While much of the scene depicting Neferweben and Betu’s children is damaged, the title of scribe can be suggested for two of the sons. In contrast to User, most of Rekhmire’s Amun or Karnak related titles seem to be those that come under his jurisdiction as vizier, rather than necessarily being titles that he held independent of assuming this office.449 Rekhmire’s positions which may perhaps reflect actual duties are those of chief scribe of divine offerings of Amun and overseer of the Sna of Amun, both of which two of his sons also held.450 This is in contrast to User’s sons, who, as shown above, were primarily priests. The titles that Rekhmire and User shared are those of wab-priest and overseer of the houses of gold and silver, as well as divine father, beloved of the god and priest of Maat. Like User however, most of Rekhmire’s identified children seem to have held positions in the Amun priesthood. Thus we have the eldest son, Menkheperresoneb, as a (chief) scribe of divine offerings of Amun and 2nd priest of Amun.451 Amunhotep, like his Uncle User, was a scribe of the divine seal of

448

Also discussed above, p.93, Fig.1, p.177. As no affiliation is given, this attribution remains uncertain, and it has been suggested that they are instead the parents of Meryt, Rekhmire’s wife. However, I would agree with Davies that the similarity between the names of Itu and Betu, both linguistically and orthographically, makes this situation more probable; cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I. 449 Helck, Verwaltung, pp.45ff.; Kees, Priestertum, p.81. See also Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, p.15 and Quirke, RdE 37, p.118 on this trend in the Middle Kingdom. These titles would include overseer of (all) work (imy-r kAwt (nbt)), controller of all work in Karnak (xrp kAwt nbt m Ipt-swt ), overseer of craftsmen (imy-r Hmwt ), overseer of all craftsmen of Amun (imy-r Hmwt nbt nt Imn ), and steward of Amun (imy-r pr n Imn ). Dziobek seems to follow this for User as well, cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.100-1. 450 Menkheperresoneb held the position of sS Htpw nTr tp n Imn and Mery was also an imy-r Sna n Imn. 451 His titles are: sS nTr Htpw (tp) n Imn and Hm-nTr snnw n Imn. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.263. There is not a son named either Amunhotep (Urk. IV, 1138) or Neferhotep who had the title of Hm-nTr snnw n Imn, this inscription in fact carries the name of Menkheperresoneb (Davies, Rekhmi-rē‘ II, pl. LXX). Kees’ reference to a son of Rekhmire with this title (Priestertum, p.20) is not in fact followed up, rather he mentions a son of User, the same Menkheperresoneb discussed here (Priestertum, p.23).

99

Amun, and Mery was an overseer of the Sna of Amun.452 Rekhmire’s daughter Takhat and a granddaughter named Henuttawy were both chantresses of Amun.453 Beyond the generation of Rekhmire’s sons we have no further information on this family’s presence within the Amun priesthood and Karnak. Based on the available evidence, it seems that in addition to the clearly family controlled position of vizier, this family also had influence within the Amun priesthood. Between Aametu and User, the position of vizierate was passed using inheritance through the “staff of old age”. It seems that Rekhmire was utilizing every tool at his disposable to explain his succession to the position. Thus, we see that he stressed both his hereditary claim and relationship to the king. In addition, his increased responsibilities concerning the Amun domain once vizier suggests that his pre-vizieral positions within the temple administration may have assisted his ability to become placed as the successor to his paternal uncle. Familial nepotism, originally through marriage, was consistently used to place younger members of the family throughout the Amun priesthood. The Amun positions range from lower to upper level positions in different areas of the priesthood or priestly administration, suggesting that this vizierate family’s influence, and wealth, was indeed widespread.454

452

Amunhotep’s title is sS nTr xtmt n Imn, and Mery’s imy-r Sna n Imn. The restoration of a son named Amunemhat with the title of imy-r Sna n Imn is unlikely (Urk. IV, 1157), and I would follow Davies in restoring the inscription with the name of Rekhmire, based both on the placement of the inscription, and the fact that Rekhmire bears this title elsewhere in this same scene (Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II pl. XXXVI, XXXVIII). See also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no. 274. 453 Smayt nt Imn. They are both found in the passage scene that depicts Rekhmire being greeted upon his return from Hutsekhem (Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.LXX-LXXI): Takhat is first, followed by 2 unidentified women, 1 woman perhaps called Maatneferet (?) and the sAt sAt.f Henuttawy; all the women (there are 11 total) are represented holding menats and sistra. There are traces before Maatnefret’s (?) name that may have been those of a title, perhaps Henuttawy was her daughter? 454 This powerful family may even have had some control over the placement of tombs in the Theban Necropolis. In the northern section of Shekh Abd el-Qurna we find Aametu’s tomb (TT83), both tombs of User (TTs 61 and 131), the tomb of Neferhotep and Amunemhat (TT122 – placed in almost the direct line between TT61 and 131), and the tomb of Amenmes (TT228) a bit to the north, but roughly even with 131.

100

Amenemhat (scribe and steward of the vizier) Dziobek suggested that the scribe and steward Amenemhat was a close friend of the vizier User due to their temple connections, and based on these assumptions, he concluded that Amenemhat was promoted to the position of vizier when User, the official Amenemhat served under, himself became vizier.455 However, Davies demonstrated that Amenemhat held a number of the same positions as members of his lineal and extended family. What follows is a detailed (re-)examination of Amenemhat’s family and their titles in order to discern what role heredity may have played in his rise to the positions “scribe who counts grain” and “steward of the vizier.” Amenemhat was the owner of one of the larger tombs in the Theban Necropolis, TT82, which is a T-shaped tomb with a rear chamber and niche with statues of Amenemhat and his wife Baket(amun).456 From the niche a shaft leads straight down into a complex of three rooms, one of which was clearly Amenemhat’s intended burial chamber, since it has a niche and is decorated with the Book of the Dead and Pyramid Texts.457 Very few 18th Dynasty private tombs had decorated burial chambers, making

The tomb of Rekhmire (TT100), although being further south, is on a parallel ridge with TT131 of User, and even the tomb of User’s steward Amenemhat (TT82) is nearby, being just south (almost adjacent) to that of Aametu. 455 Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.131. 456 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.326-30, type Vb. The tomb was published by Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet. My examination of the tomb in 2002 revealed that it is in essentially the same condition as when Davies worked there. TT82 was completely decorated, although by Davies’ time the entire east bay of the hall, as well as parts of the passage, have suffered considerable damage. 457 Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.102-10, pls. xxxv-xlvi. The burial chamber’s walls are divided in half by a continuous band of text. Book of the Dead (BD) texts were painted on the north, south and east walls, as well as the rear wall of the niche. On the west wall of the chamber the goddesses Isis and Nepthys frame the BD texts on the lower portion of he wall, while human-headed Sons of Horus, in pairs, frame the Pyramid Texts placed in the upper half. The burial chamber is in much the same state as Davies’ left it, complete with piles of shwabtis, pottery shards, and even a bit of newspaper from the 1930’s with adds for items like shoe polish! I am indebted to the SCA for allowing me access to the burial chamber, which conveniently still had a ladder in place. I am also grateful to Harold Hayes, and especially Will Schenk, for their help with the inscriptions.

101

this a unique and significant feature of TT82 the importance of which as a marker of Amenemhat’s status will be discussed below. Another distinctive aspect of Amenemhat’s tomb is his portrayal of multiple members of his consanguine and affinal family, as well as the family of viziers he served under. The difficulties inherent in understanding ancient Egyptian kinship terms make determining the relationships between Amenemhat and the people he chose to depict challenging. A cursory examination appears to indicate that Amenemhat inherited almost all of his titles, either directly or indirectly, from the relatives represented in his tomb. Thus, the progression of Amenemhat’s career is intricately tied to determining the exact nature of these familial links. In his publication of the tomb, Davies presents an extensive genealogy for Amenemhat based on the evidence fromTT82 and other monuments attributable to him.458 These include a stele at Gebel es-Silsilah,459 depiction in the Silsilah shrine of his superior, the vizier User,460 funerary cones from TT82,461 and possibly a stelephorous statue.462 Amenemhat’s genealogy is rather complex, so for ease of reference Davies’ version appears as Fig.9, p.465. Only a few of the identifications that Davies makes are questionable, and these are indicated on the figure with an asterisk. Sheila Whale included Amenemhat’s tomb and family in her study of the representations of families in

458

Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.1-6. In general Urk. IV, 1043-65. See also Davies compilation of Amenemhat’s titles, pp.6-7. 459 Griffith, PSBA 12, pp.6-7; Urk. IV, 1053-4. 460 Shrine no.17; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.57-63, esp. p.58 and pl.46. See also Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.128-31 461 Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 128-9, no.379, which belongs to the “elder of the portal” Amenemhat and his wife Nofretiry are perhaps relatives of Amenemhat, who had a niece and sister named Nofretiry, as well as a son named Amenemhat. Daressy nos. 46 and 249 are also possibly attributable to Amenehat on the basis of titles and the wife’s name. 462 Berlin no.2316; cf. Aegyptische Inschriften, V, p.52; Urk. IV,1049. The attribution of the stele is tenuous as the name of Amenemhat’s wife is Merytamun.

102

private tombs.463 Whale suggests one change and two emendations to Davies’ original reconstruction of the basic genealogy, which will be examined in the following discussion. Before turning to his extended family, it should be mentioned that Amenemhat’s wife Baket(amun) was, as Davies originally suggested, apparently also his niece through his (half- ?)sister Ahmose. 464 This identification is based on the fact that in relation to Amenemhat Baket(amun) is called both Hmt.f “his wife” and sAt n snt.f “daughter of his sister”.465 Ahmose is identified as the mother of Baket(amun) in TT82 and as the sister (snt.f) of Amenemhat on the Silsilah stele.466 Most of Amenemhat’s extended family (excluding his siblings, wife, and children) is depicted on the west wall of the transversehall (Fig.10, p.466), where they are referred to as “ancestors” (itw).467 Amenemhat stands before them as “the scribe who counts grain in the granary of [divine offerings of Amun], elder of the portal (smsw hAyt) [of the house of Amun], overseer of ploughed lands, steward of the vizier, head of the weavers of [Amun]”.468 In the upper register three couples are depicted. The first two are the steward of the vizier Ahmose-Humashu and his wife Ahmose, and Ahmose-Humashu’s parents, the “chief of weavers of Amun” Djhutymes called Aa and his wife Tjuiunefret.469 Ahmose-Humashu and Ahmose are

463

Whale, Family. Her study of Amenemhat appears on pp.60-68, Case 22. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.3. 465 She is designated as wife four times in the tomb, as well as on the Silsilah stele, and as his niece three times in the tomb; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4, pls. iv, ix, xii, xiv, xxii, xxxi, xxxv. 466 Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4-5, pls.xxxvi, xliv. 467 PM(4); cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii. Amenemhet stands before them making a Htp-dinsw offering for “the ancestors, revered ones, those who are in the necropolis”; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, p.35; Urk. IV, 1054-5. 468 Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, pp.6-7, 34-5. 469 Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, pp.4-5, 35; Urk. IV, 1055.1-4. 464

103

named as the parents of Amenemhat’s wife Baket(amun) twice in the burial chamber.470 This indicates that Amenemhat probably inherited his title of steward of the vizier from his father/brother-in-law. It is perhaps possible that the marriage between Amenemhat and his niece Baket(amun) was conducted in order to cement the transition, since Amenemhat would now be a “son” to Ahmose-Humashu.471 The last couple is identified as “his brother (sn.f), the steward and scribe” Djhutymes and “his great (i.e. eldest) sister (snt.f wrt)” Djhutymes.472 Davies calls this last couple the brother and sister of Ahmose-Humashu,473 but Whale identifies them as the sister of Ahmose-Humashu and her husband because of the use of the term “eldest sister”.474 I do not agree with Whale in this conclusion, because Amenemhat was very consistent in his use of kinship terms. Although Ahmose is his sister, she is called Hmt.f because she is depicted in relation to her husband, and Djhutymes is identified as it.f in relation to Ahmose-Humay while his wife is called Hmt.f in relation to Djhutymes. Thus if the last couple were meant to be identified as husband and wife they should be identified as sn.f … Hmt.f, regardless of the fact that Djhutymes was the sister of AhmoseHumashu since “his brother” could still mean brother-in-law.475 Throughout the tomb the term snt.f is never used to mean wife, only the more traditional Hmt.f. The only exception to this is when Amenemhat identifies his wife by her own lineage as sAt n snt.f. The fact that here Djhutymes is instead called “eldest sister” implies that she is the older sister of

470

Once on the rear wall of the niche, and once on the north wall, to the east of the burial chamber’s entrance, cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.4-5, pls.xxxvi l.3-4, xliv top left l.2. In both inscriptions Baket(amun) is “born to the steward of the vizier Hamash(u),born of the mistress of the house Ahmose”. 471 This bears some similarity to the case of Sibastet mentioned above in the Introduction to the chapter, Section Ic, p.73. 472 Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.vii, p.5, 35; Urk. IV, 1055.5-6. 473 Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.5, 35 474 Whale, Family, pp.62, 67. 475 Refer to the chart of kinship terminology, Table 1, p.57

104

Djhutymes, who was the brother of Ahmose-Humashu. Thus I follow Davies’ genealogical reconstruction of this register. In the register below this Amenemhat seems to depict his own ancestors. The first couple certainly represents the parents of Amenemhat as they are identified by their relationship to him, thus “his father (it.f), his beloved, revered on long of life, the elder of the portal and overseer of ploughed lands, Djhutymes” and “his mother (mwt.f), his beloved, mistress of the house Intef”.476 It is important to notice that the point of reference in this register is Amenemhat himself, and not the first seated couple as it was in the upper register. Thus the remaining figures must all relate back to Amenemhat. The inscriptions for the next two couples are badly damaged; however, enough traces remain to suggest their relationship to Amenemhat. For the second couple we can read “the father of his father (it it.f), the elder of the portal and overseer of ploughed lands, Kay (or Kemy)” and “the mother of his father (mwt it.f), the mistress of the house Intef”.477 These then are Amenemhat’s paternal grandparents, while the final couple can probably be restored as his maternal grandparents.478 The damage to the inscription accompanying this last couple has erased their filiation almost completely. In the first column there are just the traces of it, ‘father,’ at the top, leaving room for further kinship terms and in the second column we have the name Intef with traces of the determinative at the top of the third column, the rest being lost. The next portion is also badly damaged, with the initial kinship term lost and the final three columns restorable as mwt.f Ahhotep. As none of the preceding inscriptions have blank columns between the names and titles of the couples, it is likely that all of the columns here also bore inscriptions. The likely restoration then 476

Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.2-3, 35; Urk. IV, 1054.12-13. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4, 36; Urk. IV, 1054.14-15. 478 So also Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4 and Whale, Family, p.62. 477

105

becomes “the father of [his mother], Intef” and “[the mother] of his mother, mistress of the house, Ahhotep.”479 Whale’s first addition to the genealogy as presented by Davies is to extend the already evident connection between Amenemhat and his predecessor as steward of the vizier Ahmose-Humashu by proposing that Ahmose-Humashu’s mother Tjuiunefret was the sister of Amenemhat’s father Djhutymes.480 Other than a “belief” that such a relationship is possible, the only evidence Whale gives to support this theory is that Amenemhat would have thus inherited his title of “chief of the weavers of Amun” from a paternal aunt, rather than indirectly through marriage. However, the fact that Amenemhat inherited the position of “steward of the vizier” from Tjuiuneferet’s son AhmoseHumashu already indicates that Ahmose-Humashu did not have any male children on whom to confer this position. His elder (?) brother Djhutymes already had the title of steward, and it could be suggested that neither Djhutymes the brother nor the sister were married or at any rate had children on whom Djhutymes the father could confer his position. Thus it passed to Amenemhat,481 who was already entrenched in various aspects of the Amun priesthood through his consanguines. Second, she forms a consanguine relationship between Amenemhat’s grandparents, suggesting that his paternal grandmother was the sister of his maternal grandfather.482 This is based on the following three suppositions: 1) the presence of Amenemhat’s mother Intef in the burial chamber niche (as opposed to his father),483 2) 479

Compare Urk. IV, 1054.16-17; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.36. Whale, Family, p.67. 481 Amenemhat probably became “chief of weavers of Amun” before he acquired the title of steward. 482 Whale, Family, p.65 483 Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pl.xxxv. Amenemhet and Baketamun receive offerings on one side while it seems as though Amenemhet is seated with his mother on the opposite. The scene is damaged and the figure and inscription placed before Intef are lost. 480

106

Intef’s extended or additional names of Intefaa and Taweret, and 3) the fact that Intef’s father and her husband’s mother were both also called Intef.484 Each point requires review. First, although Amenemhat is depicted with his wife and mother on opposite sides of the burial chamber niche, this is not necessarily unusual. It is quite likely that Amenemhat was simply honoring his mother by including her in his funerary cult preparations. Intef’s name does have different orthographies on Amenemhat’s monuments,485 but it does not necessarily follow that being called “great/elder Intef” of “the great one” suggests a familial connection. Finally, although a consanguine relationship between Amenemhat’s grandparents is of course possible, there is no concrete evidence to support this. The reason for this extensive genealogical discourse is to reinforce the fact that Amenemhat inherited essentially all of his titles from his family, both through blood and by marriage.486 Thus we see that Amenemhat inherited the positions of “overseer of ploughed lands” and “elder of the portal” from his father Djhutymose, who had inherited them from his father Kay/Kemy. Amenemhat’s title “chief of the weavers of Amun” came from his wife’s paternal grandfather. Through his inherited positions Amenemhat may have indirectly become “counter of the grain of Amun” and its expanded version “counter of the grain in the granary of divine offerings (of Amun)”.487 This last title likely brought him into close contact with his brother Amenmes who was a scribe of the

484

Whale, Family, p.65. She states: “It is possible that the mother of +Hwty-ms and the father of his wife Intf were sister and brother. Thus, +Hwty-ms might have married his cross-cousin, his mother’s brother’s daughter.” 485 Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.4 provides the list. 486 As already noted by Davies, cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.7-9 for a discussion of Amenemhat’s career. This use of direct and indirect (through marriage) inheritance of titles is quite like that seen for the Middle Kingdom nomach Khnumhotep II, discussed above in the Introduction to the chapter, Section Ia, pp.60-4. 487 Amenemhat’s titles are also given by Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.042.

107

granary of divine offerings (of Amun).488 Given the number of siblings that Amenemhat had, it seems quite possible that he may have been quite a bit younger than his sister Ahmose, whose daughter he married. This would also help to explain how it was that Amenemhat’s most eminent position of “steward of the vizier” was passed on from his wife’s father (who was also his brother-in-law). He may also have acquired his position as “scribe of the vizier” after his brother Amen… held it.489 Indeed, Amenemhat’s participation in the Amun priesthood likely came at an earlier stage in his career and is perhaps part of the reason that he also inherited an Amun title from an in-law. It is worth mentioning that the titles repeatedly used in his autobiographical stele are “scribe, counter of the grain, chief of the weavers of Amun”. This is how Amenemhat chose to characterize himself when speaking of the projects he oversaw on behalf of the vizier User. Many of these projects were detailed on the stele inscription in his tomb, which provides the year 28 date in the reign of Thutmosis III for User as vizier and Amenemhat as his steward.490 The fact that Amenemhat wished to represent multiple generations on a wall of his tomb indicates that he also recognized the importance that his extended family played in his becoming a steward of the vizier. It also suggests that Amenemhat may have had “notions of grandeur” about his status and position within society. As was mentioned above, TT82 was one of the larger and more distinctive tombs of its time. In addition to his own family, Amenemhat depicted the vizier User and his family on the eastern front 488

Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.5, pls. v, xv. On Amenemhat’s positions, and those of his family, in the Amun priesthood see Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.244, no.042 with the literature and references cited therein. 489 Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, p.5, pls. vi, xv. 490 The stele is in fact a later addition, being painted over a scene of funerary equipment. This indicates that Amenemhat’s tomb was already complete well before year 28, and thus that he was steward before this as well; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.70-2, pl.xxv; also Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.

108

wall of his tomb’s hall, while Aametu and his wife were placed on the western front wall.491 He was also represented in User’s shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah, along with other officials, including Ahmose-Humashu, who served under User and/or his father.492 His relationship with the vizierate family may well have started while he served as a “counter of grain” in the Amun precinct, since User was the “scribe of the divine seal” and his uncle by marriage Ineni (TT81) was “overseer of the granary of Amun” and “overseer of all sealers in the house of Amun”, among other positions.493 Based in part on a family connection between the two officials that stretched back to their childhood, Dziobek in fact suggests that Amenemhat left his Amun-related duties to become steward to User when the latter became vizier.494 While possible, I would suggest that Amenemhat may have become steward at the very end of Aametu’s tenure, rather than at the succession of User. This seems to provide a better explanation for the depiction of both Aametu and User in Amenemhat’s tomb than simply a strong family link. Apparently due to his close relationship with User, Amenemhat’s tomb was even placed near those of User and his father Aametu. Indeed, TT82 closely parallels that of the viziers Aametu, User and Rekhmire in placement, size and decoration. It is closest to Aametu’s, bears a decorated burial chamber as does User’s, and portrays multiple generations on a short wall of the hall as in Rekhmire’s tomb. In the last case, the similarity is even more striking since the family members chosen by both men are those that relate most directly to how they achieved their own positions. It seems likely that 491

User’s family are at PM (3), the remains of the names of Aametu and Taametu are all that remain of the scene located at PM (6); cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pls. iii, xxxi. 492 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.58-9, pl.46. It sems likely that Ahmose-Humashu was the steward for Aametu, while Amenemhat may have entered into the position towards the end of Aametu’s tenure, and thus was essentially the steward for User. See also the brief discussion by Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.131. 493 For a summary of the Amun related positions that these three men held, cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, nos.042, 144, 175. 494 Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.131.

109

Amenemhat was able to use his connections to the vizierate family to embellish his own tomb and its decoration. Although he may have felt his position as a steward to the vizier entitled him to certain rights regarding his funerary preparations, it apparently did not carry over into the stability of his position. Despite the fact that Amenemhat was the third generation to inherit lower level positions in the Amun priesthood, none of Amenemhat’s sons appear to have taken their father’s place.495 In addition, the post of steward of the vizier also moved outside of this family’s control after Amenemhat’s tenure. Perhaps this was in part due to his closeness to the vizierate family. Thus, with the replacement of Rekhmire during the reign of Amenhotep II by an entirely new and unrelated vizier, the positions given to the vizier’s subordinates likewise changed hands.

Menkheperresoneb and his nephew Menkheperresoneb (Two generations of high priests of Amun496) The two high priests of Amun named Menkheperresoneb, owners of Theban tombs (TT) 112 and 86,497 were recently re-evaluated by Dorman, and subsequently reviewed by Bryan.498 My own re-examination of both tombs raises some new questions about the family’s initial rise to influence, the tombs’ chronological placement, and the relationship between the two tomb owners. As was the case with the vizierate, both nepotism and lineage were factors in how the office of high priest of Amun was granted to, and remained within, this family. The nepotistic aspect of the argument can be found 495

Only two of his sons are ascribed titles, and these are only that of “scribe”; cf. Davies and Gardiner, Amenemhet, pp.5-6 provides a list. 496 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, nos. 260, 261. 497 The two tombs are published by Davies, Menkheperrasonb. TT86 belongs to Kampp’s Type Ve, TT112 to type Vd; cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.338-40, 392-4. 498 Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.147-54; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. See also Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.137-9.

110

in the next chapter, which focuses on familial relationships with the king. The following discussion, then, concerns the passage of the title from one Menkheperresoneb to the other, and tackles the latter two issues mentioned. Specifically, the date and purpose of each tomb, based on stylistic criteria and textual evidence, and the genealogical importance of identifying the woman called Nebetta who appears in each tomb, as well as her relationship to the rest of the individuals named. Prior to Dorman’s review, the dominant interpretation was that a single high priest of Amun named Menkheperresoneb was one of a few officials who owned two tombs.499 Dorman’s reconstruction resulted in the identification of not one, but two Menkheperresoneb’s, both high priests of Amun, who were uncle and nephew to each other. Dorman argued that Menkheperresoneb of TT112 was the son of the royal nurse Taiunet and charioteer Hepu, and grandson to Nebetta, while Menkheperresoneb of TT86 was the son of this same Nebetta and brother to Hepu. Thus, Menkheperresoneb of TT86 was the uncle and predecessor of Menkheperresoneb of TT112, his nephew through his brother Hepu.500 This genealogy also makes it necessary to place TT86 as earlier in construction than TT112, a conclusion that is problematic for several reasons. Bryan agreed with Dorman’s separation of a single high priest of Amun named Menkhperresoneb into two like-named and related men who passed the title of high priest between them. However, she questions which man preceded the other in office, stating that “Tomb 112 is a limestone relief one, typical of tombs of the earlier part of the 499

This was the conclusion reached by both Lefebvre (Histoire, pp.82-9, 233-5) and Davies, pp.15-16, 20. Dorman reviews their arguments in his article in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp.141-54. Other “double-tomb” owners include Senenmut (TTs 71 and 353), the vizier User (TTs 61 and 131), the overseer of the treasury Djhhutynefer (TTs 104 and 80), the mayor of Thebes Sennefer (TT96 upper and lower) and a number of individuals who were also granted tombs in the Valley of the Kings, including Sennefer and his cousin the vizier Amenemopet. 500 Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153

111

dynasty, and it should be noted that the only monuments named in the tomb include both Djeser djeseru … and Henket ankh … The later Djeser akhet does not appear.”501 Djeserdjeseru was the name of Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri, while Henketankh is Thutmosis III’s funerary temple, built during the co-regency and already in use by year 23.502 The construction of Djeser-akhet, the temple that Thutmosis III placed at Deir el-Bahri, took place in the last decade of Thutmosis III’s sovereignty, and its mention in TT86, as well as that of Karnak monuments dating to the later years Thutmosis III’s reign, indicate that the tomb must also have been decorated, if not built, in this time frame.503 In addition, the presence of named Syrian chiefs bringing tribute and the mention of the Euphrates River places the construction of TT86 after year 33, the date of Thutmosis III’s eighth campaign, which crossed the Euphrates.504 All of these points were also noted by Dorman, who is then forced to push the date of TT112, and its owner’s tenure as high priest, into the period of late Thutmosis III-early Amenhotep II.505 However, as stated above, the decorative style and inscriptional content of TT112 fits best during the co-regency and earlier portion of Thutmosis III’s sole reign. Even the

501

Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. In TT112, Henket-ankh and Djeser-djeseru appear in an offering scene at PM(3); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xxiv. 502 Dorman discusses Djeser-djeseru several times in Senenmut, while Ricke’s work on Thutmosis III’s mortuary temple is still the main source; cf. Ricke, Der Totentempel. See also Haeny, in: Temples, pp.93-99 and Redford, LdÄ VI, col.543. 503 On the construction sequence of Thutmosis III’s monuments at Karnak, see Dorman, Senenmut, Ch.3. The dating of Djeser-akhet stems from Hayes, JEA 46, pp.43-52. In TT86 Djeser-akhet is mentioned twice in an offering scene at PM(1) and once in the offering scene depicting Menkheperresoneb before the king at PM(8); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.iii, xvii. In addition, an (unfinished) scene adjacent to PM(1) records the names of Henket-ankh, Djeser-akhet, and Djeser-set; cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xvii. 504 Menkheperresoneb offers before Thutmosis III at PM(8), and behind him are two registers with the chiefs of Keftiu (Crete), Kheta (Hatti), Tjenpu (Tunip) and Qadesh depicted, while the text above register 3 contains the term pXr-wr “great bend”, which refers to the Euphrates River, and mentions the tAw MTn, or ‘lands of Mittani’; cf. Davies, pl. iv, vii; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. Redford’s Wars is the most recent discussion of Thutmosis III’s campaigns in Syria and Palestine. He also mentions Menkheperresoneb’s work at Karnak in connection with the construction activities described by Thutmosis III on the 7th pylon at Karnak, which Redford dates to after year 34; cf. Wars, pp.124-5. 505 Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.154.

112

architectural plan of TT112, which Kampp accords her type Ve, dates primarily to the reign of Hatshepsut and Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III.506 In contrast, TT86 falls into Kampp’s type Vd, which has parallels that date solidly to Thutmosis III’s reign, including TT84 of Iamunedjeh, who also participated in the 8th campaign.507 One final point is that the only king mentioned or depicted in either tomb is Thutmosis III. The above discussion confirms what Bryan pointed out (and Davies before her), namely that TT112 is in fact the earlier of the two tombs. Having established this fact, we must now turn to the purpose(s) for which the tombs were constructed. Dorman was the first to separate the tombs between two different men of the same name and title, arguing against Davies’ original suggestion that a single high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb designed two complementary tombs, in the style of the vizier User’s tombs.508 Dorman discounts this architecturally because they each appear to be “complete” monuments, and stylistically because TTs86 and 112 are unfinished and badly damaged, and TT112 was usurped.509 Based on a recent examination of these tombs, I agree that they are indeed unfinished (as are User’s) and damaged (as are User’s), and suggest that TT112 was usurped not once, but at least twice.510 However, the decoration that remains is sufficiently preserved to show that in each tomb it is quite different, and thus the

506

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.25-6. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.26, 332-6 (TT84). See Chapter 3, pp.350-66 for a discussion of Iamunedjeh. 508 Davies, Menkheperrasonb, p.20 and note 2. User’s tombs are TTs 131 (daily life and career scenes) and 61 (funerary scenes and an exterior burial chamber). 509 Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen p.150-1. 510 The Ramesside usurpation is long known and mentioned by Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pp.18-20, 24-5, in PM I.1, p. and by Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p. 392. It seems to be relegated to the north wall of the hall and south wall of the passage (Jiro Kondo however thinks the style is possibly that of Amenhotep III, pers. comm.). The northwest wall of the hall is divided into two scenes, the upper of which appears to be perhaps dateable to Horemhab (pers. comm. Ray Johnson, Deanna Kiser). I would like to point out that although Polz mentions TT 112 in his article on tomb ownership, he seemed unaware of this additional usurpation, cf. Polz, MDAIK 46, pp.311f. 507

113

possibility that the two tombs were envisioned as complementary cannot be so summarily dismissed. Turning to the earlier tomb first, the architecture of TT112 consists of a short transverse-hall and passage that leads into a rear chamber with a niche and a descending shaft leading to a chamber with another shaft.511 The original decoration of TT112 combines carving in the transverse-hall with painting in the passage, and is entirely composed of banquet and funerary scenes. In the hall Menkheperresoneb is depicted offering braziers, receiving offerings in both banquet and festival contexts, and adoring Osiris.512 Why Menkheperresoneb left out any scenes relating to his function as a high priest of Amun is unclear. Perhaps these or those of hunting or fishing and fowling were intended for the two blank walls (later usurped) on the north side of the hall. However, even if this were the case, it seems significant that the majority of the hall was reserved for funerary-related scenes. Although Dorman finds Davies’ comments about the passage “odd”, in fact they are quite accurate.513 While Davies published only one small fragment of inscription, he was able to discern the original scenes depicted through the soot and usurpation.514 My examination confirms what he describes, namely that the passage’s south wall depicted the funerary procession to the Western Goddess, including the Abydos pilgrimage, and an offering scene, while on the north wall the funeral outfit may have been represented. The damage and usurpation in the passage makes it difficult to

511 This is the only difference with User’s tombs, whose “funerary tomb”, TT61, consists of a passage and rear chamber with an exterior shaft and burial chamber, while User’s other tomb, TT131, is T-shaped and unfinished like TT86, though without side-chapels. 512 In one of the offering scenes (PM(5), southwest wall of the hall) a Pyramid Text is even included. I would like to thank Harold Hayes for pointing this out to me. 513 Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamntennekropolen, p.149, n.42 514 Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pp.24-5. The fact that he only published small portions from the passage is typical for Davies when dealing with difficult scenes. He generally traced what he felt was actually traceable, and described the remainder, e.g. pp.19-20, 24-25.

114

ascertain with certainty that the two styles are complementary as is the case in TT131 of User. However, given that the combination of painting and carving in a single tomb is not unknown,515 it seems most likely that the two methods were employed simultaneously. The plan of TT86 is that of a long transverse-hall with side-chapels and an unfinished passage whose walls retain the original mason’s marks. Although the walls of the hall were prepared for painting, their decoration was only completed on the east side and directly adjacent to the main axis on the west side. In contrast to TT112, here the focus is exclusively on duty-related scenes, with the exception of two or three offeringscenes placed at the expected locations on the front wall at either side of the entrance.516 Throughout most of the hall Menkheperresoneb depicts himself acting in his capacity as high priest, inspecting animals and temple workshops, and receiving tribute and foreign products.517 He is also depicted twice before Thutmosis III seated in a kiosk, once presenting five registers of northern tribute.518 It is certainly possible that the unfinished walls at the west end of the hall would have contained banquet scenes, but it is equally likely that they contained additional duty-related scenes, or perhaps those of fishing and fowling and an autobiographical stele. In TT112 none of Menkheperresoneb’s duties as high priest are depicted, nor are any of the titles associated with those duties reported.519 Likewise, as Dorman himself

515

Other tombs beside TT131 include TTs125, 109 and 256. As these scenes are quite typical in this location, I do not think they detract from the overall statement. On the west side [PM(1)] there may have been two offering scenes, both connected to temples, and on the east side [PM(3)] is a brazier scene. 517 These scenes occur at PM(4)-(7) in the transverse-hall, from the eastern end of the south (front) wall to the eastern end of the north (rear) wall. 518 The two presentation scenes are placed on the hall’s rear wall, on either side of the entrance to the passage. PM(2) is unfinished and only depicts Menkheperresoneb before Thutmosis III, while the fuller scene is at PM(8). 519 Dorman provides a list of these titles; cf. Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.152. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.260 for an abbreviated list of his titles. 516

115

pointed out, the titles ascribed to Menkheperresoneb in TT112 are “exclusively honorary or are associated with the high priestly office.”520 In fact, the “honorary” ones are primarily concerned with the court and Menkheperresoneb’s closeness to the king. Dorman states that there is an inscription that deals with building activities in Karnak, but I was not able to locate this text.521 In contrast, TT86 presents only duty-related scenes and the titles that are unique to TT86 are functional ones “pertaining to the construction projects and the supervision of craftsmen”,522 and thus complementary to the activities depicted in the tomb.523 In addition, funerary cones found in the tomb report only the title “high priest of Amun”.524 The most compelling reason for the separation of the two tombs is in fact not the content of the scenes, which do in their unfinished state appear to be complementary, as Davies suggested. Rather, it is that the style of the decoration is quite different in each of the tombs. TT112 uses both carved relief and painting, but the two methods are similarly executed and fall into the earlier part of the reign of Thutmosis III.525 The techniques employed in the painting of TT86 on the other hand, represent a later evolution of tomb decoration that belongs towards the end of Thutmosis III’s reign. This is quite different from the two tombs of User, where the painting in TT61 is the same as that used in

520

Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151. Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151: “It should be noted that TT 112 also contains an account of Menkheperraseneb’s building activities at Karnak, even though this is not supported by specific titles having to do with construction.” The location of this account is not given. 522 Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151. 523 Dorman and Eichler each provide a list of his titles; cf. Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.152 and Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.261. The functional titles include “overseer of the granaries of Amun,” “overseer of weavers of Upper and Lower Egypt,” “overseer of craftsmen,” and “chief of the overseers of craftsmen.” 524 When I examined the tomb in 2002 I found 54 cones for the Wsir iry pat HAty-o sDAwt bity Hm-nTr tpy n Imn Mn-xpr-ra-snb mAa-Xrw. There were also 6 for the sS [nsw] imy-r Snwty n Imn ^maw MHw Mn-xpr-rasnb mAa-xrw xr nTr aA (Menkheperresoneb, TT79), and one cone for the HAty-a n niwt rsyt imy-r-pr imy-r kAw n Imn %n-nfr mAa-xrw (Sennefer, TT96). 525 This is also the case in TT 131 of User. 521

116

TT131 and also the same stylistically as the carved scenes in the latter tomb. If Menkheperresoneb’s two tombs were designed as complementary, and for one individual, there would have been a long gap between their decoration. An extended chronological difference is further indicated by the monuments reported in each tomb, with Djeserdjeseru named in TT112, but Djeser-akhet appearing only in TT86. This situation, while possible, nonetheless seems to be an unlikely solution at this time.526 Whether or not the unfinished portions in each tomb were intended for decoration that would complete the typical repertoire remains moot. It is the style of decoration and inscriptional content in each tomb that supports their chronological split and division of ownership. However, if one is to interpret them as distinct tombs belonging to different individuals, then an explanation of the seemingly singular nature of their decoration must be addressed. It seems to this author that the most likely reason is that each official was stressing different aspects of his rise to high priest and authority within that position. Our understanding of the family’s genealogy is significant for this discussion. Having established that TT112 is in fact the earlier tomb, it is no longer possible to follow Dorman’s reconstruction that the owner of TT86 is the uncle of TT112. If we re-examine the representations of the family members who appear in each tomb, it also becomes evident that the earlier date of TT112 helps rather than hinders the genealogy. Dorman is certainly correct in discarding both the British and Cairo Museum statues (BM 708 and CG 42125, respectively) from among the monuments ascribable to either Menkheperresoneb. The BM statue is excluded on the basis of several titles, including second priest of Amun, found on the statue but not in either tomb. While the titles 526

Although Djhutynefer (TTs 104 and 80) did just this, both of his tombs are complete entities in terms of the decoration, not complementary, as User’s (TTs131 and 61) are. I would like to thank Betsy Bryan for stimulating conversations as well as her thoughts and insights on this topic.

117

reported on the Cairo statue are too damaged to be of use, the names and titles of the statue owner’s parents do not match any of the people represented in either tomb, making it unlikely that this statue belonged to one of the Menkheperresonebs.527 In addition, the Cairo statue bears the cartouche of Amenhotep II, which I believe is too late for either high priest. I would argue that TT112 appears to fit in the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III coregency and early Thutmosis III, while Menkheperresoneb of TT86 served only during the reign of Thutmosis III and was the predecessor of the high priest of Amun Amenemhat, who likely witnessed the transition of Thutmosis III to Amenhotep II.528 In order to discern the relationship between the two Menkheperresonebs two issues must be dealt with. First, the kinship interpretation of the “family tableaux” in TT112, and second, the identification of the “mistress of the house” Nebetta depicted in TT112 and the “foster-sister of the king” Nebetta represented in TT86. Dorman’s review of the monuments, besides resulting in the recognition of two related high priests of Amun who shared the same name, also produced a new genealogy. According to Dorman, in TT112 three generations are represented at the east end of the south wall, at PM(3) (Fig.11, p.467). Menkheperresoneb is seated with “his mother, the royal nurse, Taiunet”, and behind them are “his father, the charioteer of his Majesty, Hepu” and “his mother, his beloved, mistress of the house, Nebetta.” The same set of pairs is also depicted on the opposite wall, where in the upper register Menkheperresoneb and “his mother” Taiunet are offered to by a priest, and in the register below Menkheperresoneb himself offers to Hepu and “his mother” Nebetta.529 Taiunet and Nebetta are each identified by their kin relationship to the men they are seated with, 527

Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151f. See my discussion of the high priest of Amun Amenemhat, below. 529 This is at PM(5). 528

118

namely mwt, “mother.” Although Davies argued that Hepu and Nebetta were the parents of Taiunet, if Nebetta was the wife of Hepu, she should have been called Hmt.f, “his wife,” in the inscriptions. Taiunet’s role as Menkheperresoneb’s mother is confirmed by two factors. First, she is consistently called “his mother” and displayed prominently in the tomb, indicating that Menkheperresoneb was unmarried and thus his mother is placed in scenes that a wife would otherwise appear in.530 In addition, an inscription in an offering scene on the northeast wall of the hall contains a somewhat damaged text that reads ms[.n mnat nswt ...(Sdt nTr ?) ... &A-]Iwnt mAat-xrw xr Itm.531 The traces are extremely faint, but a plausible restoration would be “whom the royal nurse, one who nurtured the god, Taiunet, justified, bore”.532 Dorman’s classification of Hepu and Taiunet as the parents of Menkheperresoneb of TT112, and this Nebetta as the mother of Hepu, is certainly supported by the evidence. In TT86, Menkheperresoneb labels himself as “whom the foster-sister of the king, Nebetta, bore”.533 Dorman suggests that the foster-sister of the king Nebetta in TT86 is the same woman named as the mother of Hepu in TT112.534 However, there is no need to equate the two women, and in fact there are several reasons to keep them separate. The title foster-sister of the king is a high court honorific, implying a close relationship to the king that probably grew out of nursing alongside him.535 Thus, if Nebetta of TT86 were the same as the woman in TT112, it seems very unlikely that her 530

Whale clearly demonstrates this practice in her study of family representations in the 18th Dynasty; cf. Whale, Family. 531 PM(6) reg.1, Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xxix. 532 Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xxix, records the title incorrectly – his mnat is in fact a t-sign, while the mt following this (owl and bread loaf) I found no trace of. There is plenty of room to restore the inscription with the full spellings, thus it would parallel the one found on the door-jamb, which reads ms.n mnat nswt Sdt nTr &A-iwnt mAat-xrw. 533 The inscription appears at PM(3): ms.n snt-mnat n nswt Nbt-tA mAat-xrw 534 Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153f. 535 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.314ff.

119

title would have been left out in TT112. Especially since the much lower title of Hepu, a chariot-soldier, was given, and Taiunet’s title as a royal nurse is prominently displayed. A more likely solution would be to place Nebetta of TT86 as the daughter of Taiunet, making her the sister of TT112 Menkheperresoneb. She would have been named for her paternal grandmother, and named her own son after her prestigious brother. In addition, Nebetta would become the foster-sister of Thutmosis III,536 a situation that accords well with both Taiunet’s role as nurse to prince Thutmosis (III) and her son’s position as high priest in the later years of this king. The fact that Taiunet was a nurse to the young Thutmosis III is demonstrated by her use of the title Sdt nTr “one who nurtured the god,”537 which occurs at least twice, and possibly three times in the tomb. Traces of the title remain in the Htp-di-nsw formula on the southern interior door-jamb, and in the row of inscription above the priests in an offering scene on the northeast wall of the hall.538 Clearly the connection to the royal household was important to Menkheperresoneb of TT112 and it is doubtful that he would have neglected to include his paternal grandmother’s title if it reinforced this relationship.

536

This is contra Roehrig (Royal urse, pp.16-22) who has Nebetta as the mother of Taiunet and thus foster-sister to Thutmosis I. 537 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.44-8 discusses Taiunet. 538 The door-jamb inscription is adjacent to PM(2), Davies pl. xxiii, and the offering scene inscriptions appear at PM(6) reg.1, Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xxix. Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153, n.53, suggested that this title could be restored at the opposite end of PM(6), where Menkhperresoneb and Taiunet are depicted. The area is extremely damaged and it is possible, but the title would have to be above where Dorman places it as otherwise there is not enough room for the beginning of Taiunet’s name which is secured by the still visible Iwnt portion.

120

The above discussion leads me to posit the following genealogy: ? --- ? ? --- Nebetta (mwt.f mrt.f to the HPA in TT112) | | | | Taiunet (mwt.f and ms.n to the HPA in TT112) --- Hepu (it.f to the HPA in TT112) (mnat nswt Sdt nTr) | (snni n Hm.f) | | | ? --- Nebetta (ms.n to the HPA in TT86) HPA Menkheperresoneb (i) (TT112) | (snt mna nswt ) | | | HPA Menkheperresoneb (ii) (TT86) Tadidites (sAt snt mnay n nb tAwy Nbt-tA) --- Hekanefer (D&M nos. 393, 394)

This reconstruction solves the issue of the decorative styles of TTs112 and 86, as well as the lack of a title for Nebetta in TT112. It also explains why Menkheperresoneb (i) of TT112 does not call himself a foster-brother, an omission that Roehrig pointed out as suggestive that one of his siblings carried the title; Nebetta of TT86 would be that sibling. For the younger Menkheperresoneb (ii), it becomes clear that he inherited the position of high priest of Amun from his maternal uncle because Menkheperresoneb (i) was unmarried and without children. This is an excellent example of how inheritance can be transferred to another male family member when the title-holder does not have direct descendants. I would further argue that it was Taiunet’s position as a royal nurse that led to the family’s initial rise in power, not Nebetta’s as a foster-sister to the king. This example of how a mother’s relationship with the king as a royal nurse can lead to benefits for her family will be discussed further, with additional examples, in the next chapter. One final point to make concerns the number and variety of titles that each Menkheperresoneb held. It was mentioned above that the elder high priest reported primarily court honorifics and priestly titles. This seems to support the idea that he was

121

awarded his position due to his family’s court connection, stressing this fact in his titles. In contrast, the Menkheperresoneb (ii) bore a range of supervisory positions connected to activities within the temple precinct. This could suggest that he was brought into the priesthood and placed in various upper-level positions prior to taking on the high priesthood for his uncle. However, it may also indicate that the family’s power had grown to such an extent that Menkheperresoneb (ii) was able to wield a greater amount of authority, over larger areas of the temple domain. This will be discussed further in the conclusions at the end of the chapter.

Minnakht and his son Menkheper(resoneb) (Two generations of overseer of granaries) P. Louvre 3226 informs us that the title of overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt was one that was generally held contemporaneously by two officials during the mid-18th Dynasty.539 In the period under consideration the family of Minnakht and his son Menkheperresoneb retained control of one of the two positions.540 Like the vizierate, the post of overseer of granaries was one of the most important in the administration,541 and in this case one that was passed through two generations. In addition to being the overseer of granaries, Minnakht was an upper-level administrative official in various areas of the Amun precinct.542 The power Minnakht exercised likely enabled him to install his son Amenhotep within the cultic personnel of the Amun precinct, and his son 539

Megally, Recherche. But contra this, see Bohleke, Double Granaries. The publication of their tombs, which are related architecturally, was done by Guksch, Die Gräber. A synthesized treatment of these officials was presented most recently by Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. See also Helck, Verwaltung, pp.387-9, 497-9. 541 Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 542 Guksch lists Minnakht’s titles on pp.17-19; cf. Guksch, Die Gräber. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” no.389. According to Eichler, all but two of his positions belong to the upper echelon; cf. Eichler’s general division of titles into upper, middle and lower categories in Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” pp.v-viii. 540

122

and successor Menkheper(resoneb) as a priest in Henket-ankh.543 This family provides another example of the ability of a highly placed official to use both heredity and nepotism to consolidate his family’s power. Minnakht was an official during the co-regency of Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III and into the sole rule of Thutmosis III.544 Early in his career he constructed Shrine 23 at Gebel es-Silsilah, whose outer lintel originally bore the double cartouches of both Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III, dating it to their co-regency.545 On the west wall Minnakht is called the imy-r st and royal scribe, and is seated with his mother receiving offerings.546 The scene repeats on the opposite (east) wall, where the chief of the weavers of Amun and royal scribe Minnakht sits before an offering-list and table with his father, the sAb Sendjhuty.547 Each of these two scenes is completed with a bottom register depicting musicians and offering-bearers and a side panel with representations of funerary rituals. At the rear of the shrine are three statues which represent Minnakht and his parents.548 The middle one has the beginning of Minnakht’s title “overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt” preserved. A fragmentary inscription from the top of the inner west jamb (i.e. west side of the north wall) also reports this title.549 Since the overseer of granaries title is certainly more prestigious than the others that appear in the shrine, it

543

Amunhotep is known from a scribal palette (BM 12786); cf. Guksch, Die Gräber, p.16 and also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.130. Menkheperresoneb has two titles connected to Henket-ankh, which appear in both his father’s and his own tomb (TT79). Guksch lists Menkheperresoneb’s titles in Die Gräber, pp.122-3. 544 A date of year 36 is given in P. Louvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherche, pp.274-5. 545 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.74-7, pl.56-9. The cartouches of Hatshepsut were later defaced, a fate suffered by all the Silsilah shrine with her cartouches on them. 546 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.74-5, pl.58. 547 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.75-6, pl.59. 548 The text on the left statue is destroyed, but can be identified as the father based on the other two statues. The middle statue’s inscription preserves a portion of Minnakht’s title, and the inscription on the right statue reads “his mother, his beloved ….” Cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.76, pl.57. 549 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.74, pl.57.

123

seems significant that it does not appear on the walls, but only on the statue and inner door-jamb. In addition, while the title “royal scribe” is Minnakht’s most important on the walls of Shrine 23, in Minnakht’s tomb (TT87) it consistently precedes “overseer of the granaries.”550 These factors may indicate that he did not receive this title until the end stages of the shrine’s decoration. If this interpretation is correct, then it suggests that Minnakht was already influential before he became an overseer of granaries. The shrines at Silsilah were built by officials who belonged to the government’s upper ranks, and whose responsibilities included activities that would bring them to the region.551 However, only Minnakht’s royal scribe title seems a likely candidate for his presence in Silsilah prior to becoming overseer of granaries.552 Eichler’s review of the administration of the “House of Amun” during the 18th Dynasty places the position “chief of weavers of Amun” in the middle range of the Sna activities,553 while both Eichler and Guksch read imy-r st as an abbreviated form of imy-r st n at jrp “overseer of the wine chamber”.554 The full title appears several times in Minnakht’s tomb (TT87), and in the shorter form on funerary cones found there.555 According to Eichler, this title fits in the administration of gardens and vineyards attached to either the Amun temple or the palace, and perhaps even more

550

This is the case on funerary cones as well as tomb inscriptions; cf. Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.17-20, 24-8, 44, 47-8, 50 (pl.4), PM(7)-(9). Also worth mentioning is that in TT87 the title of royal scribe both follows and precedes imy-r st. See Guksch, pp.25f., 44, 59, 177 (pl.47f). 551 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.6ff. 552 As a royal scribe he could have been recording the activities on the king’s behalf. 553 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” pp.108ff. Eichler interprets the Sna installation as having two major production areas: textile manufacture and food processing. 554 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” no.389 and Guksch, Die Gräber, p.18f. 555 The relevant texts and scenes are in Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.19, 24, 44, 48, 59, 177 (pl.47f), and pl.16 (cols. 34, 54). See also Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.147.

124

specifically the Sna complex.556 An inscription in Minnakht’s tomb indicates that he likely functioned in this capacity in the north of Egypt, near the “Ways of Horus.”557 In fact, a number of the titles Minnakht reports in his tomb are connected to the north of Egypt and the Delta,558 which makes his presence in Silsilah even more interesting. Why Minnakht would have been sent to Silsilah at this apparently early stage in his career is unclear to me. Perhaps there is another explanation for Shrine 23 and its inscriptions. Shrine 12 at Silsilah has also been tentatively attributed to the same Minnakht, based on the name and titles recorded therein.559 Caminos’ hesitated in assigning two shrines to one man, due to the fact that this is otherwise unattested at Silsilah.560 Although still a single-room shrine, Shrine 12 is almost twice as large as Shrine 23 in every direction.561 The outer lintel of the shrine carries only the cartouches of Thutmosis III, dating it to the king’s sole reign. Minnakht is depicted seated before offerings with a man on the north wall and a woman on the opposite wall, and although they are unidentified, this was a common method for depicting one’s parents in the Silsilah shrines.562 The presence of only three statues in the niche along the rear wall suggests that they represent Minnakht seated between his parents.563 This is the same layout as in Shrine 23. The titles Minnakht reports are those of royal scribe, overseer of the granaries 556

Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.66ff., 181ff. See also Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.18f., and Helck, Verwaltung, p.257. 557 Guksch, Die Gräber, p.44f. She compares the scene, which exists only in a few fragments, to one in the tomb of his son Menkheper(resoneb), idem., pp.149f., pl.29-32. 558 Guksch, Die Gräber, p.18. This will be discussed in more detail below. 559 Guksch, Die Gräber, p.88. Shrine 12 is published in Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.35-7, pl. 26-9. 560 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.36, 77. 561 According to Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.74, Shrine 23 is “1.40 m in width; the east wall is 1.98 m long and the west wall 2.06 m. The ceiling, flat and unadorned, is 1.46 m above the floor of the shrine.” It is also the only shrine that faces north. In contrast, Shrine 12 looks east and is “approximately 3.26 m deep and 2.60 m wide … The partly preserved roof, flat and bare, is at a height of 2.55 m from the floor.” Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.35. 562 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.23. Shrines 15 and 23 follow the same pattern. 563 So also Caminos, Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.36, note 1.

125

of Upper and Lower Egypt, and overseer of the granaries of Amun (in the northern region).564 As in TT87, royal scribe is placed before either of the other two titles. The similarity in layout, names and titles all make it reasonable to conclude that the same Minnakht dedicated both shrines, especially as Shrine 12 is both later in date and larger in size. However, this is a unique situation and so must be explained.565 It was mentioned above that Minnakht may have received the title “overseer of granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt” only at the end of Shrine 23’s decoration. However, in Shrine 12 this is the most prominent title, appearing on the focal walls, and this elevation may provide one reason for why Minnakht would have constructed two Silsilah shrines. Shrine 12’s size and higher titles would thus reflect Minnakht’s promotion. The fact that the outer lintel of Shrine 12 carries only the name of Thutmosis III, thus falling into the latter portion of Minnakht’s career when he would have had these titles, supports this theory. A second possibility is that one of the shrines was intended to serve as a funerary monument for Minnakht’s parents. In his publication of the shrines, Caminos’ interpreted their function to be that of a funerary chapel for the persons depicted or mentioned in them.566 This would accord well with the idea that Minnakht came from a relatively midor lower status family, one for whom he wished to provide a monument once his own 564

The inscriptions on both walls are identical but for a single title: “iry-pat HAty-a sDAwt bity sole friend, who the king of Upper Egypt made great, who the king of Lower Egypt exalted, whose fortune the lord of the Two Lands made, royal scribe, overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, overseer of the granaries of Amun.” The last title occurs only on the north wall. See Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.356, pl.28-9. Guksch, Die Gräber, p.18, interprets the title “overseer of the granaries of Amun” as a shortened version of the longer title “overseer of the granaries of Amun in the northern region,” which only appears in the shaft of TT87. 565 Guksch noted the uniqueness, but made no attempt to explain it, Guksch, Die Gräber, p.88. 566 On the function of the shrines in general, and the importance of Shrine 11 for understanding their purpose, see Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.6-10. See also my comments on the viceroy Usersatet’s shrine in the next chapter.

126

position had risen to a high level within the administration. I would argue that three factors place Shrine 23 as the monument that Minnakht built for his parents. First, the earlier date of the shrine, which would match with the dates of his parents’ later years. As has already been stated, Minnakht reports only his lower titles on the walls of Shrine 12. If we view the monument as one primarily for his parents, then this suggests that he may be recording the positions he held while his parents were still alive and which led to his final promotion. Finally, the decoration of Shrine 23 seems to indicate that it served as more than a funerary chapel. Although funerary banquet scenes are common to the shrines, those in Shrine 23 include musicians and dancers as well as depiction of the actual rites. In general, this resembles tomb scenes much more than the chapel decorations.567 Three other Silsilah shrines have similar depictions to that seen here, and in two of these the owner is clearly represented with his parents. Shrine 15 of Hatshepsut’s high priest of Amun Hapuseneb has sub-scenes that incorporate musicians, butchering, and a lengthy funerary list with rituals placed along the bottom.568 As in Shrine 23, Hapuseneb is depicted with his mother on one wall and father on the opposite wall.569 Parallels can also be found in the shrines of the queen’s steward Menkh (no.21) and viceroy of Kush Usersatet (no.11), which also contain representations of “daily life” common to contemporary tombs.570 Although Menkh and his wife are on one wall, on the opposite he

567

Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.4f. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.42-52, pl.33-9. 569 Although Hapuseneb was married, his wife is depicted presenting offerings to Hapuseneb and his mother, rather than receiving any; Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.44-5, pl.37. 570 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.68-72, pl.51-4 (Shrine 21) and pp.4-5, 30-4, pl.23-5 (Shrine 11). 568

127

is seated with his parents.571 I interpret Usersatet’s shrine, whose unusualness was also remarked upon by Caminos,572 as probably having been designed as a memorial chapel for both his mother and his mother’s parents.573 Contrary to Caminos,574 it seems likely that the lower registers depicted Usersatet’s ancestors. The upper registers are destroyed, but based on the statue identifications would probably have held representations of Usersatet with his mother, and perhaps his wife. Although the ownership of two shrines would make Minnakht unique, it seems quite plausible that this was indeed the case. The reason for this can not be stated with complete certainty, but despite Caminos’ hesitation to assign two shrines to one man, there is enough evidence to support this. I would argue in favor of the monuments serving different functions, Shrine 23 for his parents and Shrine 12 for himself. The fact that other Silsilah shrines that also depict the owner’s parents closely parallel Shrine 23 in their decoration strengthens this argument. The viceroy of Kush Usersatet may even have modeled his own two-room shrine, also unique, on Minnakht’s example. In addition to owning two shrines at Silsilah, Minnakht began a tomb in Thebes, TT87.575 It was usurped twice in antiquity, and is today badly damaged, with the lower

571

Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.70, pl.53. I would like to mention here that although the cartouches on the shrine’s lintel date it to the reign of Thutmosis I, the scenes as drawn appear to be later in date. Perhaps then this is a similar situation to that seen in the tombs at el-Kab, where the monument was built, or at least partially decorated later than the lifetime of the person it honors? For more on this topic see the discussion of Usersatet in the next chapter. 572 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp. 4f., 7ff. 573 Usersatet, and his shrine at Silsilah, is discussed at length in the next chapter. 574 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp. 30-4. 575 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.340-2, type Vd; Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.13-121. Minnakht’s other monuments include several funerary cones and statues. Guksch provides a full list with literature, Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.86-8

128

portions of the walls essentially destroyed.576 Fortunately, from the inscriptions that are preserved in his tomb, as well as from the shrines and several statues belonging to Minnakht, a fairly complete picture of his career can be reconstructed.577 The enormous amount of damage to the tomb, as well as its unfinished nature, do not seem to allow one to state definitively that the tomb does not depict the activities of Minnakht in his capacity as an overseer, either before the king or otherwise.578 In fact, the entire western bay of the transverse hall is destroyed but for a few fragments.579 Of the remaining area, only the top of the front and rear walls of the east bay are extant.580 Fragments of scenes along the interior side of the tomb’s entrance suggest that the offering scenes typical to mid-18th Dynasty tombs were depicted here.581 The preserved section and fragments from the rear wall on the east side indicate that it was originally decorated with an offering and banquet scene in which Minnakht was depicted as the

576

As Bryan comments (in: Thutmose III, forthcoming), these conditions make Guksch’s publication and her reconstruction of the decorative scheme all the more valuable. See Guksch, Die Gräber, plans 7-9 for the decorative layout of the walls as preserved, and pl.51 for her concordance with PM. 577 Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.17-19 provides Minnakht’s full list of titles and the monuments on which they are found. The monuments themselves, which include two statues from Thebes, as well as Coptos and Memphis, and a naos from Giza, are presented with full literature on pp.87-8. See also Helck, Verwaltung, 497-8 (4); Urk. IV, 1177-90. 578 This is contra Bryan, in Thutmose III, forthcoming, who states that this was the case for the tomb of Minnakht as well as the tomb of his son Menkhperresoneb. It is possible that the king could have been depicted in Minnakht’s tomb at Guksch’s scene 11, which is completely destroyed. As Guksch points out, TT79 of Minnakht’s son Menkheper(resoneb) is of no help in clarifying the matter since the same wall was unfinished and is today destroyed; cf. Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.53, 166. 579 This encompasses Guksch’s scenes 2-4, 8, and 11, none of which have PM designations; Guksch, Die Gräber, pl.51. 580 This relates to Guksch’s scenes 1, 5-7, 9-10; scene 12 is the outer side of the passage entrance. Scene 6 = PM(3), scene 9 = PM(4), scene 12 = PM(5); Guksch, Die Gräber, pl.51. 581 There are remains of the head of the deceased facing the entrance on the west side, and on the east are butchers at the bottom of the scene, near the door-jamb; cf. Guksch, Die Gräber, p.41f., plan 7, scenes 1-2 and pl.5a-b.

129

recipient.582 Amongst the fragments relating to the guests one inscription identifies a brother of Minnakht as Djhuty-///.583 An important scene occurs at the east end of the front wall, where the upper portion of the tomb owner “[receiving] products which are of the ‘Ways of Horus’” is preserved.584 Based on comparison with his son’s tomb, Guksch restores the figure of Minnakht as seated, and the inscription as nearly complete, missing only a portion of the last title and Minnakht’s name.585 The inscription begins with sxmx-ib “pleasing the heart,” which places the scene in a funerary context, and suggests that here Minnakht is “recalling” his life, or “remembering” the activities which he undertook as an official of the king, specifically as a “true royal scribe, his (i.e., the king’s) beloved, overseer of the granaries, overseer of the wine-chamber.”586 This scene was discussed briefly above in

582

Although there is not room for a woman seated behind him, the scene is so damaged that we cannot rule out the possibility that Minnakht’s wife Meryt was placed at his feet, below the chair. Cf. Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.50ff., plan 7, scene 9, pl.4. Indeed, although Minnakht’s wife Meryt is only visibly included in the rear chamber (PM(9), Guksch, scene 22; Guksch, Die Gräber, p.68f., pl.10), the amount of damage to the t-shaped portion of the tomb means that we cannot entirely discount her presence. See, for example, the scene on the west wall of the passage (PM(9), Guksch, scene 16; Guksch, Die Gräber, p.59f., pl.8), where the top portion of an offering scene is preserved. There is certainly room for two seated figures, and although the inscription only mentions Minnakht, the presence of a daughter Meres behind the destroyed seated figures, suggests that Minnakht’s wife was probably also included. 583 Guksch, Die Gräber, p.51f., pl.4b. 584 Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.44f., plan 7, scene 6. 585 Guksch, Die Gräber, p.44, with reference to pl.29. This is indeed possible, though I would point out that the proportions of Minnakht’s figure seem to be slightly smaller than those of his son, which suggests to me that it is at least possible that Minnakht was in fact standing. If this were the case, then it is also possible that the last column of inscription continued behind the chair and contained additional titles. These may have been sS nsw or the uncertain imy-r ... title, both of which follow the imy-r st title in other places; cf. Guksch, p.24, 59. It is also possible that Minnakht would have given his paternal lineage here, which otherwise appears only in the burial shaft inscriptions; cf. Guksch, p.15, 74f., pl.14. 586 See Guksch, Die Gräber, p.44. The full text reads: [sx]mx-[ib] /// [Ssp] jnw nty m [@r] wAtt in iry[-pat HAty-a] /// mn mrwt m pr-nswt nb Hswt xr Snyw(t).f sS nswt mAa mr.f imy-r Snwty imy-r st n at [irp NHt-mnw] ///. A variant occurs on a funerary cone as “great overseer of the (wine-)chamber;” cf. Guksch, Die Gräber, p.19, 25f.; Davies and Macadam, Corpus no.87.

130

the discussion of Shrine 23 where it was stated that Minnakht’s function as an overseer of the wine-chamber probably occurred in the north of Egypt, near the “Ways of Horus.”587 This leads us into a discussion of Minnakht’s career and its progression. Based on Guksch’s ordering of Minnakht’s titles and the brief discussions she gives, three items become clear.588 First, Guksch views Minnakht as moving up through positions connected to overseeing the production of foods and materials until he becomes overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt. In addition, although four of Minnakht’s titles mention Amun,589 his connection to the north is strengthened by the titles “overseer of the granaries of Amun in the northern region” and “overseer of granaries of the marshes (XAwt) of the two lands.”590 This seems to suggest that rather than functioning at Karnak, his duties were centered at an Amun temple located near Memphis.591 Finally, based on Silsilah Shrine 23 she interprets Minnakht as already having achieved his highest post during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency, and thus concludes that he must have started in the early years of Hatshepsut.592 In light of Minnakht’s connection to the north throughout his early career, and the indication from plover 3226 that there were two men simultaneously functioning as “overseer of the double granaries” during the mid-18th Dynasty, I would argue that Minnakht was the official responsible for northern Egypt. This would make Tjenna, his

587

See pp.124f., above. See Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.17-20. 589 These are (in the following order): head (iry) of the (food-)chamber of Amun, chief (Hry) of weavers of Amun, overseer of the Sna of Amun, and overseer of the granaries of Amun in the northern region. 590 Although this title may be a qualification of Minnakht’s responsibilities as overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, it nonetheless demonstrates that he was active in the north; cf. Guksch, Die Gräber, p.19. 591 Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.18f., and n.43. 592 Guksch, Die Gräber, p.20. 588

131

counterpart on the papyrus, the southern overseer.593 Although Minnakht owned a tomb in Thebes, this can perhaps be explained by the fact that much of his time may nevertheless have been spent in Thebes. In addition, TT87 is located in a direct line of sight with the mortuary temple of Minnakht’s king, Thutmosis III, indicating that Minnakht held a prestigious place in the administration. It also appears that his experience as an “overseer of the wine-chamber,” “overseer of the Sna,” and “overseer of the granaries of Amun” contributed to his becoming an overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt. This is further supported by the fact that these titles appear on his funerary cones, indicating that he considered them important and relevant even at the end of his career. As Minnakht moved through the administrative hierarchy of food and wine production, it appears that he was able to influence the careers of his two sons, Menkheper(resoneb) and Amunhotep. Amunhotep, who does not appear in the preserved portions of the tomb, can nonetheless be identified as a son of Minnakht from the inscription on his palette (BM 12786).594 On the palette he is called “royal scribe, chief of the offering-table, rmn m HAt Imn, (Amun)hotep, who Minnakht bore.”595 These are both low to mid-level titles within the Amun administration generally,596 and thus Amunhotep could conceivably be said to be under his father’s jurisdiction, supporting the theory that Minnakht brought his influence to bear on his son’s behalf.

593

He is only known from this papyrus. Cf. Megally, Recherche, pp.276-7; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 594 Glanville, JEA 18, pp.55f. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.259 no.130; Guksch, Die Gräber, p.16. 595 Glanville, JEA 18, pp.55f. 596 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.171.

132

This is more obvious for Minnakht’s son Menkheper(resoneb), whose position as the elder son is suggested by his regular appearance as the officiant in offering scenes before Minnakht and his inheritance of the position “overseer of granaries.” 597 Throughout TT87, Menkheper(resoneb) is only referred to by his lower titles, “wab-priest of Amun in Henket-ankh,” “scribe of the divine offerings of Amun in Henket-ankh,” and royal scribe.598 This demonstrates that Menkheper(resoneb), like his younger brother Amunhotep, benefited from his father’s influence as an upper-level administrative official. Menkheper(resoneb)’s placement in the mortuary temple of Thutmosis III, which was already built and in use by year 23,599 suggests that Menkheper(resoneb) was functioning in Thebes when his father was likely overseer of double granaries.600 This seems to indicate that despite his northern connection, Minnakht was still influential in the south, which would provide further reason for his tomb being placed in Thebes. Turning now to an examination of Menkheper(resoneb)’s tomb, we can discover more information about the path of his rise to his father’s position of “overseer of double granaries.” Menkheper(resoneb) placed his tomb, TT79, slightly above and adjacent to his father’s.601 It is damaged and unfinished, but the extant scenes are not quite as badly destroyed as in his father’s tomb, TT87. Two scenes in Menkheper(resoneb)’s tomb depict him performing duties connected to his positions, while a third indicates that he, and his family, had a close relationship with Thutmosis III. In addition, the inscriptional 597

He is named and depicted on the west of the outer lintel leading into the rear chamber [PM(7)] and is also the son whose name is lost on the other side of the lintel where the title is wab-priest of [Amun] in Henqet-[ankh], as he has this title in his own tomb [PM(5)]. On the southwest wall of the rear chamber [PM(9)] he is perhaps the son offering to his Minnakht, the inscriptions is damaged, but could be perhaps restored as “scribe of the divine offerings of Amun”. 598 Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.280, no.264. 599 Redford, LdÄ VI, col.543. 600 Years 28-35 are recorded on pLouvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherches. 601 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.318-20, type VIa; Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.122-178. Guksch provides a list of his titles and brief discussion of his career on pp.122-3.

133

evidence demonstrates the passage of titles between Minnakht and Menkheper(resoneb), as well as from Menkheper(resoneb) to his son Nebenmaat. Menkheper(resoneb)’s duty-related scenes occur at the far ends of either side of the transverse-hall’s front (south) wall. At the western end, the deceased inspects supplies (in this case cattle, geese, and eggs) being brought for the temple festivals.602 Since Menkheper(resoneb) was a wab-priest of Amun and scribe of offerings of Amun in the mortuary temple of Thutmosis III,603 this scene could be related to these titles despite the fact that neither of them are present in the accompanying inscription. Instead, Menkheper(resoneb) is called a royal scribe and overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, and the latter title would certainly include this type of responsibility.604 The east corner of the front wall contains a depiction of Menkheper(resoneb) seated overseeing a representation of vintage and the bringing of Delta products.605 Menkheper(resoneb) may have modeled this well preserved scene on the now destroyed version found in his father’s tomb, mentioned above.606 Unfortunately, the beginning of this inscription is lost, so it is not clear if this scene, as in TT87, was placed in a funerary context. It is interesting that here Menkheper(resoneb) chose to place his overseer of granaries title before that of “wab-priest of Amun in Henket-ankh,” thereby awarding prominence to the latter title. Other than on his autobiographical stele,607 this is the only place in TT79 that this title appears. This may indicate that despite his southern locale,

602

PM(1), Guksch, Die Gräber, Scene 3, p.146f. It is on the west front wall of the T-hall. See Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.280 no.264 for a list of his Amun titles. 604 The fact that this is the only place in the tomb with the full version of the title may indicate that the duties are related to his function as an overseer of granaries, as opposed to his earlier positions. 605 PM(5), Guksch, Die Gräber, Scene 6, p.149f. 606 See pp.130f., above. 607 PM(6), Guksch, Die Gräber, Scene 7, pp.150ff. 603

134

and lower temple rank, Menkheper(resoneb) could also have been involved with the receiving and recording of northern products – perhaps at his father’s behest? Directly opposite this scene, on the transverse-hall’s rear wall, Menkheperresoneb is depicted with his parents and two children looking at the funeral outfit which has been presented by the king. 608 This is an excellent example of wealth and gifts bestowed by the king onto a favored and prestigious official. In this scene, the two titles which precede Menkheperresoneb’s name are “royal scribe,” and “overseer of granaries of the Lord of the Two Lands.” Behind him, his father is called the “sAb, royal scribe, overseer of granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, Minnakht” (Fig.12, p.468). Here the inscriptions of Menkheper(resoneb) and Minnakht demonstrate not only the passage of titles from father to son, but may also point towards how this was accomplished. We will return to this below. Based on P.Louvre 3226, we know that Minnakht probably passed the position overseer of the granaries to his son Menkheper(resoneb) late in the reign of Thutmosis III, certainly after year 35 of this king.609 Bryan points out that Menkheper(resoneb)’s tomb is decorated in the style belonging to the earlier years of Amenhotep II’s reign, which, although it shows that he served under this king, does not necessarily provide a terminus ante quem for his tenure as overseer.610 However, the inscriptions of TT79 seem to provide some additional information on how this was effected, if not precisely when. Throughout the tomb, Menkheper(resoneb) regularly uses the title of overseer of

608

PM(7), Guksch, Die Gräber, Scene 10, pp.162ff. Based on P. Louvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherche, pp. pp.274-5. 610 Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming; also Guksch, Die Gräber, pp.122-123. 609

135

granaries of the Lord of the Two Lands (n nb tAwy).611 As noted above, his father is designated as overseer of granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt (n ^maw MHw) in the scene of inspecting burial equipment, which is prominently placed on the wall. Although Menkheper(resoneb) is twice called the overseer of the granary, which, as mentioned above, was a common abbreviation for the longer title, overseer of the double granaries of the lord of the two lands, both occur in less visible areas.612 However, in the scene in which Menkheper(resoneb) inspects supplies for temple festivals he is called the overseer of granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt. This is the title’s only occurrence in TT79. These distinctions do not appear to be arbitrary since the writing of nb tAwy would require the same amount of wall space as ^maw MHw. Gnirs has suggested that the qualification “of the lord of the two lands” after a title implies a relationship to the king, rather, or more, than an actual position.613 Since we know that Menkheper(resoneb) did become overseer of the double granaries, it does not seem that the version “overseer of the double granaries of the lord of the two lands” was purely honorific. However, if we consider the possibility that a specific choice was made for the placement of the titles, it seems possible that Menkheper(resoneb) might have been functioning as a junior (i.e. younger) overseer at the time his tomb was decorated, and hence the phrase n nb tAwy is the more common. Since the more prestigious term of ^maw MHw does appear, this would suggest that he became the senior, or at least equal overseer to his colleague during the (still) early years of Amenhotep II and would have probably continued to serve in this capacity into the middle portion of

611

The title appears at PM(4)-(8); cf. Gucksh, Die Gräber, Scenes 5-7, 9-10. The scenes are the offering of braziers (PM (3), Guksch 1) and the eastern stele (PM (6), Guksch 7). 613 Gnirs, Militär, p.5 612

136

the king’s reign.614 It seems then that the inscriptions in TT79 may indicate that Menkheper(resoneb) was a junior official to his father, in the manner of a “staff of old age”, although this term is not explicitly used. A title that appears at the very end of his lengthy stele inscription seems to support this. Here Menkheper(resoneb) is called “overseer of the double granaries in Heliopolis.”615 This could also imply that ultimately, Menkheper(resoneb) was responsible for the northern region of Egypt, as his father was. Nebenmaat fulfills the same role in his father Menkheper(resoneb)’s tomb that the latter did in Minnakht’s tomb. Adjacent to the scene of Menkheper(resoneb) and his parents admiring the burial equipment, Menkheper(resoneb) and his wife receive offerings and an Amun bouquet given by his son Nebenmaat.616 In this scene Nebenmaat bears the title of “scribe of the temple in Henqet-ankh”, which is remarkably similar to the two titles held by his father in this temple.617 This suggests that Menkheper(resoneb) used his own influence to place his son positioning the same temple. Whether this occurred while Menkheper(resoneb) was still active in Henket-ankh, or following his elevation to the position of overseer of the granaries, is unclear. Regardless of when it occurred however, it is clear that Menkheper(resoneb) intended for Nebenmaat to begin his career in a manner similar to Menkheper(resoneb)’s own beginnings. Nothing is

614

This colleague may have been Iamunedjeh, owner of TT84, see Chapter 3, pp.350-66. Gucksh, Die Gräber, Scene 7, pp.152ff. The stele’s inscription is remarkably damaged, and even with Guksch’s reconstruction does not seem to contain chronological markers for Menkheperresoneb’s career. I would only point out that the titles which do appear, or are reconstructable, are wab …, royal scribe, overseer of the double granaries of the lord of the two lands, and at the very end, Menkheper(resoneb) is called “excellent favorite of the lord of the two lands, overseer of the double granaries, royal scribe, overseer of the double granaries in Heliopolis (Inw mH).” Cf. Gucksh, Die Gräber, pp.152ff. 616 PM(8); cf. Gucksh, Die Gräber, Scene 9, pp.158ff. Although it is clear that Menkheper(resoneb) was married, the name and titles of his wife are not known. In addition to a woman presumably being included in the fishing and fowling scene, there are the remains of a woman’s feet at the east end of the destroyed south front wall. Perhaps the scene was originally one representing the deceased couple offering braziers? 617 i.e. “wab-priest of Amun in Henqet-ankh” and “scribe of the offerings of Amun in Henqet-ankh”. The latter only appears in TT87, but the former appears in both tombs. 615

137

known of Nebenmaat beyond this tomb, though it is clear that Menkheper(reseonb) was unable to retain the overseer of double granaries post within his family. In conclusion, Minnakht, who probably came from a mid-level family, gained distinction for his work in a temple precinct in northern Egypt, probably near Memphis. This led to his being made “overseer of the double granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt” during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency. At this time he built a shrine for his parents at Gebel es-Silsilah, later beginning one for himself. Minnakht was able to install both of his sons into priestly positions that likely fell under his own jurisdiction. His eldest, Menkheper(resoneb), eventually succeeded Minnakht as overseer of the granaries, and may also have had responsibility for northern Egypt. In addition, Minnakht’s increased status led to a closer royal connection, from which Menkheperresoneb benefited directly in the form of funerary equipment. The hereditary passage may also be in part due to the family’s relationship with the king, though clearly this did not last or play a large role, since Menkheperresoneb’s son Nebenmaat did not follow his father’s path.

Amunemhat, son of Itnefer (mid-level priests) The imy st-a n Imn, or “helper of Amun” Amunemhat seems to have inherited his position from his father, the imy st-a n Imn Itnefer(t).618 Amunemhat’s mother was also connected to the Amun temple, as a chantress of Amun. The members of this family are essentially lower level temple staff,619 making tomb ownership rather incongruous with

618 619

Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses das Amun,” nos. 045 and 150. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses das Amun,” p.171.

138

their positions. Although clearly the direct inheritance of temple positions is present, it also seems possible that others factors besides hereditary contributed to their visibility. In Amunemhat’s unpublished tomb in Sheikh Abd el-Qurnah (TT53),620 there are two offering scenes in which Amunemhat depicts his parents. In both cases his father is named as the helper of Amun, Itnefer(t), and his mother is the chantress of Amun Tetiemnetjer.621 Thus both parents were involved in the Amun priesthood, presumably at Karnak. Although neither of his stelae preserves a statement in which Amunemhat was made a mdw n iAw for his father, it is possible that this was the case. Throughout his tomb, the title which Amunemhat bears is that of his father. The only places where additional titles are given are on the two stelae placed at either end of the transversehall.622 However it is only on one of these stelae that a higher position is listed, while on the other the additions are essentially descriptive epithets. Perhaps the reason for this is that at the latter stages of his tomb decoration his father either died or retired and Amunemhat was subsequently promoted to a higher office. By that time his tomb was essentially completed. Rather than re-carve or re-paint the scenes, Amunemhat chose to have this new title listed in the one space available – the last lines of the painted stele on the west wall of the transverse-hall.

620

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.258-60, type Vb. A publication is in preparation by M. el-Bialy and H. Altenmüller, and I would like to thank M. el-Bialy for allowing me a few days access to the tomb in 2002. Urk IV, 1217-1223 contains the east wall stele inscription. 621 In PM(2) Amunemhat offers to his parents; his father’s name here is It.f-nfrt and the title of his mother is damaged, but traces are visible. In PM(14) his parents are seated behind Amunemhat and his wife; the titles and names of each are well preserved. 622 I do not think this is an accident of preservation. In general where damage occurs the imy-st-a n Imn title can be restored without difficulty. The only exception to this is on the east wall of the passage [PM(14)] where the title and name of Amunemhat are completely excised. However even here I think it is most likely that the inscription originally read imy-st-a n Imn Imn-m-HAt mAa-xrw , there is not really room for more.

139

On the east wall of Amunemhat’s tomb is a carved stele, the lunette of which is well-known (Fig.13, p.469).623 The scene in the lunette depicts two men presenting offerings to the sAt nswt aH-ms-Hnwt-tA-mHw and the Hmt nswt aH-ms-[…]; a nurse R..u stands behind them and there is a female child under their chair (Fig.14, p.470).624 The identification of the queen has generally been as Ahmose-Inhapy, the mother of AhmoseHenuttawy and wife of Ahmose.625 Roehrig, who reads her name as R..y, concludes that she must have also been the nurse for Ahmose-Inhapy because she stands with her hand on the queen’s chair. She goes on to suggest that this nurse is the same as the nurse of Queen Ahmose-Nefertari Rey, known from her rishi coffin.626 However, the orthography of Rey’s name on her rishi coffin is entirely different from the name of the nurse in TT53. In fact, this name has been mistranslated in the literature. In both Lepsius and Hermann, the name appears to be Rnnw, but my own examination reveals that it could likely be read as RTw.627 Either name would add a new nurse to the list, but would also mean that Rey was not a nurse to two women, which would be uncommon.628 The placement of the

623

The stele was most recently published by Awadalla, BIFAO 89, pp.25-42, pl.1. Earlier publications include Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.8a; Hermann, Stelen, p.60-3, fig.8, pl.9d; Urk. IV, 1217-1223; Bouriant, RT 14, 71-73. 624 The inscription of the nurse is badly damaged, but the at portion of mnat can just be made out. The stance of the woman with her hand on Ahmose-Henuttamehu’s shoulder make her position as a nurse, and thus the restoration of the title, likely; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.8 625 The name of the queen is illegible after Ahmose, and was to both Lepsius (Denkmaler III, pl.8a) and Hermann (Stelen, pp. 60-63, fig.8, pl.9d). Hermann restored this name as aH-ms-[in-Hapy], while Bouriant (RT 14, p.71) restored the name as aH-ms-[mryt-Imn]. This is extremely unlikely since as the chief queen of Ahmose she was called “god’s wife”, and would have been so identified at this time as well. Adawalla however calls Ahmose-Inhapy a wife (and sister ?) of Tao II, and Henuttawy their daughter; cf. BIFAO 89, pp.25-6. Roehrig dealt with this scene most recently and followed Hermann’s restoration; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.7-8. 626 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.7-8. Rey’s rishi coffin was used for the re-burial of Queen Ahmose-Inhapy. 627 This new reading is based on my examination of the tomb in 2002. 628 Roehrig (Royal urse) mentions this on p.8, n.5.

140

nurse in the scene is unusual and does seem to indicate, as Roehrig suggests, a familial connection between R..u and Amunemhat.629 The two men have always been identified as Amunemhat and his son. However, the identifying inscriptions are damaged, and a different solution could be proposed. Above the lead figure, the beginning of the imy st-a is just visible, but that is all (Fig.15, p.471). The column before the son is better preserved and can be read “his son, wab-priest of Amun, Amun …”. It seems entirely possible that the men depicted here are not Amunemhat and a son but Amunemhat as the son following his father Itefnefer. Although imy st-a is the most ubiquitous of Amunemhat’s titles, it is not the only one. Indeed he is called a wab-priest in the ensuing stele inscription.630 Perhaps he is fulfilling the role of an assistant to his father, akin to being a mdw n iAw. The stele on the west wall of the transverse-hall was painted, and is less wellknown. Unlike its opposite, only the lunette was carved – with the cartouches of Thutmosis III. The text of the stele was sketched in red and then hastily painted over in blue, but it was never properly finished. The upper portion is extremely damaged, but the last three lines are fairly well preserved and it is here that we learn more about Amunemhat’s upper level positions in the priesthood. The beginning of line 16 is badly damaged, but there are traces that suggest Amunemhat may have been involved in the campaigns of Thutmosis III.631 The line ends with the following text: //[s]t-a n Imn m +sr-Dsrw [I]mn-m-HAt “the helper of Amun in Djeser-djeseru Amunemhat.” This would place him as a priest in the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri. Interestingly, 629

Roehrig, Royal urse, p.8. Line 9. The entire string of epithets and titles is: wab awy Hr irt Hwt xrp ib ir.f Hsswt wab imy //[ st-a n Imn Imn-m-]// HAt mAa-xrw 631 /// rdwy n nb tAwy /// 630

141

the inscription itself ends with the more common title of Amunemhat rather than this longer one, which may indicate that it could be read as a shortened version of the full title.632 I would like to suggest that the two stelae are to some extent meant to serve as markers for Amunemhat’s career. On the east wall is the earlier stele, where Amunemhat is depicted with his father as a wab-priest presenting offerings to deified queens. Most of this 20-line text is dedicated to the preservation of the deceased in the afterlife (l.1-17) and appeal to the living (l.19-20).633 Only two lines (l.17-19) recount the life and career of Amunemhat. These two lines are mostly descriptive in nature, listing the types of activities or duties that Amunemhat performed as a temple servant, with the result that he was justified among the magistrates.634 The western stele, which is painted rather than carved and bears the cartouches of Thutmosis III thus becomes the later stele, on which Amunemhat gave the title he acquired at the end of his career. Indeed, although most of the 18-line inscription is lost, it seems possible that here the offering formulae and appeals would have been reduced in favor of a more extensive account of Amunemhat’s career. As for the rest of Amunemhat’s family, his wife Sobeknakht only carries the common “lady of the house” title wherever she appears. From the offering scenes it can be inferred that they may have had a daughter Senres who predeceased them, as well as another daughter and son who were still alive when the tomb was decorated.635

632

Line 18: st-a n Imn Imn-m-HAt mAa-xrw See the translation of Awadalla, BIFAO 89, pp.39-40. 634 Line 18-19: smAa.n.f xrw wi m DADAt 635 Senres is shown standing behind the chair of Amunemhat and Sobeknakht in PM(2), but no filiation is preserved. Whale (Family, p.99) points out that she might be a sister of either of them as well. In the same 633

142

Amenemhat may have had one or more brothers who were charioteers, judging from a damaged scene in the passage.636 If this is correct, then it would go towards supporting the theory that Amunemhat may have been involved in the campaigns of Thutmosis III. It would also help to explain why at least two striding charioteers are included in what is otherwise a series of funerary scenes.637 There are three ambiguous couples in the tomb, all of whom are depicted in the lower register of an offering scene in the passage.638 In the upper register is the double pair of Amunemhat with Sobeknakht and Itefnefer with Tetiemnetjer already mentioned. The first couple in the lower register is destroyed, but it is likely that here belongs the inscription of the wab-priest of Aakheperkare Sobeknakht.639 The second couple are the steward in the treasury Ramose and his wife Ahmose, and the third an unknown man who was a steward of Djserkara, and a steward of an unknown institution with his wife whose name is lost.640 Whale suggested that all of these couples were relatives of either Amunemhat or Sobeknakht, and that the two Sobeknakhts were probably consanguines.641 It is certainly possible that this is correct, especially as to the Sobeknakhts. However, it seems equally plausible, and perhaps more so given the lack of filiation, that at least two of the three couples are represented because they are colleagues scene an unidentified woman offers to the couple and Senres, while in the passage [PM(14)] a man offers to the double pair of Amunemhat with Sobeknakht and Itefnefer with Tetiemmetjer. 636 PM(13). The inscription reads: sn.f snni //// //// snni ////. It is possible that the first at least was a brother. Schulman (MRTO, p.60, para.149) regards the social status of the “chariot-warrior” as being from among the elite based in part on the exemption of temple personnel from being conscripted as recorded in pHarrisI (p.122, ref.229). 637 The two figures are in the lowest register. Above them is a register of seated banquet guests and above this are two registers of Opening of the Mouth scenes. 638 PM(14) 639 Urk. IV, 1225; Bouriant, RT 14, 71. 640 First couple: //[ wab n ( aA-xpr-kA-ra )|]// ///; second couple: imy-r pr n (sic) m sDAwty Ra-ms mAa-xrw Hmt.f mrt.f nbt pr aH-ms mA ///; third couple: imy-r pr n (Dsr-kA-[ra )|] imy-r pr /// nb tAwy (?) /// yt //// Hm(t).f nbt pr /// mAat-xrw . Possibly Ramose’s title should be split and read imy-r pr n gs sDAwty ? 641 Whale, Family, p.99.

143

of Amunemhat. The fact that these men were all stewards in funerary establishments, and Amunemhat can now be placed as a servant in one, makes this suggestion attractive.642 A funerary cone and a statue that have been attributed to Amunemhat are now made more secure by the discovery of his new title. Both of these objects, as well as other funerary cones, are for the imy st-a n Imn Amunemhat.643 However, D&M no.443 carries an elaboration of this title that is otherwise unknown for Amunemhat of TT53: Hr sA snnw “from the 2nd phyle”.644 A statue from Deir el-Bahri, now in Florence, has his common title, but also calls him the “helper of Amun in Henqet-ankh” and the “helper of Amun in Henqet-ankh from the first phyle”.645 As neither of these objects name Amunemhat’s father, the attribution, while plausible, is still uncertain. However, since Amunemhat was an helper of Amun in Djeser-djeseru, it seems likely that he might also have been one in Henqet-ankh. With the statue more clearly ascribed, the funerary cone can be as well.646 According to Eichler, this was a family of “cult personnel”, essentially lower to mid-level priests.647 This makes the ownership of a tomb somewhat unusual, as they do not seem to have a position of high enough status to have one built. It seems likely that this was due to a connection that the family held to the nurse, queen and princess 642

The same situation occurs in other tombs, i.e. TT82. Two funerary cones recorded by Champollion ( otices I, p.512) and Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.442 are easily identified with Amenemhat of TT53 (also listed in Urk. IV, 1224, a-c). Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.442 is the same as Daressy no.180 which was found in the court of TT55 of Ramose, just down the slope and west of TT53 (Davies’ annotated Daressy, Griffith Institute). 644 Urk. IV, 1224 d = Daressy no.213. 645 Hr sA tpy Florence no.3708 = Urk. IV, 1224-5; Schiaparelli, Cat. Gen. I, no.1501, pp.192-4. The first title is restored by both Helck and Schiaparelli. 646 It is theoretically possible to read Hr sA sn-nw and Hr sA tpy as separate titles, thus commander of the second troop and commander of the first troop. However, Schulman (MRTO) lists only Hry n p# s# (commander of a company) as a military title, and this is held by a man who also bore other military titles (no.452, p.153). It seems more plausible then to regard these as elaborations of the priestly title which they follow. 647 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.171 ; cf. Sauneron, Priests, pp.57ff. 643

144

depicted on the stele.648 If this connection existed, then in previous times the family of Amunemhat and his father Itnefer would have had considerable prestige, wealth, and status. Perhaps the wealth and status had carried through the generations, although the current positions of the family don’t reflect this, and thus they were able to build a tomb based on their lineage. Although Itnefer was able to bring Amunemhat into the priesthood as a wab-priest and eventually pass on his title as an imy st-a, it may be that the family’s visibility owes more to its past glory than to its ability to retain mid-level positions within the family. Unfortunately, the lack of information about any of Amunemhat’s sons or daughters limits our ability to comment on whether this family was able to continue their involvement in the temple, or whether their current position caught up with their past wealth.

Amenemhat (A new high priest of Amun649) The high priest of Amun Amenemhat did not inherit this position from his father. However, he was placed as a “staff of old age” for his father as a wab-priest and did inherit a few lower-level titles. This section supports the view that heredity was a major, though not the only, component in becoming high priest of Amun. Either a recognized inheritance, such as the mdw iAw provided, could facilitate later advancement, or Amunemhat was promoted for reasons not connected to being a staff of old age. Amenemhat was the owner of TT97, in which he originally had two stelae inscribed, although only the one in the rear chamber is preserved to any degree.650

648 649

This connection was also suggested by Roehrig, Royal urse, p.8. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.243, no.040.

145

Fortunately, this autobiography is also one of few that chronicles parts of his career and gives us some inkling into the order in which positions were achieved. The autobiography is somewhat unusual, opening with “Beginning of a teaching which … Amenemhat made. He says as a teaching for his children, ‘Now I speak that I might cause that you listen to what has happened with me.”651 This literary genre, although not uncommonly found in tombs,652 generally consists of a series of maxims instructing the recipient on how to live and act correctly.653 In Amenemhat’s case, these seem to be worked into an overall narrative that also describes his career as a priest and the manner in which he performed his duties. After recording his fullest titulary,654 which is placed within the lines just described, Amunemhat states that he served as a “staff of old age” for his father. The phrasing is exactly like that seen in the legal and other texts described above: “(I) was as a wab-priest, a mdw n iAw at the side of my father in his existing upon earth.”655 His father, Djhutyhotep, was both a wab-priest and an overseer of the sandal-makers of the

650

The tomb was partially published by Gardiner, ZÄS 47, pp.87-99. See also Kampp, Die thebansiche ekropole, pp.364-7, type VIa. TT 97 is T-shaped with an additional 4-pillared rear chamber that also contains a niche. The two stelae were originally located on the east wall of the hall, and at the south corner of the west wall of the rear chamber. The inner chamber of the tomb is unfinished and the entire tomb is very badly damaged and blackened from the fires of people inhabiting the tomb. 651 Lines 1-2: HAt-a m (s)bAyt rt n … Imn-m-HAt Dd.f m sbAt xr msw.f Dd.i swt di.i sDm.tn xprt xr.i; cf. Gardiner, ZÄS 47, p.92, pl.1. 652 For example, Pthahotep, Any, Amenmeope, Onchsheshonqy; cf. Lichtheim, AEL I-III. 653 The genre, which is also referred to as “Wisdom Literature,” was discussed in the introduction, Section Vc., pp.46ff.; cf. the literature cited there. In general, however, see the articles in LdÄ III, cols.964-992 (grouped under “Lehren”) and works by Lichtheim including Moral Values and Wisdom Literature. 654 Gardiner gives a translation of the text; cf. ZÄS 47, pp.92-3, pl.1. These are given in the following order: iry-pat HAty-(a) it nTr mrt nTr Hry sStA m //[ Ipt-swt]// Hry-tp tA (r) Dr.f (r s)hrr m rw-(p)rw aq r pt mAA ntt im.s //[rx sq nb n dwAt]// imy-r prw nb imy-r prw HD iry-pat n Gb imy-r Hmw-nTr nw Smaw mHw it-nTr tp n I(mn) 655 Gardiner, ZÄS 47, p.92; line 3: wn(.i) m wab mdw n iAw m-a it.f wn.f tp-tA. For comporanda, see above, Section Ib., pp.63-8.

146

house of Amun.656 Amenemhat goes on to describe the ways in which he assisted his father, clearly demonstrating that as a “staff of old age” Amenemhat had duties to fulfill and was acting as a deputy to his father in one of these positions.657 Although Amenemhat does not give his age at the time when he was made a wab –priest, he was presumably still fairly young, since his father was both alive and functioning in the temple. By the age of 54 Amenemhat had become a wab-priest of the divine sandals, chief of his subordinates, and overseer of the st.658 Eichler mentions that other than the latter titles, Amenemhat had apparently no connection to the administration of the Amun precinct.659 Based on her general ordering, it would appear as though they represent lower, middle and upper level positions.660 Scholars have generally viewed Amenemhat’s situation at the age of 54 as still fairly unadvanced within the priesthood, necessitating a rather rapid rise to high priest during his later years. Gardiner offered the possibility that he was “promoted to the highpriestship over the heads of his colleagues, and without passing through the regular stages,” but he has no theories as to why this would have happened.661 Kees views Amenemhat as an example of one of few high priests who attained their position not

656

Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.329, no.580. His father’s name and titles are not mentioned (or preserved) anywhere on the stele, but rather come from ceiling inscriptions in the passage and rear chamber where he is called the sAb wab imy-r Tbw n [pr n Imn] +Hwty-Htp mAa-xrw. 657 Gardiner, ZÄS, p.92; lines 3-6. These fall into the framework of the instructions, with a series of statements beginning “I did not.” Cf. Lichtheim, in: History and Forms, pp.243-62. 658 Gardiner, ZÄS, p.92; line 6: pH.n.i s n rnpt 54 iw.i m wb tb.wy nTr imy-r st Hry smdt.f. The translation of this term is still somewhat uncertain. Gardiner listed the title as “overseer of the kitchen” (ZÄS, p.92 with note p), but storehouse, or even a more generic translation such as department or office is perhaps better. Eichler does not seem to deal with this title, except to note that Amenemht and a few other officials held it; cf. Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.55 with note 222. It appears that this is not the same as in the case of Minnkaht, above, where imy-r st could be shown to be a short form of imy-r st n irp. 659 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,”, p.15 with n.54. 660 Perhaps within the land and work administrations? Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” pp.v-viii. 661 Gardiner, ZÄS 47, p.97.

147

through the court or family relations but through the king’s favor. In this case, he may have gained recognition gained through his participation as a young man in the wars of Thutmosis III.662 Murnane on the other hand regards Amenemhat as an “extreme example of the high priests’ more typical background” as “sons of low- or middle-ranked clergymen” that rarely attained “high rank themselves before their elevation.”663 However, none of these explanations seems entirely satisfactory. In the following lines of the autobiography Amenemhat describes that he acted according to the expectations of a priest in the temple of Amun and that this, and perhaps the influence of his father, assisted his advancement.664 Unfortunately much of the autobiography is damaged after this point, and the entire bottom section is lost. Within these destroyed portions are fragments of inscription that Gardiner convincingly suggested represent a transition between kings.665 The cartouche is too ruined to ascertain any hieroglyphs, and thus, as Bryan pointed out, which kings are involved is unknown.666 Helck (following Sethe) restored the cartouche as containing the name Aakheperura, i.e., Amenhotep II.667 This restoration would certainly fit with the style of the tomb’s decoration, as well as that of his shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah.668 It also accords well with the now accepted placement

662

Kees, Priestertum, p.17-18, 77, Nachtrage p.8. See also Bryan (Thutmose IV, p.267) who, citing Kees, suggests that “Perhaps his low rank as wab simply reflected his late entry into sacral administration.” 663 Murnane, in: Amenhotep III, p.208. 664 Lines 4-6, 7-11. The line referring to his father is damaged: iw.i bs.kwi r sDm sDmwt wabw /// it.i Hr sAw.i m ////. Gardiner (ZÄS 47, p.93) suggested “[the recommendation (??)]” in the lacuna. 665 Gardiner, ZÄS 47, pp.92 ff. 666 Line 11, almost the entire cartouche is lost, and the portion is too damaged to discern any signs. Bryan Thutmose IV, p.267. 667 Urk. IV, 1410. 668 As already mentioned by both Gardiner (ZÄS 47, p.87) and Bryan (Thutmose IV, p.93).

148

of Amenemhat as the successor to one of the Menkherperresonebs (in my opinion the owner of TT86), and predecessor of the high priest of Amun Mery, owner of TT95.669 It appears that soon after the new king’s ascension, which Amenemhat apparently witnessed, he was promoted to upper level priestly positions. The damaged inscription records: “I [being] appointed (dhn) to god’s father and to first chief in I….”670 Both Karnak and “the house of Amun” have been suggested as possibilities for the location in which Amenemhat served as “first chief” following the transition between kings.671 The reason for his sudden rise is unclear, and while it would seem that Amenemhat did achieve at least one upper level title before becoming a high priest, is final attainment of office is unfortunately not preserved in the remainder of the autobiography, nor are any clues given in the inscriptions in the rest of the tomb or in his shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah (no.25).672 Indeed, in his shrine Amenemhat is consistently referred to as the high priest of Amun and overseer of priests of Upper and Lower Egypt.673 Likewise his funerary cones and statue do not expand our knowledge of Amenemhat’s rise to power, repeating titles already known from his tomb and shrine.674 Certainly the funerary cones were made at

669

For the most recent analysis of priestly succession during this time period see Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.28191, esp. Abb.1 and p.284-6. Also mentioned by Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.154. 670 Lines 12-13: [dh]n.[k]wi r it nTr r [H]ry tp m I ///. This is contra Gardiner, ZÄS 47, pp.92 ff., who reads “He appointed me as …” I am basing the restoration on the similarity of the inscription to that of Nebwawy (Urk. IV, 208.9) and on the stative aq.kwi which occurs in the next line. 671 Gardiner restores here Ipt-swt; Sethe suggested pr-Imn; and Helck (Urk. IV, 1411.5) followed Gardiner. 672 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.79-85, pls.61-6. 673 The three inscriptions from the shrine come from the south and north walls and the ceiling. On the south wall Amenemhat is the iry-pat HAty-a [sDAwt] bity smr waty Aa n nswt /// n bity ir.n nb tAwy kA.f Hm-nTr tpy (n Imn) imy-r Hmw-nTr nw ^maw MHw (Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.65). On the north wall he is called the iry-pat HAty-a [sDA]wt bity s[mr] aA n mrt r shrr [m tA r-Dr.f] Hm-nTr tpy n (Imn) imy-r Hmw-nTr nw (^maw) MHw (Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.64). And on the ceiling: iry-pat HAty-a sDAwt bity smr aA n mrt Hm-nTr tpy n (Imn) imy-r Hmw-nTr nw (^maw) MHw (Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.62). 674 The funerary cones are in Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 42-44. The statue comes from Deir elBahri, cf. Naville, Deir el-Bahari III, p.2, pl.V no.1 and Urk. IV 1413.

149

the end of Amenemhat’s career since they were meant to be placed at the tomb. Likewise, the fact that the statue only reports his later titles suggests that this monument was also likely created towards the end of his life. Despite the lack of inscriptions on the lintel of his Silsilah shrine,675 it is unlikely that Amenemhat could have begun construction of the shrine prior to becoming high priest, and so we could also tentatively date Shrine 25 to the reign of Amenhotep II. The preserved portions of the tomb autobiography make no mention of Amenemhat’s military or court epithets. Rather, these are found in other inscriptions in the tomb, especially those on the ceiling of the passage and rear chamber, as well as on the funerary cones.676 Amenemhat is designated as “one who relates to the legs of the lord of the two lands,” suggesting that he may indeed have been involved with the wars of Thutmosis III as a young man. Given the damaged state of the autobiography, the possibility of military service or presence on the campaigns cannot be entirely discounted. Perhaps this service was prior to his initial introduction into the clergy as a wab-priest and the positions he held at age 54. Kees suggested that Amenemhat’s rise was directly related to the royal favor he gained from his military service.677 However, Kees did not recognize any connection between father and son, stating that the father had no role in either the administration (probably true) or the clergy (clearly false).678 Amenemhat’s autobiography certainly suggests that his initial entry into the Amun priesthood was through his father. While Amenemhat’s probably rapid advancement may 675

The lintel and exterior jambs were left unfinished; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah, p.79. In addition to the ceiling inscriptions of both the passage and rear chamber, which have the most complete titles, there are some on the entrance to the passage, and on the walls and pillars of the rear chamber. They include iry rdwy n nb tAwy, irty nswt anxwy n bity, mn Hsw m stp-sA anx wDA snb and r shrr m tA r-Dr.f, among others 677 Kees, Priestertum, p.17 678 Kees, Priestertum, p.17-18, 77, Nachtrage p.8. 676

150

have had something to do with his military career, it would not have risen solely from it. However, his military career may have led to a closer relationship with the king that facilitated this rise. On his ceiling inscriptions, Amenemhat is also called Xrp nsty m irty n nswt “controller of the two thrones before the eyes of the king”, a title which indicates he participated in one of the king’s jubilees, though which king is uncertain.679 The barest remains of the top of a kiosk on the rear wall of TT97’s transverse-hall, adjacent to the passage entrance, indicate that Amenemhat was once depicted before his king.680 Assuming Amenemhat was promoted to high priest by Amenhotep II, then this would have been the king depicted. Perhaps then it had something to do with the transition between two kings that Amenemhat apparently witnessed.681 It remains a fact that without his father’s position Amenemhat would not have entered the priestly service and thus would not have attained the level of high priest of Amun. Amenemhat is also one of only two officials from this time period for whom the use of the mdw iAw is demonstrated.682 Although none of Amenemhat’s family is preserved in his tomb, at Gebel Silsilah his son Amunemweskhet is depicted in an offering scene.683 He is titled as a wab-priest of Amun in the scene, and quite possibly served as a “staff of old age” for Amenemhat, carrying on the tradition. Amunemweskhet

679

Gardiner, ZÄS 47, p.91 with note 4; cf. also Dorman, Senenmut, pp.213ff. This scene is to the east of PM(1) and Gardiner ‘E.’ It is not designated by its own PM number, nor was it mentioned by Gardiner in his article; cf. ZÄS 47, pp.87-99, esp. p.89. 681 Gardiner, ZÄS 47, pp.92 ff. 682 The other is the vizier User, see above, pp.79-87. 683 North wall, Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.64. 680

151

apparently never achieved the position of high priest, however, since the next official to hold this title seems to have been Mery, the owner of TT95 and usurper of TT84.684

Min and his son Sobekhotep (Two generations of treasurers; Three generations of mayor through marriage) The family of Min and Sobekhotep provides us with an example of inherited positions in two different forms, through direct lineage, and through marriage. It is also an interesting example of how the highest office-holders could become connected with regional administrators. Although this is not the place for a study of regional mayoralties, it is important to keep in mind that these positions had a long tradition of heredity, stretching into the late Old Kingdom, and becoming especially common during the Intermediate Periods.685 Thus, the position of treasurer and that of mayor of the Fayum will be discussed in the ensuing pages, these are in many respects separate topics. Indeed, although Sobekhotep was the beneficiary for both of them, it appears that they were not held concurrently. The treasurer Min, who served under Thutmosis III, would be much less wellknown were it not for his son Sobekhotep. Min is known only from his shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah (no.5), a funerary cone from Thebes, and through his mention and depiction on Sobekhotep’s monuments. 686 Both of Min’s monuments give only his highest

684

TT95 has never been properly documented, but is currently in the process of being published by A. Gnirs, in collaboration with E. Grothe and H. Guksch. Thus, some of the conclusions drawn will be tentative. The most recent article is in MDAIK 53, pp.58-70. 685 See the discussion on Khnumhotep in Section Ia, pp.59-63, above. 686 The shrine is published by Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.19-21, pls.13-15. The funerary cone is Daressy no.242 = Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.499. The texts from the shrine, funerary cone and son’s monuments are found in Urk. IV, 1027-9.

152

position, that of overseer of the treasury.687 On the exterior lintel of the shrine only the cartouches of Thutmosis III are present, indicating that Min was not the overseer of the treasury until the sole reign of this king.688 Despite the presence of a funerary cone, no tomb for Min has been found in Thebes, a subject that will be returned to below. This is the extent of the information that can be gathered from Min’s monuments. However, a great deal more can be said about his son, Sobekhotep. Sobekhotep inherited his father’s title, but also became mayor of the Fayum through his wife’s family. He was the owner of TT63,689 as well as two statues from the north, and is mentioned in his official capacity on Papyrus Mook.690 The career and family of Sobekhotep were recently discussed by B. Bryan in Dziobek’s publication of his tomb.691 From the genealogy that Bryan reconstructs we see that Sobekhotep of TT63 was the son of the treasurer Min, married to the wrt xnrt of Sobek Shedty Meryt, who herself was both a daughter of the mayor of the Fayum Kap and his wife Meryt, and brother to the mayor of the Fayum Sobekhotep(a).692 Sobekhotep and Meryt were in turn the parents of the high priest of Sobek Shedty and mayor of the Fayum Paser and the first 687 imy-r xtmt; cf. Daressy no.242 = Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.499; Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.19-20, pls.13, 15. In the shrine he also bears epithets describing his role as treasurer: “great chief in Upper Egypt, judge in Lower Egypt, one who is sent and who returns with his deed accomplished, one who approaches the council tent that he may ring joy.” See Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.20, pl.15 and Bryan, in Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.82. 688 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.19, pl.13. 689 Kampp, Die thebanishce ekropole, pp.280-3, type VIa. 690 The tomb is published by Dziobek; cf. Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, and Sobekhotep’s career and family are reconstructed by Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, IV Exkurse, pp.81-8. See also her earlier discussion in Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.306-8, 132-7 and a more abbreviated treatment by Bryan, in Thutmose III, p.23. For an earlier discussion, cf. Helck, Verwaltung, pp.352-3, 468-9. One of Sobekhotep’s statues was probably from Memphis, CG1090; cf. Borchardt, Statuen IV, p.51, pl.162, Urk. IV, 1585. The other was likely from the Fayum, Brussels E.6856; cf. Capart, BMRAH 4, pp.83-6, Van de Walle, RdE 15, pp.77-85. In Papyrus Mook (P. Munich 809) Sobekhotep is mentioned in his official capacity as treasurer, cf. Spiegelberg, ZÄS 63, pp.105-15. Bryan discusses these on pp.84-7 with full references, and gives a compilation of Sobekhotep’s titles on p.87. 691 Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, IV Exkurse, pp.81-8. See also her earlier discussion in Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.306-8, 132-7 and a more abbreviated treatment by Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.23. 692 Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.84

153

priest of Iah Djhuty.693 Based on her review of the monuments that can be attributed to Sobekhotep,694 Bryan concluded that Sobekhotep had two different stages of his career. He became mayor of the Fayum during the reign of Amenhotep II, but probably did not assume his position as treasurer until the reign of Thutmosis IV.695 The later date ascribed to the start of Sobekhotep’s career as treasurer is due both to the scenes depicted in his tomb, and to the probability that his father Min was serving as treasurer in the latter half of Thutmosis III’s reign.696 In TT63 the scenes in the transverse-hall are essentially concerned with his role as a treasurer and the responsibilities entailed therein.697 Likewise the titles and epithets that are attributed to Sobekhotep in the hall, where preserved, are court and duty-related, or generically religious in character.698 The only place where his Fayum-related titles occur is on the stele, where they would be expected anyway.699 The south wall of the passage is covered with typical funerary scenes, e.g. the Abydos pilgrimage, opening of the mouth rituals, and an offering scene. On the north wall however, the “scenes … have been deliberately woven together to create a setting in the beautiful Fayum,”700 reflecting the duties that 693

It should be mentioned that the identification of Djhuty does not reflect the restoration and interpretation of the inscriptions by Dziobek ; cf. Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.69, text 20e. In the scene Djhuty has no filiation and is first in a row of offering-bearers behind Paser. His inscription reads Hm-nTr tpy n IaH DHwty WbA-swt, which Dziobek translates as “first priest of Thoth-month, Uabsu (?)”, but which could just as likely have been two titles, thus “the first priest of Iah, royal butler (reading wbA nswt), …”. 694 Besides TT63, Sobekhotep owned two statues, one probably from Memphis (CG1090), the other likely from the Fayum (Brussels E.6856). For CG10190, cf. Borchardt, Statuen IV, p.51, pl.162, Urk. IV, 1585, and for Brussels E.6856, cf. Capart, BMRAH 4, pp.83-6, Van de Walle, RdE 15, pp.77-85. In Papyrus Mook (P. Munich 809) Sobekhotep is mentioned in his official capacity as treasurer, cf. Spiegelberg, ZÄS 63, pp.105-15. Bryan discusses these on pp.84-7 with full references, and gives a compilation of Sobekhotep’s titles on p.87. 695 Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, pp. 81, 83-5. But note her caution in the attribution of Hm.f to Thutmosis IV, p.85. 696 Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.81 and the literature cited there. 697 I.e. foreigners bringing tribute, the inspection of workshops, granaries, and possibly even the treasury. 698 For example: iry-pat HAty-a xtmw bity smr waty aA m pr-nsw Hsy n nTr nfr. 699 Also, in a procession scene where Sobekhotep is depicted before the king Dziobek restores his title of mayor [Dziobek scenes 5-6 = PM (5) and (4)]. 700 Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.83

154

would have concerned Sobekhotep as mayor of the Fayum. Although the separation of scenes is in part due to the nature of the transverse-hall and passage, which reflect different aspects of the life and passage into the afterlife of the tomb’s owner, nonetheless it seems significant that the scene of the “Fayumic locale” is awarded a significant amount of wall space. Accepting the argument that Sobekhotep was a mayor before he became treasurer, it is probable that he inherited this title from his wife’s brother, also called Sobekhotep, who had inherited it from his father Kap. Two statues of Sobekhotep(a) which are, according to Bryan, stylistically datable to the reign of Amunhotep II, place him as mayor in this king’s reign, and his father Kap in the reign of Thutmosis III.701 This would also support a later acquisition by Sobekhotep of the treasurer title, since he would have followed Sobekhotep(a) in the mayoral position only towards the end of the reign of Amunhotep II. It would appear that Sobekhotep(a) was not married, or at least had no children, since neither are mentioned on the statues. Thus the position passed to his sister’s husband. Bryan suggests that Sobekhotep’s wife Meryt “was the connection which placed Sobekhotep B into the Fayumic Mayor’s office; for although he, as son of Treasurer Min, has no known genealogical connections to the area, Meryt’s titles … should be attributed to the regional importance of the woman’s family.”702 While Sobekhotep did undoubtedly inherit his position from his like-named brother-in-law, it seems at least possible that Sobekhotep’s father Min might have had connections in this area. Two things suggest this: first, the fact that a statue of his from Tell Muqdam was

701

To this Sobekhotep are attributed the statues Marseille 208 and Berlin 11635 based both on the orthography of the name (all but once written without the shrine) and his filiation as the son of Kap and Meryt. 702 Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, pp.83-4.

155

dedicated to Horus xnty TArr,703 and second that in his shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah he is called Xtmt bity704 Hry-tp aA and wDa rwyt.705 Although all of these designations are descriptive epithets rather than proper titles, they are nonetheless suggestive that Min may have had a more involved role in the north. This is perhaps further supported by the statue, which, as Bryan pointed out, may reflect a Delta origin for Min.706 The fact that Min had a shrine at Silsilah does not detract from this possibility as the treasurer Nehesy under Hatshepsut is also known from a shrine at Silsilah as well as a tomb at Saqqara.707 From the above discussion it becomes clear that the office of overseer of the treasury, like that of vizier, could potentially be passed on. In the case of Min and Sobekhotep, it was held for two generations before moving out of this family’s control. Prior to acquiring this position however, Sobekhotep married into a regional family and inherited the position of Mayor of the Fayum though his wife’s brother. The family was able to retain the mayoral office in the Fayum slightly longer, through three generations, including that of Sobekhotep’s descendants. Although it may seem as though the retention of these two positions was similar, in fact there are two essential differences between them. The post of treasurer was one of the most prominent in the country, and not one that was usually hereditary.708 The fact that Min was able to guarantee it for his son is a testament to Min’s own authority and

703

Dated by cartouche to Thutmosis III. Urk. IV 1029. For this combination see WB V:356, 6 = agricultural lands in 12th nome of Lower Egypt. 704 I would translate this title in this way rather than the more common sDAwty bity with the suggestion that it carried more than honorific value. See also TT 121 in Ch.2. 705 Urk. IV 1927-8, Caminos and James, Silsilah I, no.5 706 Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.81. 707 Zivie, Mélanges Adolphe Gutbub, 1984, 245-52. 708 Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.2, p.580; Wilkinson, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.3, p.317

156

influence within the administration. It may also be possible that Sobekhotep’s tenure as mayor helped enable his inheritance of his father’s post as treasurer. Mayoral positions, in ancient Egypt had a long history of becoming hereditary, beginning as early as the late Old Kingdom.709 Although their regional power fluctuated depending on the strength of the central government, in general these were landed aristocracies that remained within families. As mayor of the Fayum, Sobekhotep became a part of this “landed aristocracy,” which was a common source from the Middle Kingdom on from which to move into upper-level administrative positions.710 Thus, although Sobekhotep was unable to retain control over who succeeded him as treasurer, his marriage and subsequent career as mayor of the Fayum provided a continual revenue source for the family. Excursus: A possible tomb for Min in Thebes The issue of where Min’s tomb is located is still under debate. It has generally been assumed that he had a tomb in Thebes, based on funerary cones that were found in the Necropolis.711 Most recently Bryan proposed the almost completely destroyed TT119 of unknown ownership as a possibility for Min’s tomb.712 This was based on the scene of Syrians and Keftiu bringing goods to the deceased, which parallels scenes found in the tomb of the treasurer Sennefri (TT99), as well as that of Sobekhotep. Although the scenes

709

Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29; Pardey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.16-20; Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, p.578. 710 As evidenced in Tutankhamun’s “Restoration Stele” and the “Decree of Horemheb.” See also Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29; Franke, in: Middle Kingdom Studies, pp.51-67. 711 Daressy no.242 = Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.499. Davies’ mentions finding the cone in his discussion of objects found during his investigation of the tomb of Daga (TT103), where he calls it a “large brick stamped on 2 sides” (Davies, Five Theban Tombs). TT103 is just north of the tomb of Sobkehotep. 712 Bryan, in: Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.82, n.14. The tomb consists of a passage and 4-pillared chamber with a niche and is located south of TT63, very near to that of the vizier Aametu (TT83); cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.406-7.

157

are comparable, the scene in TT119 stylistically seems to be earlier in the reign of Thutmosis III rather than later, as one might expect for an official who, as Bryan states, “most likely did not achieve that rank until well into Thutmose III’s sole rule.”713 However, TT 143, also of an unknown official, is another possibility, which Helck was the first to suggest.714 TT 143 is a T-shaped tomb located in Dra Abu el-Naga whose plan and decoration were never finished, but which stylistically can be placed in the Thutmosis III – Amenhotep II range.715 There are several points of comparison between it and TT63, as well as other tombs known to belong to treasurers.716 Three scenes in TT143 are pertinent to the discussion: two on either side of the rear wall of the hall [PM(3) and (6)], and another on the eastern front wall of the hall [PM(4)]. On the south side of the tomb, the rear (west) wall contains the badly damaged remains of men approaching rows of neatly stacked jars and produce. This probably formed part of an inspection scene common to the tombs of officials who were in charge of the reception and distribution of various products, and in the case of the overseer of the seal “responsible for all sealed materials of the state”.717 Likewise the scene of agricultural activity that takes up a majority of the front wall on the north side of the tomb falls into this category. While the lower three registers depict the agricultural cycle (from ploughing to harvest to the recording of produce), an activity that likely would have fallen under the domain of the treasurer, the upper three involve measuring and recording the crop, and also depict two boats. The 713

Bryan, in Dziobek, Sobek-hotep, p.81. Helck, Verwaltung, 352. He mentions in conjunction with this the scene of a Punt expedition which is located on the east side of the north wall [PM(6)] of TT143. Repeated by der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.126 (VI.4). Scenes in the tomb are described by Davies, BMMA 31, pp.46-52. 715 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.428-9, type Va. 716 i.e. Nehesy in his tomb at Saqqara, Sennefri of TT99. 717 Such scenes occur for example in TTs 63, 100; cf. Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.16 714

158

scene is damaged, but it seems plausible that the boats are perhaps being loaded with supplies to be brought to the storehouses. Most significant for the issue of the tomb’s attribution to Min, however, is the image opposite this on the rear wall of the north end. Porter and Moss called this scene “Five registers, tribute from Punt” (Figs.16-18, pp.472-4).718 The lower two registers do indeed depict the expedition to and from Punt, complete with ships and charioted military escort. In the upper three registers the deceased stands before the enthroned king while behind him are piles of incense, myrrh trees, gold rings, butchered cattle, and even a pair of obelisks. Behind this, the deceased is again represented, this time holding one tray of incense and one of gold rings while rows of are men bringing various goods behind him. The men directly behind the second figure of the deceased are prostrate and one of them wears a distinctly un-Egyptian dress. According to Davies, it is the dress of a Puntite prince, though he admits that the costume is quite different from that seen at Deir elBahri.719 The inscription that accompanies the first figure of the deceased is damaged but what remains is extremely interesting: “… of your foreign land together with gold of the hillside of Gebtiu (Coptos) … gold of great quantity”.720 The scenes of a Puntite expedition and the mention of gold from Coptos are strong indicators that TT143 did indeed belong to a treasurer. Stylistically, the tomb fits in the later half of Thutmosis III to early Amenhotep II, which would match well with the time-frame for Min. It must be admitted however, that his predecessor Ty is also a candidate, although if he were the 718

PM I.1, 1960, p. 255. Davies, BMMA 31, pp.46-7. The other two figures are destroyed, but were presumably also not Egyptian. 720 //[2 columns destroyed]// (nbw) n xAst.Tn m-ab nbw n xAst Gbtiyw /// nbw n aSA wrt There are traces of a sign in the damaged area between Gebtiu and gold. Davies suggested Domw “fine gold”, which seems likely. A similar inscription can be found in TT86 of the HPA Menkheperresoneb where he is receiving taxes: sSp nbw n xAst Gbtiyw m-ab nbw n KSh Xst (PM(6), Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.ix). 719

159

owner one might expect the Nubian or Serabit el-Khadim expeditions to have been portrayed rather than one to Punt and the eastern desert.721

Userhat (Two generations of Amun servants722) Earlier in this chapter we saw how “helpers of Amun,” mid-level priests, could pass on their positions, and this appears to be the case for the lower-level “servants of Amun” as well. However, what is unusual in this example is that while the “servant of Amun” Amunemhat’s family appears to have been descended from an elite line,723 there is nothing beyond the mere fact of a tomb to suggest that Userhat and his family were anything more than temple staff. According to Eichler, the role of the sDm-aS was essentially as assistant staff for a variety of cult functions.724 Although she does not include our officials in her corpus, or give a particular discussion of the title itself, it appears from her catalogue that this was often the sole title reported by its holders.725 The lack of knowledge about this family can be attributed to the mislabeling of Userhat’s title in his tomb entry in Porter and Moss.726 Porter and Moss had attributed TT176 in the Khokha area of the Theban Necropolis to the royal butler pure of hands [Amun-]Userhat, with no other relatives known.727 This was followed by der Manuelian

721

The treasurer Nehesy (who also had a shrine at Silsilah) was in charge of an expedition to Punt, but for Hatshepsut, and his tomb is known to be at Saqqara. 722 Neither Userhat nor his father Katy appear in the volume on the Amun domain by Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”. 723 See above, pp.137 ff. 724 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” pp.168ff. 725 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.370 has a list of the catalogue entries. 726 PM I.1, pp.281-3. 727 The original entrance is now blocked, and the tomb is accessed through a breach in the north wall of the adjacent Ramesside Period tomb, TT177, which belongs to the scribe of truth Amenemipet.

160

and Kampp, who each also retained the Amunhotep II-Thutmosis IV date given by PM.728 TT 176 is quite small, being composed of a small (and oddly shaped) front room, short passage or shrine and niche. The extant decoration is fragmentary, but the painted areas that remain are stylistically consistent with the latter half of Amenhotep II’s reign. My examination of this tomb in 2001 has revealed that the inscriptions have previously been read incorrectly. The texts around the shrine indicate that the owner was not a royal butler, but rather a servant (sDm-aS) who is qualified by the epithets “excellent” (iqr) and “pure of hands” (wab awy).729 The addition of the latter epithet to his title implies that he was a priestly official, and most likely functioned in a temple setting.730 Stored in the tomb are the original sandstone door-jambs of the tomb which indicate that the name and title of the owner had been combined.731 On the fragmentary piece Userhat is called simply sDm-aS, but on the complete jamb sDm-aS n Imn Wsr-hAt “servant of Amun, Userhat”. This demonstrates that he was indeed a temple servant in Thebes, though whether on the East or West Banks is unknown. It also seems likely that this is in part where the error in reading Userhat’s name and title arose. The name of Amun shows typical Amarna-period defacement. Although the only occurrence of the full title is on the door-jamb, based on the destruction patterns it was likely used in the inscriptions around the shrine and niche as well. In addition, the

728

Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.128-9; cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.464, type IIa, Vb. Userhat is called sDm-aS iqr in two columns of inscription on the north (left) side of the shrine, and sDmaS wab awy in two columns of inscription on the south (right) side. 730 Sauneron, Priests, pp.70ff. 731 One is complete, the other preserves only the bottom portion. 729

161

epithet wab awy is also one that is commonly held by royal butlers,732 and it would seem much more likely that a royal butler would have a tomb, than a simpler temple servant. Once the name and title had been correctly read, additional new information came to light. Perhaps the most important has been the identification of Userhat’s father as the sdm-aS Katy. Although not mentioned in the tomb, a stele in the British Museum (BM346) can now be attributed to them.733 The stelephorous stele contains a hymn to Re and was dedicated by the sDm-aS of Amun Userhat for his father, the sDm-aS Katy. The stele originated in Thebes, and thus it is likely that Userhat set it up for his father in the Amun precinct of Karnak temple. Although Katy is not specifically labeled as a sDm-aS of Amun, the fact that Userhat used both the simpler form and the longer sDm-aS n Imn in his tomb suggests that these were variants of each other. Thus, it could be suggested that Katy, like his son was also a sDm-aS n Imn. That both father and son hold the same title, even in variant form, demonstrates the hereditary aspect of the position. Unfortunately, the only person identified in the tomb is Userhat. In one scene he is depicted seated with a woman, who could be a mother or wife.734 However, the fact that in the funerary scenes only Userhat is represented would seem to suggest that he was not married. Another door-jamb stored in the tomb bears an inscription for the wab-priest of Amun Huy. Although nothing further is known about this individual, it seems possible that he was another family member, perhaps a brother or son, who was also placed in the Amun priesthood. If Huy is a family member, then it indicates that familial nepotism was also at work, though whether it was indirect or direct is unclear. 732

Cf. Schulman, JARCE 13, pp.117-130; Helck, Verwaltung, pp.269ff. Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.v [346]. 734 PM(5). The inscription above the seated pair was left blank. They are being offered to by a girl, who would then be either a sister or daughter. 733

162

The lack of information beyond what has been reviewed above leaves us wondering how Userhat was able to procure a tomb for himself, albeit a small one. The destruction to the tomb walls certainly leaves open the possibility that Userhat held higher positions which are no longer extant, though the fact that the ones which are preserved come from the door-jambs, generally one of the last parts of a tomb to be decorated, seems to indicate that being a sDm-aS n Imn was the culmination of his career. The very fact of the tomb’s existence is curious, and at this time there is no good explanation for how Userhat became so visible.

III. Conclusions From the preceding discussion several conclusions can be drawn. The most obvious is that despite the statement in the Instructions of Any that an “office has no children,”735 this was clearly not entirely true in Ancient Egypt. Hereditary succession was certainly a method by which officials could obtain their positions. However, this was achieved in different ways. Direct inheritance from a consanguine is, of course, prevalent, while inheritance through marriage occurs in only three instances. The use of the mdw iAw, “staff of old age,” transpires in only two cases, though in a few instances it seems to be implied that an official was acting in this capacity. Although officials could succeed to more than one post, and inherit from multiple persons, it was rare that the official subsequently rose to a higher rank than his father. While all of the officials included in this chapter inherited their positions, in only three cases was exact transmission maintainable for more than two generations. Familial influence, where the titles within 735

Dated to the 18th Dynasty; cf. Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.135-46, cf. p.140; Quack, Lehren des Ani, pp.106f., 172f.

163

the family are concentrated in the same area, can be seen as well, but this is in addition to exact transmission of office.736 Royal nepotism appears to have played a role in a few cases,737 but mention of being appointed to, or placed in, a position is only explicitly stated three times.738 The fact that we do have evidence for nepotism, especially in those families where the office being passed on was extremely influential, is an excellent example of the fluidity that existed between methods of obtaining office, and of the possibility that these processes would become intertwined. Obviously each official included in this chapter inherited at least one of his titles. The vizier User, overseer of granaries Menkheper(resoneb), treasurer Sobkehotep, and servant of Amun Userhat each succeeded to their father’s post, which was the highest for both father and son. The steward and scribe of the vizier Amenemhat also took over his father’s rank, but these positions were lower within the Amun domain; Amenmehat’s chief position came through marriage. Likewise, Sobekhotep became mayor of the Fayum through marriage prior to being installed as treasurer. The reason that Amenemhat and Sobekhotep acquired offices through marriage appears to be due to their predecessor’s lack of sons. In addition, the vizier Aametu’s marriage into a prominent Theban priestly family allowed his descendants to enter into the priesthood. Rekhmire succeeded his paternal uncle to the vizierate, as did Menkheperresoneb (ii) when he became high priest of Amun. Although Menkheperresoneb (ii)’s uncle did not have children, Rekhmire’s had several, which makes his succession unusual. Only two

736

Familial influence, both direct and with the king, is treated in the following chapter. Royal nepotism is dealt with in the next chapter. 738 The destroyed nature of the tombs of Minnakht and his son Menkheper(resoneb), both “overseer of double granaries,” as well as the high priests of Amun named Menkheperresoneb, who were uncle and nephew, makes it difficult to state with certainty that they would not also have recognized royal involvement in some way. 737

164

officials seem to have risen above their fathers’ status. The high priest of Amun Amenemhat, vastly surpassed his father Djhutyhotep’s post “overseer of sandal makers” when he became high priest of Amun. I would also suggest that the agent of Amun Amenemhat ascended above his father Itnefer’s position. Itnefer is only called the “agent of Amun,” while Amenemhat bears the phyle designations “agent of Amun from the second phyle” and “agent of Amun in Henket-ankh from the first phyle.”739 Both the high priest of Amun Amenemhat and the vizier User were staffs of old age for their fathers, but at very different levels and for different reasons. While Amenemhat served as a wab-priest alongside but under his father’s direction, User was installed as co-vizier to his aging father. Amenemhat was still a fairly mid-level priest when he was elevated to the position of high priest of Amun, which was much greater than that of his father, an overseer of sandal-makers at his death. In contrast, User succeeded Aametu as vizier, though whether when Aametu died or became infirm is uncertain. I suggested above in the discussion of the vizierate that the combination of User’s Installation scene and inscription served as marker of both his recognized hereditary right and the fulfillment of his role as an ideal son.740 In addition, I pointed out that the method of User’s installation as co-vizier was perhaps connected to the unusual political environment of the Hatshepsut – Thutmosis III co-regency.741 Amenemhat, however, was not made a mdw iAw due to such circumstances. In fact, he never sates that he was made a

739

I am assuming that Amenemhat’s father was probably attached to either Djeser-djeseru or Henket-ankh, like his son, and that only the short form of Itnefer’s title was used, or is preserved, in the tomb. 740 See pp.85ff. 741 P.86f.; cf. also Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, and Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.131-2, 1448.

165

staff of old age at all, simply that he was one.742 It seems as though Amenemhat was following the common, if usually unstated, path of a son joining the temple ranks alongside his father.743 Four other officials in this chapter, the steward Amenemhat, helper of Amun Amenemhat, servant of Amun Userhat, and high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb (ii) also came from “priestly families”, not to mention the ubiquity of Aametu’s extended family in the temples of Thebes. The fact that the high priest of Amun Amenemhat mentions his time and services as a mdw iAw seems to indicate that he viewed this as an important part of his career. I would suggest that Amenemhat was employing this phrase to demonstrate his “right” to the position of high priest. Amenemhat was promoted (dhn) to this post by Amenhotep II, who thereby removed a two-generation family from the position. Although the exact timing is uncertain, it seems likely that this happened fairly early on in Amenhotep II’s reign since Amenemhat’s predecessor, Menkheperresoneb (ii), makes no mention of Amenhotep II in his tomb, TT86. By mentioning that he had a hereditary right to be a part of the Amun priesthood, Amenemhat was demonstrating that he was also a suitable candidate for high priest of Amun. In this respect we might say that the system of the mdw iAw was employed by Amenemhat and User in similar ways and for similar reasons. In the discussion of the imy st-a of Amun Amenemhat, I suggested that he may also have served as a staff of old age when he was a wab-priest. This was based on the eastern stele’s lunette which I argued depicts him as a wab-priest standing behind his father, the imy st-a of Amun Itefnefer.744 This is perhaps a tenuous conclusion. However,

742

See p.146f. Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.71f.; Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, pp.198203; Haring, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.21f.; Sauneron, Priests, pp.42f. 744 P.140f. 743

166

in the case of the Minnakht and his son Menkheper(resoneb), both “overseers of double granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt,” the evidence provides a stronger case for Menkheper(resoneb) functioning as a junior official or colleague to his father. First is the fact that there were two overseers functioning during this time period, one each in the north and south of Egypt.745 In addition, in TT79 Menkheper(resoneb) used a particular form of his title, “overseer of the double granaries of the lord of the two lands” to designate himself in relationship to his father as “overseer of the double granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt.” Finally, Menkheper(resoneb) is called “overseer of the double granaries of the lord of the two lands in northern Heliopolis” at the end of his autobiographical stele, as well as “overseer of the double granaries of Atum, lord of Heliopolis” and “steward of Heliopolis” on his funerary papyrus, cementing his connection to the north which his father Minnakht also had. This seems to me to be strongly suggestive of a situation in which Menkheper(resoneb) functioned as his father’s deputy in the north before succeeding him as “overseer of the double granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt.” If we examine those men who inherited positions through marriage, it becomes clear that the status of the officials was enhanced, and their influence increased, as a result of the union. It is also interesting that these official families are also the same three that were able to maintain positions through more than two generations. These officials are the steward Amenemhat, mayor and treasurer Sobekhotep, and the descendants of the vizier Aametu. Amenemhat, prior to becoming steward of the vizier, was the third generation to also act as “overseer of ploughed lands” and “elder of the portal.” Amenemhat’s entry 745

Based on P. Louvre 3226; cf. Megally, Recherche.

167

into the Amun temple’s granary administration may have come from an elder brother, while he likely became scribe of the vizier as the successor to another older brother. Through marriage Amenemhat acquired two additional titles. He inherited “chief of the weavers of Amun” from his wife’s paternal grandfather, whose own sons already had several positions. Amenemhat’s most prestigious position, “steward of the vizier,” was passed to him from his wife’s father, apparently because his only child was this daughter. Amenemhat and his consanguines were already functioning within the temple administration when he married into a family with both temple and vizieral connections. However, without this marriage it is not at all clear, despite any supposed “contact” between Amenemhat and User when both were working in the Amun temple, that Amenemhat would have been promoted out of this career to serve as steward to two illustrious viziers and be able to construct for himself one of the largest tombs in the Theban Necropolis. Although Sobkehotep succeeded his father Min as treasurer, prior to this he married into a prominent Fayumic family. This marriage allowed him to inherit the mayoralty of the Fayum from his wife’s brother, who was unmarried and thus childless. Once Sobekhotep held this position, he was able to pass it on to his son Paser, while another son became high priest of Sobek-Shedty. There are two essential differences between the two positions that Sobekhotep held. The post of treasurer was one of the most prominent in the country, and not one that was usually hereditary.746 The fact that Min was able to guarantee it for his son is a testament to Min’s own authority and influence within the administration. Mayoral positions, however, have a long history of

746

Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.2, p.580; Wilkinson, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.3, p.317

168

becoming hereditary, beginning as early as the late Old Kingdom.747 Although their regional power fluctuated depending on the strength of the central government, in general these were landed aristocracies that remained within families, and could provide officials for upper-level posts.748 Thus, although Sobekhotep was unable to retain control over who succeeded him as treasurer, his marriage and subsequent career as mayor of the Fayum provided a continual revenue source for the family. Aametu’s marriage into the family of Theban priests headed by Ineni has already been discussed at length above.749 The point that I would like to stress is that the succession of the vizierate from Aametu to User had very little to do with their family’s now widespread presence in the Amun priesthood. Aametu’s children through greatgrandchildren were placed in priestly positions as a direct result of his marriage. Evidence for this is that several of Aametu’s sons inherited their positions from their maternal uncles and these exact positions continued to be passed on. The fact that User held numerous priestly positions prior to becoming co-vizier seems to be of secondary importance. That is, the path to the vizierate was not necessarily at this time through the priesthood. Rather, this was probably an additional means by which Aametu’s family could increase its wealth, since many upper-level priestly positions benefited from being attached to the temple estates.750 It was only in the third generation, that of User’s children and Rekhmire’s ascension to vizier, that power within the priesthood may have played a significant role in the vizierate. This is the first time that we see such a high level of involvement between 747

Allen, in: Theban ecropolis, pp.14-29; Pardey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, pp.16-20; Warburton, in: Oxford Encyclpedia Vol.2, p.578. 748 As evidenced in Tutankhamun’s “Restoration Stele” and the “Decree of Horemheb.” 749 Pp.78f., 96ff. 750 Haring, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.1, p.22.

169

the vizier and the Amun temple, as witnessed by both the numerous “overseer” titles that Rekhmire held and by the scenes of temple workshops and the delivery of grain and produce to the temple that form a major component of his tomb’s decoration. Although Rekhmire himself stress both his hereditary claim, as the “son” of Aametu, and his close relationship to Thutmosis III, the changes in Rekhmire’s titulary and events which follow his removal from office also seem to support the theory that the connection between the vizierate and the Amun precinct was unusually strong during his tenure. During the time frame that Aametu and his descendants retained possession of the vizierate, Hapuseneb, and then Menkheperresoneb (i) and (ii) held control of the high priest of Amun post. Hapuseneb, who was not included in this study, was an extremely powerful official during the regency and co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III.751 As Menkheperresoneb (i) seems to have held only honorary titles in addition to being high priest, it seems likely that he was able to succeed Hapuseneb by virtue of his mother’s position as royal nurse to Thutmosis III. This was mentioned briefly above, and will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. Menkheperresoneb (i) probably served towards the end of the co-regency and into the early years of Thutmosis III’s reign, while his nephew and successor Menkheperresoneb (ii) served during the sole rule of Thutmosis III and into the very beginning of Amenhotep II’s reign. At this point both the high priest and the vizier are replaced, the former by Amenemhat, the latter by Amenemopet. If we compare the role of the vizier with regard to the Amun priesthood and the level of power held by the concurrent high priests of Amun, a pattern becomes apparent.

751

He was not included because his tenure as an official, which ends prior to Thutmosis III’s sole rule, falls outside the scope of his project.

170

Aametu, who had no clear connection with the administration of the Amun precinct, was vizier during the tenure of an extremely powerful high priest. He did, however, marry into an equally powerful Theban family, whose head, Ineni, held positions such as “mayor of Thebes,” “overseer of the granaries of Amun,” “overseer of work in Karnak,” and “overseer of work in the king’s tomb.”752 This alliance tied one prominent official, Aametu,753 to an influential family.754 By the time Menkheperresoneb (i) became high priest, User was probably vizier, certainly co-vizier, and his extended family, due to the marriage into Ineni’s family, was now spread throughout the priesthood at various levels of authority. Menkheperresoneb (i) seems to have held primarily priestly responsibilities, and perhaps the more functional duties were left to the men such as User, his brothers and cousins, who were already familiar with these roles. User did take on some supervisory roles, i.e., “overseer of the seal-bearers of Amun,” “overseer of the treasury,” “overseer of the scribes of Amun,” and “overseer of the granaries of Amun.” However, in addition to being high priest, Menkheperresoneb (ii) was also “overseer of the granaries of Amun,” “overseer of weavers of Upper and Lower Egypt,” “overseer of craftsmen,” and “chief of the overseers of craftsmen.” It would appear that the vizier’s role was primarily concerned with record-keeping, while the new high priest dealt with the actual production of goods in addition to his religious functions. Once Rekhmire succeeds his uncle, this changes. Rekhmire, by virtue of his titles as well as the scenes and inscriptions in his tomb, demonstrates his intricate involvement

752

For a complete list, see Dziobek, Ineni, pp.122-3. See also Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.144. Dziobek discusses Ineni’s life and career in Dziobek, Ineni, pp.124-41. 753 Although Aametu was probably related to the early viceroys of Kush Ahmose-Satayt and his son Ahmose-Tjuro, this position as not held by Tjuro’s descendants, suggesting that this branch of the family had decreased in power. 754 Several of Ineni’s brothers were spread throughout the Amun domain.

171

in the daily operations of Karnak temple. His responsibilities appear to dwarf those recorded by Menkheperresoneb (ii) as high priest. Although it does not seem as though Rekhmire has an extremely high level of power within the Amun domain prior to becoming vizier, he certainly did afterwards. The various “overseer” positions that one might begin to expect are vastly increased,755 while phrases such as “one who lays down instructions for the Hm-priests and guides the wab-priests in their duties,” “one who establishes rules for the temples of Upper and Lower Egypt,” and “letting every man know his routine, by virtue of his office of superintendent of works” also appear accompanying depictions of Rekhmire performing these duties.756 These developments suggest that Rekhmire’s direct authority had surpassed even that of the high priest in the running the Amun temple’s administration. Although the role played by Rekhmire’s previzieral positions (in the Amun precinct) in his assumption of the vizierate is uncertain, his level of control over the Amun domain after becoming vizier is certainly suggestive that the two were somehow connected. Amenhotep II, by replacing both Rekhmire and Menkheperresoneb(ii), not only removed two positions of power from the grasp of families trying to retain their hereditary control, but also altered the nature of the positions. Amenemhat, the successor to Menkheperresoneb (ii), comes from a mid-level priestly family and seems to hold essentially priestly responsibilities. The vizier who replaces Rekhmire, Amenemopet, has no demonstrable authority with regard to the temples, while his cousin Sennefer, as

755

Such as overseer of all work (imy-r kAwt nbt), controller of all work in Karnak (xrp kAwt nbt m Ipt-swt ), overseer of craftsmen (imy-r Hmwt ), overseer of all craftsmen of Amun (imy-r Hmwt nbt nt Imn ), and steward of Amun (imy-r pr n Imn ). 756 From scenes of temple inspection in the passage; cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p.49, 54.

172

mayor of Thebes, seems to dominate most areas of the Amun domain. Both Sennefer and Amenemopet are discussed at length in the following chapter. Among the officials discussed, only three exhibit texts which mention an appointment by the king, the viziers User and Rekhmire, and the high priest of Amun Amenemhat. The relevant inscriptions and scenes have already been quoted at length and need only be summarized here. User stands before Thutmosis III with his father Aametu, the current vizier, and Thutmosis III states that he will cause (di) User to act (ir) as a “staff of old age” for Aametu.757 Thutmosis III is also reminded by his court that he had appointed (di) User to the position “scribe of the divine seal” at an earlier date.758 In contrast, Rekhmire himself exits the palace and the court of Thutmosis III after having the governance of Egypt placed (diw) upon him,759 while the palace officials (smrw pr-aA) proclaim that Thutmosis III “confirms every office” (smn iAwt nbt).760 Whether or not Amenemhat would have had a similar “scene of appointment” in his tomb is uncertain due to its poor state of preservation.761 In his autobiographical inscription he states that he was appointed (dhn) to two positions, both upper-level priestly posts. Any record of how he attained the position high priest of Amun has been lost. Although in general it is the similarities between User and Rekhmire that scholars focus on,762 I would argue that in fact the differences are more significant. These differences appear not only in the wording of their “appointments,” but also in the way the events were represented in their respective tombs. Attention should be drawn to the 757

di(.i) pXr mnxw.f xr.k ix ir.f n.k mdw iAw di.k is sA.f Wsr rn.f m sS xtmt nTr m Hwt-nTr n Imn ntf m hAw it.k nswt bity (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| mAa [xrw] 759 diw m Hr //(.f ?)// 760 Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, p. 17, Rekh-mi-rē‘ II, pl.xvi, col. 11: HqA nfr mnw (Mn-xpr-ra) smn iAwt nbt 761 I suggested above, that just such a scene may have appeared on the rear wall of the transverse-hall, adjacent to the passage entrance, where there appears to be traces of a kiosk. 762 E.g.., that they are both viziers, from the same family, and appointed to office. 758

173

fact that User is commemorating his installation as co-vizier alongside his father,763 while Rekhmire presents himself as vizier with the associated responsibilities; User is acting as his father’s deputy, while Rekhmire is given control of the affairs of Egypt. This is true both visually and textually. User stands behind his father the vizier in the royal court, and is only designated as “scribe of the divine seal,” the position to which User had earlier been appointed by the king. The fact that Thutmosis III needs to be reminded of this earlier act is interesting because it could perhaps be construed as evidence for the king delegating his authority to select officials. In this case, it may well have been User’s maternal uncle, Ineni, who would have carried out the actual appointment.764 Both User and Rekhmire were appointed or placed in their positions, yet it seems as though the level of royal involvement may have been different in some respects. Rekhmire’s appointment seems much more basic: he enters the palace, is instructed in his office by the king, and exits confirmed in his post.765 User however was picked after a search for an appropriate deputy and successor to Aametu, and was subsequently placed as his father’s mdw iAw. Following this he succeeded to the position of vizier, an act which may well be recorded visually in the scene adjacent to User’s co-installation, where User is depicted as vizier, wearing the vizier costume, and leading the royal procession to the temple gates.766 Certainly part of the reason for the differences may lie in the fact that Rekhmire was not a mdw iAw for User. However, it seems plausible that other, more historical, factors may have been involved. 763

On the wall opposite User’s “Co-Installation” is a badly damaged scene of User before the king. The fragmentary text appears to a parallel that of Rekhmire’s, indicating that User recorded both his installation as a staff of old age and his final appointment to the position. 764 Ineni, it will be recalled, was both “overseer of all offices in the house of Amun” and “overseer of all seals in the house of Amun.” 765 User’s eventual appointment text probably had much the same wording. 766 Dziobek, Die Gräber, pl.18-19.

174

Now a few broader statements can be made. This chapter has demonstrated that hereditary succession was possible for central, provincial, and priestly officials. Among the eight families examined, in only four was an exact position traceable beyond a second generation, Aametu and the vizierate, the steward Amenemhat as overseer of ploughed lands and elder of the portal, Sobekhotep with the mayoralty of the Fayum, and the high priest Amunemhat’s post as a wab-priest.767 For the majority of the officials the titles remained within their families for only two generations, from father (or other male relative) to son. At first glance this might seem to suggest that rather than office inheritance this situation could be explained by nepotism. However, if we examine more closely the political environment, it appears that the ascension of Amenhotep II may have limited the ability of these men to pass on their positions within their families. None of the officials who inherited their highest position during the reign of Thutmosis III remained to serve under Amenhotep II. Rekhmire was removed, ending a “vizieral dynasty,” which had begun three generations earlier with Aametu in the reign of Thutmosis I or II. The high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb (ii) was replaced by Amenemhat, while the sons of the overseer of double granaries Menkheper(resoneb) and the steward Amenemhat did not succeed their fathers. Likewise, the steward Amenemhat’s lower-level positions, which he was the third generation to hold, were not passed on. There is not enough evidence to state with certainty whether or not any descendants of the agent of Amun, Amenemhat, or of the servant of Amun, Userhat, inherited positions. Sobkehotep, who lasted into the reign of Thutmosis IV, is the one anomaly. However, since he was mayor before taking over his father Min’s position of

767

The presence of Aametu’s family in the priesthood also continued through at least three generations, but this was due to nepotism, not direct inheritance.

175

treasurer, he was perhaps removed enough from court politics that he was able to inherit during the reign of Amenhotep II.768 The situation just described seems to suggest the possibility that Amenhotep II was systematically replacing officials who had inherited their positions under his father Thutmosis III. Had a change in reign not taken place from one strong king to another, perhaps these families would have been able to retain control of their offices.

768

As mentioned in the text, it is possible that he did not become treasurer until the reign of Thutmosis IV; cf. p.152f.

176

Chapter 2 Influence as a Means of Obtaining Office: The Family769 and The King

I. Introduction The following discussion focuses on those officials for whom it seems that nepotism was the primary means by which they obtained office. I will state at the outset that I am making two assumptions in this chapter. The first is that, in fact, nepotism did take place in ancient Egypt.770 The second is that there are possibly different ways in which it can be recognized. The issue thus becomes, how was it enacted and how can this be established? It has been stated elsewhere that although nominally it was the king who placed all officials in their positions, texts such as the Duties have shown that in fact this authority was often delegated.771 This suggests that other powerful individuals could exert some influence over appointments and they may have used this influence to benefit their families’. The first, and most obvious, method is direct nepotism through one’s family. By this I am referring to a situation in which the titles spread throughout a family demonstrates that they are all functioning in similar or related sections of government. This demonstrates the ability of an older relative to assist in the placement of his descendants, collaterals, and perhaps even affines within the same general area of administration. Determining whether the official’s influence was direct, through personal

769

The term “family” denotes both blood relations (consanguines), and those who enter through marriage. On this issue, see the Introduction to the book, Section VIc, pp.47-52. 771 See the Introduction to the book, Section II, pp. 6ff., Section VIa, pp.34-45. 770

177

authority, or indirect, through influence with a superior, may not always be possible. We have already seen evidence of this system in the previous chapter, for the vizier Aametu and the steward of the vizier Amenemhat.772 Aametu’s marriage linked him with a prestigious Theban family whose head, Ineni, was an important official in the Amun domain. In the generations following Aametu, his descendants are situated in a variety of priestly and administrative positions, many of which were held by Aametu’s in-laws.773 In the case of Amenemhat, both his own family and the one he married into were connected to various areas of Amun precinct’s administration.774 Evidence similar to that provided by these families is investigated in this chapter in order to determine whether familial nepotism played a role in job acquisition. A second possibility involves a type of “indirect royal nepotism” whereby an official appears to obtain his position due to the level of relationship and influence that an older family member has with the king. This situation would primarily be indicated by two factors. The first is an immediate ancestor who has a high degree of royal contact, perhaps holding a connection to the king through his or her office. The second marker is that their children hold upper status positions that are otherwise not found in this family. Unlike for familial nepotism, titular information is not necessarily informative here because the parents and children may not have the same or even similar titles. Rather, it is precisely this disconnect, in combination with signs of the family’s personal link to the king, that would demonstrate that an official acquired his title(s) through indirect royal nepotism. Roehrig has already shown that royal nurses and tutors clearly had an

772

See Ch.1, pp.75-110. See Ch.1, pp.78, 96ff. 774 See Ch.1, pp.101ff. 773

178

exceptional relationship with the reigning king, his children, and subsequent heir.775 If this connection was especially beneficial for their own children then it might indicate that these nurses and tutors also had greater influence than has previously been thought.776 Indeed, in the previous chapter I suggested that this might be the case for the high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb (i), who was the son of a royal nurse. His situation will be reviewed in greater detail below. A personal friendship with the king is a third nepotistic means through which it appears an official could obtain his job. It is important to clearly distinguish this from the method just described. In this section officials are presented who demonstrate an individual, as opposed to familial, connection to the king. As mentioned earlier,777 this type of relationship could be established either in youth or as an adult. It is certainly the case that a youthful relationship with the king, such as for officials who claim to have been raised at court, is prima facie evidence for a parent in the upper echelons of the court. However, the distinguishing feature among these officials is that they choose to stress their link to the king and the ensuing royal favor in relationship to their careers. In theory, a personal friendship with the king could act in conjunction with merit as perceived by the king. This would enable the official to obtain a higher position due to his relationship with his sovereign than he would have received through merit alone. Helck seems to believe that this was the situation for military men who accompanied Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II on campaigns and later became high level court

775

Roehrig, Royal urse, esp. pp.330-39. This is contrast to Helck, who ascribed the importance of the relationship to the children of these individuals, rather to the nurses or tutors themselves; cf. Helck, Verwaltung, p.538; Helck, Einfluss, pp.356, n.1, 66-71. Cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.336-7, who appears to follow his conclusions. 777 See the Introduction, pp.47-52. 776

179

officials.778 I am suggesting that a position acquired primarily through personal friendship can perhaps be distinguished from one achieved by merit when an official’s earlier titles could in no way indicate meritorious advancement to the position which he subsequently achieved. In addition, it seems possible that an official whose high level of visibility and prestige is demonstrated through his monuments, but who does not hold a position that would naturally afford him this prominence, could also be said to have benefited from a royal friendship. Acquiring a position through a personal friendship with a direct superior, i.e. a non-royal official, was mentioned in the Introduction to the book. However, I am not addressing this aspect of friendship-based nepotism here because, in fact, there is no documentation available that conclusively demonstrates its occurrence. There are examples of officials whose daughters marry men who, at some point in their careers, are lower level officials within the same area of administration as their fathers-in-law.779 Unfortunately, there is no indication of when during an official’s career these marriages took place. The remainder of the chapter is essentially ordered according to the methods just discussed. Since familial nepotism and a familial connection to the king both involve nepotism through one’s family, they are placed as subsets of the overarching category “Family Influence.” The last form of nepotism, in which an official has a direct relationship with the king, is placed in the final section, entitled “Personal Influence.”

778

Helck, Einfluss, pp. 71-3. E.g. the overseer of the seal Sennefri whose daughter Renen married the idnw of overseer of the seal, Amenhotep. See Ch.3, pp.348ff.

779

180

II. Family Influence IIa. Familial "epotism The Family of Qen (Karnak clergy and staff) A family that seems to have held power in both the Amun and Mut precincts at Karnak is that of Qen, owner of TT59.780 Qen himself was the first priest of Mut, mistress of Isheru and mistress of the sky,781 his many brothers were priests and officials within the domain of Amun, and his father was probably an overseer of granaries in the temple. This family provides us with an example of how familial nepotism could result in a family being spread throughout the larger Karnak precinct, as both priests and administrative staff at varying levels. Qen’s tomb is unpublished and badly damaged, but the remaining inscriptions do contain considerable information about this priestly family.782 The majority of this information comes from the large banqueting scene located at the western end of the south wall of the passage.783 In the upper register Qen and his wife Meryt are seated before an offering table, while in the lower Qen’s parents receive offerings. Four registers of guests complete the setting, all of whom were originally identified, though now many of the inscriptions are lost.784

780

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.272-5, type IVa. Even his epithets seem to concentrate on the Mut precinct, i.e. Hsy m pr-Mwt “praised in the house of Mut”. Qen also had funerary cones with this title, cf. Davies and Macadam, Corpus, 538-9. 782 Helck, Verwaltung, p.387, 525 cites “Wb. Theb. Gräb. 704/8” as a source for the tomb; I have not been able to check this. I visited the tomb in 2002. 783 PM(3). The tomb is in an inverted T-shape, with a rear chamber and niche. Only the passage and shrine were decorated, and in the passage much of this is now lost. 784 The tomb has been the victim of intentional destruction by persons trying to hack portions of the wall. As a result most of the areas around the heads of the figures and their inscriptions are lost, except in the uppermost register. Each register depicts five individuals, with alternating rows of men and women. 781

181

The inscription that accompanies Qen’s parents is badly damaged, and until now only his mother was clearly identified as the Xkrt nswt Tjuiu (Fig.19, p.475).785 Seven or perhaps eight columns contained the titles of Qen’s father, and although they are extremely faded, the following can be read: (1) iry-pat HAty-a //// (2) aA m n /// (3) imAxy m (4) Ipt-swt Hswt m (5) pr //// imy-r Snwty //(6th column lost)// (7) n /// -n (?) mAa-xrw (blank column) Hmt.f mrt.f Xkrt nsw /// *wiw mAa-xrw “the iry-pat HAty-a … great in … revered in Ipet-sut (Karnak), praised in the house of … the overseer of the granaries … -n (?), justified; his wife, his beloved, the Xkrt nsw, Tjuiu, justified”.786 In column 6 we could perhaps restore either “of Amun”, “of the lord of the two lands”, or “of Upper and Lower Egypt”.787 All of these possibilities have important implications for the remainder of the family. If we read the title as “overseer of the granaries of Amun”, then Qen’s father becomes a member of the Amun priesthood. The fact that he was also “revered in Karnak” seems to suggest that he was an official connected to the temple precinct. In addition his title “praised in the house …” could perhaps be restored to “praised in the house [of Amun],” paralleling Qen’s epithet “revered in the house of Mut.” In addition to his titulary, the positions of Qen and his brothers also seem to indicate that the title “overseer of the granaries of Amun” is the most likely restoration. Although Qen was based at the Mut precinct, at least three of his brothers were also involved with the domain of Amun, all of whom are depicted as banquet guests in 785

Her name and titles appear in the last two columns of the inscription. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun” mentions that Qen’s father was an unknown overseer of the granaries in reference to three of his sons; see below, note 9. 787 Respectively, n Imn or n nb TAwy or n Smaw mHw. Paleographically, each of these would require the same amount of wall space. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun” mentions that Qen’s father was an unknown overseer of the granaries in reference to three of his sons (see below, notes 10-12); Bohleke includes him in his study on overseers of double granaries; cf. Bohleke, Double Granaries, pp.55f. 786

182

the scene. Qenamun was an overseer of goldsmiths and sculptors of Amun,788 Amenemhat was a wab-priest of Amun,789 and Djhutymes was a cultivator of Amun.790 A fourth brother depicted here, Wesy, was the scribe of the overseer of granaries, and would perhaps be an assistant to his father in the Amun temple.791 Restoring Qen’s father as the “overseer of granaries of Amun” thus indicates that nepotism played a prominent role in how his sons obtained their posts. A restoration of the father’s title to “overseer of the granaries of the lord of the two lands”, or to the “overseer of granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt” would make Qen’s father a very influential official, since this position was one of the most important in ancient Egypt.792 In this position, Qen’s father could perhaps be identified with the overseer of the granaries Tjenna mentioned in Papyrus Louvre E.3226.793 The papyrus covers years 28-35 of Thutmosis III’s reign, which would fit with the dating of Qen’s tomb in the reign of Thutmosis III if Tjenna was at this time in the last stages of his career. Nepotism might still be indicated if Wesy is identified with a man of the same name and title who appears on P.Louvre 3326 as an assistant to the overseer of the granaries Minnakht, the overseer who is mentioned alongside Tjenna.794 Helck, in fact, originally suggested that the Wesy of P.Louvre was the same man as Qen’s brother

788

Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” no.516. She reads the titles separately, thus “overseer of goldsmiths” and “sculptor of Amun;” cf. pp.145, 148f. 789 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” no.060 790 Eichler, Verwaltung des” Hauses des Amun”, no.574. Qenamun and Amenemhat are the last two brothers in the top register, while Djhutymes appears in the middle of the third register of guests at PM(3). 791 Wesy is seated second in the top register of banquet guests at PM(3), and based on remains of the title was probably also placed as a guest on the north wall of the shrine at PM(8). 792 Bryan, in: Thutmsosis III, forthcoming; Megally, Recherches. 793 Megally, Recherches, pp.276-7. 794 Megally, Recherches, pp.274-5. Minnakht is the owner of TT87 and Gebel es-Silsilah shrines 23 and 12. He and his son, who was also an overseer of granaries, are discussed in Chapter1, pp.124ff.

183

depicted in TT59, without any information about Qen’s father.795 If Qen’s father was the overseer of granaries (of Upper and Lower Egypt) Tjenna, then it is possible that he placed one son as the assistant to his colleague, and used his influence to spread his other sons throughout the Amun priesthood. Outside of P. Louvre, Tjenna is not well known, and thus it is tempting to make this identification with the family of Qen.796 Helck also suggested that a familial relationship might exist between Qen’s family and the family of Ineni.797 He thought it was unlikely that Qen of TT59 could be identified with Ineni’s brother Qen, priest of Mut, for two reasons. First, because the mother’s names are not the same (although their titles are), and second because the titles of Ineni’s numerous brothers do not match with those known from TT59.798 However, he did propose that Qen might be a son of Ineni, although Ineni’s wife Tjuiu did not have the title Xkrt nswt. Dziobek reviewed the evidence for this relationship in his publication of Ineni’s tomb.799 He states definitively that Qen of TT59 is not to be identified either as a brother or a son of Ineni, the former for the reasons already mentioned, the latter because Ineni and his wife Ahhotep did not have any children.800 This review demonstrates that while Qen’s family was spread throughout the greater Karnak precinct during his own generation, the presence of ancestors or

795

Helck, Verwaltung, p.387. See also the discussion of Minnakht and Tjenuna by Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. Both are mentioned on pLouvre3326 which deals with activites occurring in years 28-35 of Thutmosis III; cf. Megally, Recherches. 796 Tjenuna is probably not to be identified with the scribe of the granary and overseer of all granaries of Thinis known from CG34168, cf. Helck, Verwaltung, p.387, n.4. Nor is he the same man as the chief steward Tjanuny, owner of TT74; cf. Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 797 Ineni was the mayor of Thebes and also held a variety of upper level positions within the Amun temple during the reings of Thutmosis I – Thutmosis III. He is the owner of TT81 and his sister Taametu married the vizier Aametu, see Chapter 1, pp.77ff., 97ff. 798 Helck, Verwaltung, pp.524-5. 799 Dziobek, Ineni, pp.142-4. 800 Dziobek, Ineni, pp.142-4.

184

descendants in the same or similar positions is at this time uncertain.801 Although it could be argued that Qen’s father was the little known Tjenna who was overseer of granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt during the third-fourth decade of Thutmosis III’s reign, it seems more likely that he was in fact an overseer in the Amun domain. The prevalence of his family in this area as well as his own epithets seems more indicative of a temple administrator. Assuming this to be correct, then it appears that familial nepotism was the means by which Qen and his brothers obtained their positions.

Amunhotep and his uncle "eferhotep (Priests in the royal mortuary temples802) This family of upper level temple priests were involved with the mortuary cults of Thutmosis I, and possibly Hatshepsut. Amunhotep, the owner of TT345, has in fact been dated anywhere from Thutmosis I through Thutmosis III, though it seems most likely that he should be placed in the latter part of this time period. Although Porter & Moss originally dated TT345 to the reign of Thutmosis I,803 based on both stylistic criteria and the titulary of the deceased, it probably belongs to the reign of Thutmosis III.804 Unfortunately, this tomb is largely unpublished, and as it is currently covered by the hillside I was unable to view it in 2002. However, a selection of inscriptions from his tomb were published by Lepsius and collated by Sethe.805

801

Qen was married to a woman named Meryt, but whether or not they had children is unclear. None of the inscriptions that accompany the priests who offer to Qen and Meryt are well-enough preserved to record a name or title. 802 Eichler, Verwaltung des ”Hauses des Amun,” cites Neferhotep, but not Amunhotep, cf. p. 296, no.371. 803 PM I.1, pp.413-4. 804 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.584; Schmitz, Königssohn, p.285; Whale, Family, p.87 n.68. 805 Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9, p.280-1; Sethe, Urk. IV, 105-108. Mond discovered the tomb, but incorrectly attributed it to Djhutyseneb, Amunhotep’s father (Mond, LAAA 14, p.30, pl.33). For ease of reference the correspondence between Lepsius’ Denkmaler and PM is: pl.9a=PM(5), pl.9b=PM(2), pl.9c=PM(1) left thickness, pl.9d=PM(1) right thickness, pl.9e=PM(7), pl.9f=PM(6)

185

These texts reveal that Amunhotep was a wab-priest, a “first king’s son”, and a “first king’s son of Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I)”.806 He is depicted with his wife in at least three scenes, where she is always named as the chantress of Amun, Renay.807 According to Mond, five funerary cones were found during the excavation of this tomb.808 Two cones, D&M nos.95 and 121, neither of which were in Daressy’s original catalogue, are certainly attributable to Amunhotep.809 The titles given for Amunhotep are “pure of hands before Aakheperkare” (no.95) and “king’s son, bearer before Aakheperkare” (no.121). His wife Renay is listed on each as a chantress of Amun.810 A reconstruction of Amunhotep’s career could be suggested in which he was first simply a wab-priest, then became “pure of hands of Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I)”, and after this moved into his position as first king’s son for the funerary cult of Thutmosis I. This combination of titles is extremely common for “first king’s sons of Amun,” and several

806

There are multiple variations: wab ; wab sA-nsw tp ; sA-nsw tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| ; wab sA-nsw tp n (aA-xprkA-ra)| ; and possibly also wab [n] I[mn] sA-nsw tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)|. According to Schmitz, Königssohn, pp.285f., this royal funerary cult of Thutmosis I was probably established by Hathsepsut in an effort to help legitimize her ascent to the throne. Organized along parallel lines to the cult of Amun and the title “first king’s son of Amun”, it had the effect of deifying Thutmosis I. 807 Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9 a, b, d = PM(5), (2), (1). She was probably also depicted in PM(7), but unnamed, as well as in PM(3) and (4). 808 Mond, LAAA 14, p.30. There are listed with one catalogue number: 26/207, implying that they all bore the same inscription. In Davies annotations to Daressy (stored at the Griffith Institute) these might be his added cone no. 436 which he notes as being “found by Mond near PaHqmn” (i.e. TT343) in 1926. Davies’ also adds that the inscription was for Imn-Htp whose wife is called RnAy in his tomb. (He renumbered 436 as 431 and seems to equate it to Daressy no.284). Another possibility is Davies no.510 (same as Davies 438), to which he appends the note that Mond found five of them while digging in the court of TT55 in 1926. 809 They were also missed by Manniche (Lost Tombs, p.11), who only lists Davies and Macadam, Corpus, 247 (Daressy 132) as attributed Amunhotep. This cone may or may not be attributable. Daressy’s inscription reads “wob of Amun Amunhotep”, while Davies’ is “chantress of Amun Renu, wab Amunhotep”. The attribution seems tentative at best. 810 No.95: wab awy m-XAt (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Imn-Htp mAa-xrw Hmt.f mrt.f Smayt n Imn Rn-nfr (this could be an alternative spelling of her name, or a mis-reading). No.121: sA nswt rmn Hr (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Imn-Htp /// Hmt.f nbt pr Smay //[t n Imn]// Rn-ny ///.

186

in Eichler’s catalogue carry them from the reigns of Hatshepsut through Amenhotep III.811 Amunhotep gives his lineage as “born of Djhutsenty” in one scene,812 and in another is shown offering to his parents (Fig.20 (rt.), p.476).813 They are identified in relation to Amunhotep as “his father Djhutsenty and his (i.e., Djhutysenty’s) wife, Takhered,” while Amunhotep calls himself “their son.”814 In this offering scene the text in the area preceding his father’s name and above his parents is damaged.815 What remains is: imAxy Xr /// m (?) Dsr //// +Hwt-snty.816 As the name of Amun is consistently defaced in the rest of the tomb’s inscriptions, it is likely that Amun’s name could also be restored here. Thus we could read “revered before [Amun], in Djeser[-djeseru]… Djhutsenty”.817 This restoration would indicate that Amunhotep’s father was also a mortuary priest, in the temple of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahri. The epithet may also have served as a substitute for the term mAa-xrw, which does not appear after Djhutsenty’s name, although it does after his wife’s. Adjacent to the scene in which Amunhotep offers to his parents, he is depicted offering to the couple Neferhotep and his wife, also called Amunhotep (Fig.20 (left), p.476).818 Here too Amunhotep identifies the couple he offers to in his own inscription, but without filiation. According to Lepsius, in the inscription with Amunhotep,

811

Eichler, Verwaltung des ”Hauses des Amun,”, p.368 provides a list. Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9c; PM(1), left thickness. 813 Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9f, right side; PM(6). 814 it.f +Hwt-snty Hmt.f vA-Xrd mAat-xrw n kA.tn in sA.sn sA-nsw tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Imn-Htp 815 This portion of the inscription was not recorded in the Urkunden, but traces are visible in the Lepsius, Denkmaler when a magnifying glass is used. 816 There is a seated figure determinative at the end of the last break, just before Djhutsenty’s name, the head is missing but it is probably a male figure. 817 A parallel writing can be found in the tomb of the high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb (i), TT112 at PM(3) and in the tomb of Menkheperresoneb (ii), TT86 at PM(1); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xvii. 818 Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9f, left side; PM(6). 812

187

Neferhotep is given the titles 4th divine father of Amun, while in his own text he is called a 4th priest of Amun.819 From new evidence it now seems clear that the title of “divine father” was miscopied by Lepsius and should in fact be restored to match his other title of 4th priest. This evidence comes in the form of three funerary cones for Neferhotep and his wife, which also suggest that Neferhotep had a tomb in Thebes.820 The cones are Daressy nos.128, 136 and 137, all of which are for the 4th priest of Amun Neferhotep, and two of which (128, 137) also include “his wife, mistress of the house, Amunhotep”.821 Unfortunately, none of the cones give the name of Neferhotep’s father or brother. In TT345 the inscription that accompanies Amunhotep in the offering scene does not distinguish Neferhotep filially. Rather, Amunhotep calls himself “his brother, first king’s son of Aakheperkare, Amunhotep” in reference to Neferhotep. Although similar to the scene of Amunhotep before his parents, it is just different enough to call into question whether or not these two men were in fact brothers, rather than colleagues. The literature has traditionally suggested that Neferhotep was Amunhotep’s brother,822 but this is not necessarily the case.823 The fact that Neferhotep and his wife are depicted at the same scale and in a parallel context to Amunhotep’s parents, suggests that Neferhotep may have been a brother of Sendjhuty, and paternal uncle to Amunhotep. Since kin terminology in ancient Egypt did not distinguish between generations, the term sn,

819

Urk. IV, 106.8: it nTr 4-nw n Imn Nfr-Htp Var. Hm-nTr nwt-4 . From Lepsius (Lepsius, Denkmaler III, pl.9f) the full inscription above the couple is: iry-pat HAty-a saA n nswt siqr n bity xtmt (bity ?) it nTr (4)-nw /// Nfr-Htp Hmt.f nb pr [Imn-]Htp. Neferhotep is also named in the text that accompanies Amunhotep, but here he is the Hm-nTr nwt-4 (sic) n Imn Nfr-Htp mAa-xrw. 820 Perhaps in Khokha / Assasif where, according to Davies notes to Daressy’s text, two of the cones were found? No. 128 does not have any notes attached, but for no.136 there was “one near T.179”, and for no.137 “one found outside 48, one in T161”. 821 Kees, Priestertum p.76, n.3, had already attributed Daressy no.136 to Neferhotep. 822 Whale, Family, p.87f.; Urk IV, 106.5; Kees, Priestertum, p.76. 823 Similar depictions in which it appears that colleagues rather than, or in addition to, family members are depicted include TTs 72 and 53.

188

“brother,” could mean nephew as well.824 The fact that Sendjhuty does not appear to have a priestly title seems to support the identification of Neferhotep as a family member whom Amunhotep honored for helping him to acquire his own priestly positions. Therefore, it seems most likely that their relationship was one of nephew (Amenhotep) and paternal uncle (Neferhotep).825 This family’s influence in the priestly sphere continues with Amenhotep’s children. The tomb scenes that depict Amunhotep and Renay as the recipients of offerings have either one or 2 women (presumably daughters) represented as the offerers, while a priest (who could be a son) libates them in another scene. A pair of wooden statuettes dedicated to Amunhotep and Renay give the name of their son as “wab-priest before Aakheperkare, Aakheperkareseneb”.826 There are also perhaps three funerary cones that belonged to Aakheperkareseneb. D&M no.372 was made for the high priest of Aakheperkare, Aakheperkareseneb, and no.484 was for the high priest of Aakheperkare, Aakheperkareseneb called Amunmes.827 Clearly, Aakheperkareseneb was not only named after the king in whose funerary temple his father was a priest, but was following in his father’s footsteps as well. The honored position awarded to Neferhotep in Amunhotep’s tomb suggests that he was the family member who introduced his nephew into the temple clergy. Neferhotep’s position as a 4th-priest of Amun makes him relatively low in the temple

824

See the discussion in the Introduction, pp.28ff. and table 1, p.47. Unlike in TTs72 and 53 however, Amunhotep and Neferhotep were not part of the same priestly establishment, and this favors their being identified as relatives rather than colleagues. 826 Pushkin MFA, I.1.a. 2103 and 2009; Kees (ZÄS 85, 1960, p.47) lists Amunhotep’s titles as “wab, first king’s son of Aakheperkare”, var. “wab, bearer (rmn) before Aakherpkare” bzw. “first king’s son on the west side (n imj-wrt)” and “front wab of Aakheperkare.” 827 No.372 = dwAt Ra-Hr-axty in Hm-nTr tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra )| aA-xpr-kA-ra-snb mAa-xrw . No.484 = Hm-nTr tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Ddt.f Imn-ms aA-xpr-kA-ra-snb maA-xrw xr Wsir. Daressy no.93 may be the same as D&M 372, as the inscription according to Daressy was dwA Imn in Hm-nTr tp n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| Imn-ms mAa-xrw . 825

189

ranks, and thus this might be evidence for Neferhotep’s ability to influence a superior on behalf of his nephew. Once Amenhotep entered into the temple ranks through his uncle Neferhotep as a wab-priest, he advanced in position to first king’s son in the mortuary temple of Thutmosis I, and was subsequently able to ensure that his own son became high priest in the same temple.

Baki and his father Bak[enamun] (Mid-level priests) We saw in Chapter 1 that a family who were “agents of Amun” was able to build a tomb and maintain a level of status beyond their actual level due to an ancestral connection to the nurse of a queen.828 The “servant of Amun” Baki, who held essentially lower and mid-level positions, seems to have originally benefited from his father Bak[enamun]’s status as an official attached to the funerary temple of Queen AhmoseNefertari.829 Very little is known about Baki, the owner of TT18, but some new information has been gleaned from my re-examination of his unfinished and damaged tomb.830 Baki began his career, presumably, as a sDm-aS, then became first sDm-as, and later moved on to be the “one who weighs the gold and silver in the temple of Amun”.831 The latter title,

828

This is Amenemhet and his father Itnefer, who were both imy st-a n Imn; cf. Chapter 1, pp.140ff. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.195. 830 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.199-200, type Vb. The most recent mention of this tomb is by Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.138. Graefe, Gottesgemahlin des Amun, pp.179-80, frag200, briefly discusses Baki’s father and gives a genealogy. See Gauthier, BIFAO 6, pp.163-171, pl.1113 for the only publication of TT18. I investigated TT18 in the summer of 2002. Although only the transverse-hall was finished, the vaulted rear chamber or shrine was in the process of being decorated – the entire (?) south wall is grid-lined and a male face is sketched in at the west end. The tomb seems to be decorated in the style of early Thutmosis III. 831 These two titles were already known from his autobiographical stela: sDm-aS tp xAi HD nbw n pr [Imn]. 829

190

which is a lower ranked post within the treasury administration,832 suggests that his earlier positions were also in the Amun temple. There is now a new position that can be ascribed to him which comes from a previously unknown ceiling inscription in the transverse-hall.833 This is “overseer of the offerings for the altar [of Amun?].”834 This title in fact accords well with the scene depicted on the west side of the rear wall of the transverse-hall.835 Although the figure of Baki is lost, what remains is a scene of bringing gold and silver vessels and objects to be weighed and their weighing at one end, while at the other end scribes record the bringing and stacking of jars and foodstuffs. Both activities would certainly have been part of his duties as a weigher and one who dealt with the offering-table of Amun.836 Baki’s wife was a woman described only as nbt pr and with the name Mes, and together they had at least three daughters and two sons.837 Unfortunately, no titles are preserved for any of the sons.

832

Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.138. N end, E band. Gauthier did not copy or reproduce this inscription in his publication. In fact, all but one of the six ceiling bands (three per side – east, center, west; no axis band) were inscribed for Baki. Unfortunately they are all badly damaged and generally only Baki’s name, and in some cases the beginning of his lineage, is preserved. 834 The inscription here is: n kA n sDm aS tp imy-r wdHw n /////. The title is damaged, and another possible rendering for imy-r wdHw is DfA. In addition, the tp -sign in reality looks more like a seated figure – perhaps here the title is simply sDm aS? If this is the case, then perhaps the following title should read iry DfA n xAwt /// “one who relates to the offerings of the offering-table of …”. The destruction after the offering-table may indicate that this title could further be restored as n pr Imn. 835 PM (3). 836 Eichler also mentioned the connection between his office as a “weigher” and this scene; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses das Amun”, p.171. Also perhaps owing to his duties regarding the offering-table are the overburdened tables placed before Osiris and Anubis on the exterior of the shrine or rear chamber lintel [PM(7)] 837 The only named son is Ab- (??), while the daughters are Sepnefer, Nebtawy and Khnumnefer. The damage to the inscriptions in the fishing and fowling scene mean that there could be as many as four sons and five daughters. The latter two are both depicted naked and thus may have been young children when Baki’s tomb was being constructed. Note that this is contra Whale (Family, p.81) and Gautheir (BIFAO 6, p.170) who believed Khnumnefer to be male and emended the text to reflect this. No such emendation is necessary: the ‘t ’ of sAt is lost in the damage, thus sA(t).f mrt.f %nm-nfr. Likewise the depiction of Khnumnefer is exactly the same as that of Nebtawy (with a perfectly clear inscription) in offering scene: naked, yellow skin, and reddish coloring on the head and pubic area. Also the reading of the name Itef or T..f for one of the sons is incorrect, the name is completely lost and the text reads in fact sA.f mr.f /// (contra Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.169; Whale, Family p.80; Graefe, Gottesgemahlin des Amun, pp.179-80). 833

191

Baki depicted himself offering to his parents in the tomb, and it is from this scene that we have the full title of his father as “scribe of counting cattle (in the funerary temple) of Queen Ahmose-Nefertari.” (Fig.21, p.77)838 Although his father’s name is not preserved here, the name of his mother is Mes, like Baki’s own wife.839 The name of Baki’s father can, however, be tentatively restored from the autobiographical inscription.840 Toward the end of line 9 is inscribed the name Baki, with the rest of the line lost. Line 10 begins with the end of the title of Baki’s father (i.e., … AhmoseNefertari, justified), followed by the head, beak and incense bowl common to the bird that serves as an ideogram for bA.841 In the damaged space following this sign, there is just enough room for a basket, seated man, and mAa sign before the still visible [mAa-]xrw “justified,” which generally follows the names of deceased individuals.842 In this reconstruction his name would be Bak, similar to that of his son. The damaged areas are relatively small and could plausibly be restored with “born of the scribe of counting cattle of …” in line 9 and “Ahmose-Nefertari, Bak, justified” in line 10. This cannot be another title for our tomb owner Bak because the next portion of the inscription indicates that this is part of a lineage formula.843 However, another possibility is that we could restore the father’s name as Bak-[n-Imn], Bakenamun. This might account for the damage to the father’s name in the offering scene, which appears to be intentional. In addition, there is a funerary cone for the “royal scribe of counting cattle, overseer of the cattle of Amun, 838

Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.169; PM(4). The first guest in the accompanying banquet scene is the snt.f &A-r, apparently a sister of Baki. This is not recorded by Gauthier. 839 Based on the rarity of the name Mes as a woman’s name, Whale (Family, p.82) suggested that the two women were related, possibly as aunt and niece. There is no evidence to further substantiate or contradict this suggestion. 840 Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.167; PM(5) 841 Gardiner, G29. 842 The damage as indicated by Gauthier is a little too extensive; cf. Gauthier, BIFAO 6, p.167. 843 After the mAa-xrw comes ms n “born of”, which typically indicates that the mother’s name and titles can be expected.

192

Bakenamun.”844 Although giving slightly different titles than those listed in TT18 for Baki, it is nonetheless tempting to equate the two men. Baki did not have the same title as his father, and his career was perhaps centered at Karnak rather than in a mortuary temple. Nonetheless, it seems likely that his initial entry into the priesthood was based on his father’s position in the funerary temple. According to Eichler, the “scribe of counting cattle in of Amun” was a mid-level position,845 and it seems likely that the same could be said in the mortuary temple. Baki eventually rose to a position that was perhaps roughly equal to his father’s. They were both essentially “administrative priests,” responsible for various aspects of their particular temple’s domains. Thus, it seems that here we do indeed have a case where a son was able to enter into the priesthood due to his father’s standing in that priesthood.

Ahmose and his son Ra (Priests at Karnak and in the royal mortuary temples846) Two officials whose tombs, families, and careers are currently under investigation are those of Ahmose (TT121) and his son Ra (TT72).847 Prior to Piccione’s work, it was not widely known that these two men were in fact father and son, and since his work began in the early 90s a great deal of new information has been brought to light.848 This family apparently held several important positions within Karnak temple on the East and several funerary temples on the West Bank of Thebes during the reigns of Thutmosis III 844

Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.108. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses das Amun”, p.192f. 846 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses das Amun”, nos.001 (Ahmose), 401 (Ra). 847 Peter Piccione, who is directing the work on these men, has graciously shared his published and /or previously presented information with me (much of which can be found on his web site). My conclusions are based on this, but it should be noted that he plans a complete publication of the tombs that will certainly have extensive and new information on this family. 848 Labib Habachi was apparently on of the few who recognized the connection, and told Piccione about it (Piccione, pers. comm., 2002), but Piccione is the first to publish this fact. 845

193

and Amenhotep II.849 In addition, it appears that Ahmose may have had palace positions late in life that resulted in Ra’s ability to depict Amunhotep II in his tomb. From the inscriptions in Ahmose’s tomb, TT121,850 we learn that he was a first lector-priest of Amun, 2nd priest of Amun, 2nd priest of Amun-Ra at Karnak, and god's father beloved of the god. In an inscription in the niche (previously unknown) he also seems to bear the title of a priest (perhaps first priest of Amun) in Henqet-ankh.851 The inscription is damaged and unpublished at this point, but Piccione does award Ahmose the title of “First Prophet in Henqet-ankh (the mortuary temple of Thutmose III)”. If this title is placed in the niche, then it should be elongated as there is a long lacuna before the m hnqt-anx portion, and the name of Amun seems to be just visible.852 However, Piccione is probably correct in assessing that Ahmose gained this position late in life, if not posthumously. Besides his priestly titles, the text in the niche also credits Ahmose as a

849

According to Piccione, “The two tombs date to the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty of the mid-second millennium BC. They were preceded in construction by the tomb of Senenmut which lies between them. While Senenmut served Queen Hatshepsut and probably Thutmose III very early in his sole reign, Ahmose served Thutmose III, apparently later in the reign, and Rây served that king at the end of his reign, and thereafter Amenhotep II. Ahmose began building his tomb late in the reign of Thutmose III (c. 1504-1450 BC), whereupon it was completed after his death by his son, Rây. Rây constructed his own tomb apparently during the co-regency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II (c. 1450-1453), or else shortly thereafter (AIA 1999 lecture, web text, see http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/). Eichler includes Ahmose, Ra and other family members in her catalog; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, nos. 001, 119, 303, 401, 596. 850 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.410-12, type Ve. 851 Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no. 297 is probably attributable to Ahmose. It was made for the “first priest of Amun in Henqet-ankh, Ahmose” and would thus confirm this title for Ahmose. Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no. 300 carries the title of “second priest of Amun-Ra”, note that the name of Ahmose is written with the moon-sign up. 852 Piccione’s accounts of the whereabouts of this title are rather confusing. In his SSEA talk (Feb., 2000, see http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/) Piccione states that “Ahmose's senior-most title in his tomb is "Second Prophet of Amun-Re". His title, "First Prophet of Amun in Henqet-Ankh" (also Rây's title), occurs only on selected funerary cones, on funerary stelae which Rây placed into the tomb, and in texts inside Rây's own tomb.” (web abstract, see http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/) However, in his ICE talk (March, 2000, see http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/) Piccione credits Ra with placing this title in Ahmose’s tomb wherever he finished the decoration for his father (web abstract; cf. http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/). Likewise, in his 1999 AIA lecture, he also only credits this title to funerary cones of Ahmose (web text; http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/).

194

seal-bearer of the King of Lower Egypt and an overseer of Upper and Lower Egypt.853 The former title is also found on a granite block in the tomb which, along with an inscription at the west end of the south wall of the passage, lists several other courtrelated titles and epithets.854 Thus it would seem that Ahmose was not only highly placed within the priesthood, but within the royal court as well. There is also the matter of the title “great offspring in the palace”, which may be an indicator of Ahmose’s closeness to the royal court. Piccione mentions funerary cones found near TT121 are inscribed for a man named Ahmose who was a Xrd n kAp of Meritamun, which are perhaps ascribable to this Ahmose.855 If the attribution is correct, then it would appear that Ahmose was granted a palace position late in life. Meritamun was a daughter of Thutmosis III,856 and thus Ahmose could not have grown up in the palace with her. However, he might have been placed in a supervisory role, akin to a tutor, over Meritamun as a child.857 Ahmose’s wife Iret was a Xkrt nswt, (an honorific court title), and in the one lengthy inscription in Ahmose’s tomb in which her name is preserved she has her own bevy of epithets.858 In these epithets she is affiliated with Hathor, Mut, and possibly

853

Transliterated by Piccione as SDAwt bity, but perhaps better transliterated as Xtmt bity because its placement within the list (near the end and among other clear titles) suggests that it has actual duties attached to it, rather than being an honorific. 854 For example: mH-ib n nswt m xnrt ir // Axt n !r.f xrp rs-yp n nb tAwy sdty aA m Hwt-aA wr wrw m smrw.f (all from the Passage), Hry sStA n st-wrt mrr nb tAwy (from the granite block). The granite block is perhaps a piece of the granite stele that originally adorned the tomb. 855 Piccione, AIA 1999 lecture, web text; cf. http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/. Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.234. 856 There was also a Meritamun, daughter of King Ahmose, but if this were the princess meant than the cones cannot belong to Ahmose of TT121, who was an official during the reign of Thutmosis III. Feucht follows the earlier dating; cf. Feucht, Das Kind, p.272, 302-3; Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, p.43. 857 The Xrd n kAp could also designate an institution or body of people whose members could even have juridical duties; cf. Feucht, Das Kind, pp. 300-4; Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.43-4; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. 858 The portion of the inscription which relates to Iret reads: Hmt.f mryt.f nbt pr aAt Spst Hmsyt tpw Hsyt nT Hwt-Hr mrrt //[nt Imn ?]// nb iqrt Hr-ib mryt Mwt Xkrt nswt nbt pr Irt maAt-Xrw nbt imAx

195

Amun, suggesting that her family may have had both court and priestly connections. This indicates that Ahmose may have married into a well-placed family and in this way secured his own court positions, and perhaps those of the Amun temple as well. The only sibling for whom we have information is his brother Neferhebef, who was a wab-priest of Amun in Henqet-ankh.859 Exactly how Ahmose gained his high priestly positions is unclear, especially as no lower-level priestly positions are mentioned. However, it is clear that in addition to being elevated in the priesthood, he had strong court affiliations. This would likely have given Ahmose a high degree of power and influence, certainly enough to enhance his sons’ careers. In Ahmose’s tomb the inscriptions which would have named his son(s) are unfortunately either no longer extant or badly damaged. One ceiling text in the transverse-hall preserves a tantalizing clue however: sA.f … anx … xpr …. In one scene in Ra’s tomb (TT72) he calls himself the son of the “… nTr … Ahmose,” while in another an unknown man offers to a seated couple identified as Ahmose (no titles or filiation preserved) and “his mother, his beloved, the royal ornament, Ray.”860 Nonetheless, Piccione has affiliated the two men as father and son.861 It is certainly tempting to see Ra’s title of chief priest of Menkheperre in the lacuna of Ahmose’s ceiling inscription. Likewise, Ra’s father was clearly a priest named Ahmose and his mother a Xkrt nswt. However, there is the issue of the wife of Ahmose in TT121 being called Iret, while the mother of Ra in TT72 is Ray. Piccione suggests that Ray was perhaps a nickname for

859

This information is also from Piccione, AIA 1999, web text. I do not know where the brother is known from. 860 mwt.f mrt.f Xkrt nswt Ray 861 He may have more concrete additional inscriptional evidence currently unknown to me.

196

Iret, and that it may have been used in Ra’s tomb instead of Iret because of the similarity of the two names.862 Assuming Piccione to be correct, it seems likely that Ahmose used his own high standing in the Amun priesthood to introduce his son Ra into the system. Ra then followed in his father’s footsteps and even surpassed them. In his own tomb, TT72,863 the following positions are mentioned: first priest of Amun in Djeser-akhet, Henqet-ankh and possibly Men-iset, first priest of Menkheperre, first priest of Amun and of Menkheperre in Henqet-ankh, and first priest of Hathor who resides in Henqet-ankh.864 According to Piccione, Ra was also a first priest of Amun in Djeser-set, and an “Overseer of the Mansion of Gold of the Estate of Amun”.865 Although Ra does not seem to have had the number of court-related titles and epithets that his father had,866 he did hold higher positions and his positions were spread throughout the funerary temple priesthood. The fact that Ra does not appear to have any lower-level priestly titles suggests that his father’s influence allowed Ra to start at a higher level within the priesthood. This supports the theory that his career is mostly due to his father’s nepotism. In addition to his parents, Ra depicts three men in his tomb who are all designated as sn.f, literally “his brother”. Piccione has called into question whether or not they are true brothers or only colleagues of Ra, especially since they are all depicted following Ra 862

His suggestion that Iret might alternatively be a sister of Ahmose seems unlikely. AIA 1999 lecture, web text. 863 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.303-6, type Vb. 864 The first three of these are, respectively, the temple of Thutmosis III at Deir el-Bahri, the mortuary temple of Thutmosis III, the mortuary temple of Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari 865 All of these titles are found in Piccione’s AIA 1999 talk (web text), but I was unable to find the latter two when I visited the tomb. The title of first priest of Amun in Men-iset, which Piccione has as certain, I could only find a possible fragment of on a broken sandstone block that was part of the original right doorjamb; the left jamb is the Berlin Egyptian Museum (Piccione, AIA 1999, web text). Ra’s overseer title is possibly taken from that found on Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.116 (Hm-nTr tpy imy-r-pr Hwt-nb Imn Ray mAa-xrw ), although here his name is given as Ray – similar in orthography to that of his mother. 866 The only ones still extant in the tomb (to my knowledge) are wa iqr mr nb tAwy Hsy … [iry-p]a[t] HAty-a [mH-]ib …

197

in an offering scene before Amenhotep II and his mother Queen Merytre.867 The inscription is damaged, but Piccione restores the following for the three men: his brother, first lector-priest of Amun, Amunhotep;868 his brother, first priest of Amun, Senres;869 his brother, first priest of Amun, Menkheperresoneb.870 Given the method and repetitiveness of the defacement, both here and elsewhere in the tomb, it does seem plausible that the name of Amun could be restored in all three cases. Senres appears twice more in the tomb, both times in roles usually reserved for family members. In the transverse-hall a three register offering scene depicts Ra (restored, name and titles lost) offering to his parents, a brother (name and titles lost) offering to Ra and another person, and Senres (filiation lost) offering to Ra and another person. As the inscriptions relating to the offerers were all added later however,871 perhaps caution should be taken with this scene. According to Piccione, Senres is also named in the Opening of the Mouth ceremony in the passage as one of the officiants of Ra’s mummy.872 The suggestion that these men are all colleagues rather than brothers is certainly possible. However, the presence of Senres in “familial” roles elsewhere in the tomb would seem to indicate that he at least was an actual brother. So what of the other two? Given that Senres is placed second in the line (after Amunhotep), it seems unlikely that he would be preceded by a colleague rather than a brother.873 Also, Amunhotep’s

867

PM(5). sn.f Xry-Hb [t]p [n Imn Imn-]Htp; cf. Eichler, Das Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” no.119. 869 sn.f Hm-nTr tpy [n Imn] %n-rs. Not included by Eichler. 870 sn.f Hm-nTr tpy [n Imn] nb (sic) Mn-xpr-ra-snb. Seems to be misidentified by Eichler as having the name Nebamun; cf. Eichler, Das Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” nos. 303, or 596 871 Pers. comm.., Piccione, 2002. 872 Pers. comm., Piccione, 2002. Piccione mentioned the inscription as being extremely faint, and indeed I could not find it during my own examination of the tomb. 873 In other tombs where both family members and colleagues are shown, they are grouped separately. For example in TT82, where ancestors are placed in the registers above artisans who worked on the tomb at PM(4); cf. Davies, Amenemhet, pl.vii, viii 868

198

title chief lector-priest of Amun fits nicely with the family, being the same one that Ahmose held. Perhaps he is the unidentified brother in the second register of the offering scene mentioned above. That leaves the last man, Menkheperresoneb, who could be either a brother or a colleague. There does not seem to be overwhelming evidence favoring either conclusion, though I would posit that it seems more likely that he is a colleague since he carries (presumably) the same title as both Senres and Ra. If he is in fact a colleague, could he be one of the Menkhepperresoneb’s that owned tomb 112 or 86? The timing is certainly appropriate. Ray, Senres and Amenhotep each certainly benefited from their father Ahmose’s, position and influence within the priesthood. Although they may have started out at Karnak, it seems the majority of the family’s control was on the West Bank in the funerary temples of the mid-18th Dynasty kings. At present there is no evidence for further generations holding similar positions. Ra was probably childless as there is no mention of a wife, and his brother(s) perform duties a son would normally provide. Ra also seems to have developed his own connection to the court, since he was granted the ability to present Amenhotep II in his tomb. However, it seems likely that Ra’s association with the king would not have come about were it not for the nepotistic practices of Ra’s father Ahmose.

199

IIb. The Family and the King Taiunet and her son Menkheperresoneb (A royal nurse and her son the high priest of Amun) In the previous chapter, which examined the power of heredity, the two uncle and nephew high priests of Amun called Menkheperresoneb, owners of TTs 112 and 86, were discussed at length.874 There is no need here to reiterate that entire argument. However, the older of the two men and his mother are relevant to the topic of this chapter. There, I suggested a genealogy slightly different from that presented by Dorman,875 in which Menkheperresoneb (i) of TT 112 is the son of the royal nurse Taiunet, brother to the foster-sister of the king Nebetta and maternal uncle to his successor as high priest, the like-named Menkheperresoneb (ii) of TT86. As I stated there, this reconstruction solves two important issues: the decorative style of the two tombs and the lack of the title “foster-brother of the king” for Menkheperresoneb (i). This revised genealogy also places Taiunet as the potential leader of the family’s rise. In TT112 she is called both royal nurse and one who nurtured the god, implying that she was the nurse to the next king, Thutmosis III.876 Her husband, also depicted in TT112, was the chariot-warrior Hepu, a title much less prestigious than that of his wife. For this reason, and due to Menkheperresoneb (i)’s apparent lack of a wife, she is prominently featured throughout TT112. She is consistently placed alongside Menkheperresoneb (i) in all of the positions usually reserved for a wife,877 and appears at

874

Pp.113-24. Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.153. 876 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.327ff. 877 Cf. Whale, Family, pp.261ff. 875

200

least four and probably seven times in the tomb, with her name and titles mentioned in an additional two inscriptions.878 How Menkheperresoneb (i) rose to the position of high priest of Amun seems unclear at first.879 All of the titles and epithets in his tomb are those of a high priest of Amun, or an elite official.880 The only monument that might be an exception to this is BM708, on which Menkheperresoneb (i) bears the title of 2nd priest of Amun.881 However, as this title does not appear in TT112, the other titles or epithets on the statue are mostly quite different from those in the tomb, and there is a lack of clear prosopographical connections, it is tenuous to attribute BM708 to the owner of TT112.882 Most likely then, the reason for Menkheperresoneb (i)’s rise was that his mother’s position and status as a nurse to Thutmosis III led to the family’s rise in power in general, and her son’s in particular. Menkheperresoneb (i)’s sister Nebetta was the royal fostersister, not Menkheperresoneb. This suggests that he was probably older than the crown

878

The four scenes in which she appears are PM(3)-(6), and she may be the woman with Menkheperresoneb in the upper register of PM(3) as well as in the Abydos pilgrimage and offering scene in the passage at PM(8)-(9). Her name and titles are also included in the inscriptions accompanying PM(2) and the northern end of PM(6). 879 It is worth mentioning here that his apparent predecessor, Hepuseneb (TT67, Gebel es-Silsilah shrine no.15), who seems to have only served Hatshepsut, probably used his position as high priest to place his children within the priesthood as well. One son was a high priest in the funerary temple of Thutmosis I, while the other was a second lector-priest in the same temple, perhaps the subordinate of his elder brother. A third son may have been the great steward in the funerary temple of Thutmosis I, User, the owner of TT21, although as his parents are unknown he might also have been a brother. Three of his daughters were singers of Amun, and a fourth was a divine adoratrice of Amun and possibly chantress like her sisters. Hepuseneb’s father was a third lector-priest of Amun, and his mother may have a Xkrt nswt. His mother’s status may have contributed to his rise to high priest, though certainly he could have entered the priesthood through his father’s position. He seems to have had at least one brother also involved with the priesthood: the scribe and chief sealer of Amun Saamen. Why none of Hepuseneb’s sons succeeded him is not clear. However, it is interesting that both Hepuseneb and Menkheperresoneb had mothers with royal court connections. Also worth mentioning is that the 2nd priest of Amun and Hepuseneb’s son-in-law Puiemre, owner of TT39, was the son of the scibe Puia and the chief nurse (mnat wrt) Neferah; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.28-31. 880 For example: it nTr tpy n Imn imy-r Hmw-nTr n tA-mHw Smaw mn Hswt aA m pr-nswt r shrr m tA r-Dr.f 881 Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts V, p.10, pl.32-3. 882 Dorman in fact came to the conclusion that this statue should not be attributed to (either) Menkheperresoneb Dorman, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.151.

201

prince and while he may have been around the court, he would not have been in a position to build a close relationship with the king at a young age. It was Taiunet’s influence that appears to have led to Menkheperresoneb’s ability to obtain a station that might otherwise have been outside his reach as the son of a charioteer. The importance of Taiunet and degree of her influence is supported and emphasized by the lineage used by Nebetta’s children. As was mentioned above, Nebetta was the daughter of Taiunet and carried the title of royal foster-sister. Nebetta’s son, Menkheperresoneb of TT86, identified himself as “whom the foster-sister of the king Nebetta bore.”883 Her daughter Tadidites, known from the funerary cones of her husband Hekanefer, was similarly called “the daughter of the foster-sister of the Lord of the Two Lands Nebetta”.884 The prominence of the foster-sister title as an identifying marker for relatives of its bearer implies that having a connection to the nurse was considered desirable. There is also the possibility that this family was already linked to the royal court. A royal nurse called Tinetiunet is known from the stele of Inay on which she appears with a man identified as the mayor of This Satepihu.885 From other sources we know that Satepihu was an official during the reign of Hatshepsut.886 Roehrig places Tinetiunet as the mother of Satepihu and a nurse of Ahmose, son of Ahmose I, based on his depiction on the stele.887 Bryan on the other hand calls her the wife of Satepihu, placing her

883

PM(3). Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 393, 394. 885 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.14-15, 43; The stele was found by Mariette in the North Cemetery, cf. Mariette, Abydos III, pp.393-4, no.1080. It is now CG 34080, Lacau, Stèles, p.127-129, pl. xl. 886 He is the owner of a tomb at Abydos and the sandstone statue originally from there, and now in the Metropolitan Museum, and is represented at Deir el-Bahri in the scene depicting the transportation of obelisks, cf. Urk. IV, 516-520. Either the tomb did not record his family members or they were not copied. 887 Roehrig, Royal urse, p.15. In the lunette Inay and his parents offer to Osiris, Queen Nefertary and Ahmose. 884

202

squarely in the reign of Hatshepsut, with an unknown nursling.888 The lack of a stated filiation between Tinetiunet and Satepihu, as well as their placement as guests on the stele, makes either scenario plausible.889 The similarity between the names of Tinetiuent on the stele and Taiunet in TT112, as well as their relative rarity among women’s names during the 18th Dynasty, suggests that there may have been a connection between them. What this might have been is uncertain.890 If the relationship was between Satepihu and Taiunet, it may be that they were siblings and Tinetiunet was their mother, or that Tinetiunet was Satepihu’s wife and Taiunet’s sister-in-law.891 It is also possible that Tinetiunet and Taiunet were sisters, making Satepihu a brother-in-law. However, it seems to me that if Tinetiunet was the mother of Taiunet, then she would have appeared in TT112 because she would belong to the same generation as Menkheperresoneb’s paternal grandmother, who does appear in the tomb despite her lack of a title. In addition, since it is clear that Taiunet’s position as royal nurse was instrumental in Menkheperresoneb’s own career, if he could trace this back another lineal generation it is likely that he would have indicated this in his tomb. As a sister-in-law, or even sister, Tinetiunet would have probably been less likely to be depicted, since this would make her a collateral relative to Menkheperresoneb. It thus appears that if there was a relationship between Taiunet and Tinetiunet, it was that of sister or sister-in-law.

888

Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. They appear as the first seated couple in the first register of the stele, followed by the overseer of the cattle of Onuris and his wife, and the owner of the stele Inay with his parents. The order suggests that they may perhaps be ancestors of Inay or his parents. 890 See Bryan, JSSEA 9, pp.121-3 and Whale, Family, pp.102-4 for earlier discussions of the possible relationship, though it needs to be mentioned that in both of these Menkheperresoneb of TT112 was thought to be same as the owner of TT86, so the genealogical possibilities are slightly different. 891 As a nurse of Thutmosis III, Taiunet was presumably contemporary with Thutmosis II, making a fatherdaughter relationship between Satepihu and Taiunet impossible. 889

203

The genealogy presented in Chapter 1 (p.121) could then be revised as follows: ? --- ? | |

? --- Nebetta (TT112) | |? | | Satepihu --- Tinetiunet Taiunet (TT112, mnat nswt Sdt nTr) --- Hepu ( TT112) (mnat nswt ) | (CG 34080) | | | ? --- Nebetta (TT86, snt mnanswt) HPA Menkheperresoneb (TT112) | | | | HPA Menkheperresoneb (TT86) Tadidites (sAt snt mnay n nb tAwy Nbt-tA) --- Hekanefer

OR ? --- ? | |

? --- Nebetta (TT112) | |? | | Tinetiunet --- Satepihu Taiunet (TT112, mnat nswt Sdt nTr) --- Hepu ( TT112) (mnat nswt ) | (CG 34080) | | | ? --- Nebetta (TT86, snt mna nswt) HPA Menkheperresoneb (TT112) | | | | HPA Menkheperresoneb (TT86) Tadidites (sAt snt mnay n nb tAwy Nbt-tA) --- Hekanefer

If indeed the two families are to be linked, then the connection both to the royal family and the young Thutmosis III becomes even stronger, and is certain to be the primary reason that an otherwise mid-level son of a chariot-warrior became the high priest of Amun under Thutmosis III.

204

Iamnefer and his son Suemniut (A regional mayor and tutor and his son the royal butler) The royal butler under Amenhotep II was Suemniut, the owner of TT92,892 who also held the title chief of stables.893 His father Iamnefer, was a major priestly figure in Hermopolis/Ashmunein, as well as the mayor of Neferusy in Middle Egypt, a position he apparently inherited from his own father Pa-ahauty.894 In addition, Iamnefer appears to have been made a royal tutor, or at least to have gained an especially close relationship with the court of Thutmosis II – Thutmosis III.895 How and why this occurred is uncertain, but it likely had a large impact on Suemniut’s own career, which involved both the military and the palace. Suemniut’s father Iamnefer and his mother Meryt, who was a chantress of Thoth, are known from a variety of monuments, including Suemniut’s tomb (TT92),896 the lower portion of a seated statue that also names prince Aakheperenreseneb and probably dates to the reign of Thutmosis II (BM 1782),897 three graffiti in the area of Aswan,898 the lower half of a stelephorous statue from Hermopolis Magna (Louvre, Caves IFAO

892

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.350-2, type VIIIa. B. Bryan is currently publishing his tomb. I would like to thank her for the opportunity to work on the tomb, and to present preliminary results of my research at the ARCE Annual meeting in Chicago, April, 1999. The tomb is comprised of a T-shaped plan with a 2-pillared front hall placed at the front, and has an east-west orientation. The north arrow on the plan in PM is incorrectly placed, thus although I will use PM designations for the scenes, I will use the corrected cardinal directions when referring to a scene’s placement on the wall. I would also point out that B. Bryan’s work has uncovered four additional depictions, these will be labeled as B1-4 proceeding from the front of the tomb towards the rear. 894 Pa-ahauty is called the mayor of Neferusy on the back pillar of Iamnefer’s setaed statue (BM1728). On the same statue Iamnefer holds several other titles, but not mayor, indicating that he held it after his father. 895 Based on the titles on statue BM1728, which likely depicted Iamnefer holding a son of Thutmosis II. 896 They are depicted twice in the tomb, once in the front room and once in the passage. In both places Iamnefer is called the mayor of Neferusy and overseer of priests of Thoth, while in the passage his wife Meryt is called a chantress of Thoth. 897 Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, p.3, pl.ii-iii, no. 1782. 898 Shallal, Petrie 244 = de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 153; Mahattah/Shallal, Petrie 245 = de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 150; Petrie 242 = de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions 152; Sehel = Mariette 46. The sources are: Petrie, Season in Egypt; Griffith, PSBA, pp.228-234; Mariette, Monuments divers; de Morgan, Monuments et Insriptions. 893

205

110),899 and two stelae (Leiden V77 and V46).900 From these monuments a picture of Iamnefer’s career is gathered in which it becomes clear that he was a mayor in Middle Egypt, and he was likely a prominent figure in the court and palace as well. Prior to assuming the mayoralty of his father, Iamnefer became distinguished at the court and connected to the royal family. The inscription on the front of statue BM1728 records the name of prince Aakheperenraseneb, an older son of Thutmosis II. Although the statue is broken, the horizontal nature of the prince’s text suggests that Iamnefer was holding the prince on his lap.901 The pose is commonly found for statues of men who were royal tutors, as well as for those who were not officially designated as such, but who nonetheless likely played this role.902 An additional indication of Iamnefer’s presence at the court comes from his title of xrp nsty “controller of the two thrones”, which appears on both BM1728 and the Louvre statue.903 This title implies that Iamnefer was involved with one of the sed-festivals of Thutmosis III.904 Iamnefer’s title-based career is rather interesting since it appears that he moved through the ranks of the Thoth priesthood in Hermopolis. He started as a wab-priest, graduated to scribe of divine offerings, then overseer of priests, and eventually attained the position of high priest of Thoth.905 During this time he was also designated as “great

899

Caves IFAO 110; cf. Zivie, BIFAO 75, pp.321-342. Boeser, Stelen, p.2 no.2, pl.v and p.6, no.19, pl.v. 901 Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, pl.2-3. The inscription for Aakeperenreseneb reads sA nswt n Xt.f mr.f aA-xpr-n-ra-snb mAa-xrw “king’s son, of his body, his beloved, Aakheperenreseneb, justified”. 902 Despite the statue’s similarity to several other statues whose owners were not always called tutors, Roehrig does not include Iamunefer in her work of the royal nurses and tutors; cf. Royal  urse, Appendix I, pp.340-4. As a seated statue, it resembles those of Senemut holding princess Neferure, though the lack of a “royal tutor” title makes it comparable to the block statues of the overseer of works in all the temples Minmose, and the treasurer Benermerut. 903 Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, pl.2-3 and Zivie, BIFAO 75, pp.321-342. 904 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.57. On the title xrp nsty cf. Dorman, Senenmut, pp.213ff.; Vandersleyen, CdE 43, pp.234-58. 905 Iamnefer is called a wab-priest and scribe of divine offerings on a graffitio (de Morgan 153) and BM1782; overseer of priests on the Louvre statue (Caves IFAO 110), a graffito (Mariette 46) and in TT92; 900

206

chief of the Hare nome”, and eventually took on his father’s position as mayor of Neferusy.906 Helck draws a connection between the priesthood and the mayoralty during the 18th Dynasty, viewing the priestly role as enhancing that of the mayor.907 This may be the case, but for Iamnefer it is clear that he inherited the position of mayor of Neferusy from his father Pa-ahauty, who he names as such on the back of statue BM1728.908 On the right side of the statue’s seat Iamnefer is called “great chief of the Hare nome”, a position which perhaps prepared him to take over his father’s mayoralty.909 Iamnefer probably did not become mayor until sometime after the reign of Thutmosis II. This conclusion is based on BM1728, which dates to the reign of Thutmosis II and on which Iamnefer’s father is called mayor of Neferusy, while Iamnefer is simply a “great chief.” Iamnefer’s position as mayor of Neferusy, and to a lesser extent “chief of the great Hare Nome,” meant that he was responsible for the economy of these regions and ensuring that deliveries from them were made to the palace.910 However, in the Duties of the Vizier, it is also indicated that mayors would travel between their regions and the court.911 The fact that Iamnefer was a tutor, or at least closely connected to the court while he was “great chief” may indicate that his regular appearances at the and high priest of Thoth on the Louvre statue and Leiden stele V46. For this official, see especially Zivie, BIFAO 75, pp.321-42, who collects and discusses his monuments, and Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. 906 Iamnefer is called great chief of the Hare nome on BM1728 and mayor of Neferusy on all three Aswan graffiti (de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 150, 153 and Mariette 46) and in TT92. 907 Helck, Verwaltung, pp.220-1. 908 The statue was dedicated at Karnak. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, p.3, pl. 2, no. 1782. The inscription on the back pillar reads //// [sS] nTr-Htpw n DHwty IAm-nfr mAa-xrw ir n HAty-a n Nfrw.sy PA-aHawty mAa-xrw “… [scribe] of divine offerings of Thoth Iamnefer justified, born to the mayor of Neferusy Paahauty, justified”. 909 Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, pl.2-3. The title of Iamnefer is Hry-tp aA n Wnt. It is also likely that this title is a deliberate archaization of the Middle Kingdom designations for nomarchs, as at Beni Hassan. In this sense then, being “chief of the Hare nome” was what was given to Iamnefer while he waited to succeed his father as mayor. 910 Based on Van den Boorn’s work on the “Duties of the Vizier”, see especially sections 5, 12, 16-17; See also Helck, Verwaltung, pp.220-5; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. 911 Van den Boorn, Duties, section 5, p.88f.

207

palace in this capacity may have led to his becoming a tutor. As this court connection was certainly established prior to Iamnefer becoming mayor, it seems quite likely that he would have traveled and not simply remained in Neferusy overseeing the transport of goods. Perhaps then, Iamnefer is the nameless “mayor of Neferusy” mentioned on an ostracon from Deir el-Bahari.912 The ostracon is dated to year 11 of Hatshepsut, suggesting that if Iamnefer was the referent then he, like the mayor of Thinis Satepihu, had a regular presence in Thebes throughout his career.913 Iamnefer and his wife Meryt, who was a chantress of Thoth, had at least 14 children, all of whom are depicted in a large “family graffito” at Aswan, which may no longer be extant.914 Unfortunately, it is unclear whether Suemniut’s name appears in this list, and thus his position among the sons cannot be determined. In addition, none of the seven sons are given titles, and thus it is not certain if any succeeded Iamnefer as mayor of Neferusy or high priest of Thoth, or moved onto other careers as Suemniut evidently did.915 Our only source of evidence for Suemniut’s career comes from his Theban tomb 92, which is dated by the use of Amenhotep II’s prenomen as a decorative element in the tomb.916 The tomb is unfinished, with several of the scenes sketched in and large portions

912

I would like to thank B. Bryan for pointing this out to me. Satepihu was active during the reign of Hatshepsut (she is the only king mentioned on his monuments), and appears in the scenes of transporting obelisks at Deir el-Bahri; cf. Urk. IV, 516-7. 914 Listed as from Mahattah/Shallal, cf. de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, no.150; Petrie, Season, no.245; Griffith, PSBA 11, p.229 no.245; Urk. IV, 1454.14-19. In winter 1999 I attempted to find this, and the other graffiti, with the help of B. Bryan, S. Ikram and N. Warner. Although we were able to locate a few of the inscriptions that Mariette and Petrie grouped with ours, the three attributed to Iamnefer remained elusive. It is of course possible that the Aswan Dam caused this particular inscription to either be cut of the rock face, or submerged after the creation of the lake. 915 A discussion of Suemniut’s family based on all of the monuments known for both Suemniut and Iamnefer was presented by the author at the ARCE Annual meeting in Chicago, April, 1999. 916 Stylistically the tomb fits with the end of Thutmosis III and early Amenhotep II and is remarkably similar in style to the nearby tomb of the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85). The degree of 913

208

of the transverse-hall left undecorated. As a result, we are lacking an autobiographical stele or inscription for Suemniut, making the titles and scenes the main sources for reconstructing his career path. Two depictions of Suemniut in his tomb allow us to extrapolate that he was active in the Near Eastern wars of Thutmosis III. In at least two scenes in the front hall Suemniut wears the gold fly pectorals indicative of his participation and distinction on the Syrian campaigns.917 Like the chief of the Medjay Dedy, Suemniut was apparently rewarded with the gold fly, and he wears both this and the more elaborate pendant of a fly surrounded by striding lions that Dedy also wore in his tomb.918 Suemniut’s involvement is further suggested by his military epithets, which include “one relating to the two legs of the lord of the two lands, who is not absent in night as in day,”919 “one who followed the king on his marches upon the southern and northern foreign lands,”920 and “one who followed the king upon water and upon land, a warrior (kfaw) upon every foreign land.”921 However, the only clearly military title that Suemniut held, which is found in both the tomb and on one of his funerary cones, was that of “standard-bearer” (TAy sryt).922 While the title suggests that Suemniut actually bore the standard of the king in battle, it is possible that this task may also have been delegated to a subordinate.923 According to

similarity is so striking that the same artist(s) may have worked on both tombs, completeing TT92 slightly after TT85 (B. Bryan, pers. comm.). 917 Suemniut wears the “gold fly” pendant at PM(3) and the striding lions and gold fly combination at PM(4), located in the front hall at the west corner of the south wall and the south side of the west wall respectively. 918 The only extant representation in Dedy’s tomb that shows him wearing this is in PM(1), lower register. See also the discussion of Dedy, Chapter 3, pp.417ff. 919 PM(1), north end, upper, Urk. IV, 1452.10-11: irt [rd]wy nb tAwy tm tS grH mi [Hrw] 920 PM(2), upper, Urk. IV, 1449.16: Sms nsw r nmtt.f [r] xAswt rsyt mHtt 921 PM(2), center, lower, Urk. IV, 1450.3-4,: [Sms nsw] Hr mw Hr [tA] kfaw [Hr] xAst nbt 922 In the tomb, the title appears, slightly damaged, at PM(2), center, lower, Urk. IV, 1450.5. The funerary cone, which has only this title on it, is Daressy, Recueil, no.124, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no. 181, Urk. IV, 1452.17, and was also found in the tomb. 923 Schulman, MRTO, p.71

209

Schulman, the position of standard-bearer was a mid-level rank indicating actual combat activity and the ability to command troops.924 The fact that this is Suemniut’s first (and only) military title suggests that he may have begun at a higher position within the military due to his family’s status at the court. Iamnefer’s influence as a tutor likely led to Suemniut receiving more attention from the king than he would have had his father not had such a connection to the king. This may have been further cemented by Iamnefer’s apparently regular presence in Thebes when he was mayor of Neferusy. There is no evidence that Suemniut commanded or dealt with troops, unless an unfinished scene in the front room can be interpreted as recording military activities.925 In the upper register the standing figure of Suemniut watches as men are brought before him and disciplined, while in the middle register the seated Suemniut oversees the scribes recording what appears to be booty, including a horse. While these are not “battlescenes” per se, they are perhaps indicative of Suemniut’s time in the military. What is clear is that in these scenes Suemniut has a position of some authority, further supporting the notion that he did not start as a soldier like the idnw Amenemheb-Mahu, or a servant like the royal butler Montuiywy. Suemniut was also called “master of the stables of the lord of the two lands” (Hry iHw n nb tAwy), which may have a military connotation. It occurs in an inscription that accompanies a scene in the front room in which Suemniut and his wife (Hmt.f) Kat are seated receiving offerings,926 as well as on Suemniut’s funerary cones.927 This implies

924

Schulman, MRTO, pp.69-71, 84-6 table 3, cf. no.491n for the reference to Suemniut. PM(5). The interpretation of the scene follows that of B. Bryan, pers. comm. 926 Located at the west end of PM(3), upper register, Urk. IV, 1452.6: imy-r aHa[w] nswt Hry iHw nb tAwy %w-m-niwt mAa-xrw. 927 Suemniut is called Hry iHw on Daressy, Recueil, no.123, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.163; cf. Urk. IV, 1452.17. This cone was also found in the tomb. 925

210

that Suemniut viewed these as significant positions, ones that he claimed at the end of his career along with royal butler and standard-bearer. Bryan questions whether Suemniut’s position as a stable-master would have been connected to the military or the court.928 Schulman places this title within the “scribal ranks” of the chariotry and suggests that the position was not a militarily active one. Stable-masters could be stationed in Egypt or abroad, and could be either civil or military officials. He also implies that it is higher in rank than several military combat titles, including standard-bearer.929 If this is correct, then Suemniut would have been granted this title after finishing his active military career on the Levantine campaigns of Thutmosis III, but probably before becoming a royal butler. Suemniut’s title of “overseer of ships (aHaw)” is equally difficult to interpret. Although a military connotation is possible, it is equally likely that this title belongs to the religious sphere of Suemniut’s activities. The title appears only once in the tomb, alongside his position of “chief of stables” mentioned above.930 In TT92 Suemniut was also designated as a wdnw of Amun, festival leader of Amun, and overseer of bulls of Amun.931 The latter title, like overseer of ships, also appears on his funerary cones.932 Worth mentioning in relation to Suemniut’s position as an overseer of ships is a Ramesside document in which a stablemaster “of the Residence (i.e. palace)” appears to

928

Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. Schulman, MRTO, pp.51-3, p.86 table 4. 930 Located at the west end of PM(3), upper register, Urk. IV, 1452.6: imy-r aHa[w] nswt Hry iHw nb tAwy %w-m-niwt mAa-Xrw. 931 He is mentioned in Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.489. Eichler lists seven individuals who are “overseer of ships of Amun”, but only one other who was an “overseer of ships of his majesty”. The latter is Eichler no.543 and also comes from a funerary cone. 932 His title of overseer of ships is Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.143. The cone on which he is called overseer of cattle was found in the tomb. 929

211

be connected to the loading of ships with taxes from the south.933 Whether or not Suemniut’s titles bore a similar relationship to each other is uncertain, but the prospect is an interesting one. Perhaps then Suemniut’s position as a stable-master served in part as the segway between his military and court positions. When exactly Suemniut’s final promotion to royal butler occurred is unclear, but it was certainly before the time his tomb was decorated, and thus should have happened in the last decade of Thutmosis III’s reign or the early years of Amenhotep II. This suggests that Suemniut was rewarded by one of the kings for his military service by being given a position in the palace that would probably have engendered close contact with the king, and may have been rather influential within the court. The exact role of the royal butler in the mid-18th Dynasty is not completely understood.934 Although in the Middle Kingdom the royal butler was primarily connected with the kitchen of the private household, during the New Kingdom he entered into the palace sphere. The royal butler during the Hatshepsut – Thutmosis III co-regency was a man named Djhuty, owner of TT110, who was in charge of both the provisioning of the palace and preparing for festivals.935 The duties of the butler during the Thutmosis III – Amenhotep II period are less clear, but appear to be changing to a combination of civil and military or foreignrelated responsibilities.936 By the Ramesside Period it appears that there were gradations within the position of royal butler, the lowest being one who still was primarily concerned with food provisions while the upper ranks held legal, administrative and 933

Papyrus Turin A; cf. Schulman, MRTO, ref.140, p.110. For general discussions see Helck, Verwaltung, pp.269-76; Schmitz, LdÄ VI, cols.771-2; Gardiner, AEO I; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. 935 Both the depictions and inscriptions in TT110 attest to these duties; cf. Davies, in: Studies Griffith, pp. 279-290. 936 Bryan, In: Thutmose III, forthcoming; Schmitz, LdÄ VI, cols.771-2. Unfortunately little is known about the functional role of several Thutmosis III royal butlers, for example Neferperet (TT143), Monutiywy (TT172), Qenamun (statue). 934

212

sometimes judicial duties, and were sometimes sent as envoys for the king on diplomatic missions abroad.937 For Suemniut, it would appear that his function as a royal butler was still primarily concerned with the provisioning of the palace, despite his previous experience abroad. Unlike in the royal butler Montuiywy’s tomb (TT172), two walls in the front room of Suemniut’s tomb have depictions that are clearly related to his position as a royal butler. This was Suemniut’s highest post, and thus the one that was a central feature of his tomb decoration. At the east end of the north wall Suemniut stands watching over several registers of which only the uppermost remain. These depict men climbing ladders and stacking what appears to be loaves of bread. The accompanying inscription describes the scene as “supervising the pure vittels (abw)938 and the receptacle (bAH)939 for the drinks for the (royal) residence which is done for the palace, provided with every good thing to delight the lord of the two lands and to make happy the good god”.940 In the upper register at the east end of the south wall Suemniut is seated “viewing the beautiful things of the king’s house, (namely) beer and milk” which are being prepared for AmunRe on behalf of the king.941 The play on words here is excellent, “beer and milk” (Dsrw wAst) being the same phonetically as the “western desert” (i.e., the West Bank of Thebes), where the tomb is located and where Amun-Re would be receiving such offerings. In the adjacent registers are men carrying loaves of different types of bread, jars and jugs, and a scene of brewing beer. Below this Suemniut stands overseeing three registers of the 937

Schulman, JARCE 13, pp.117-30; Schulman, CdE 61, 187-202; Schmitz, LdÄ VI, cols.771-2. WB I: 175, 15. 939 WB I: 422, 6, “as a container and measure for baked goods”. 940 PM(6), Urk. IV, 1449.5-8: mAA abw bAH n pA swr n Xnw irw Hr pr-aA anx wDA snb apr m Xt nbt nfrt r swDAy Hr n nb tAwy. 941 PM(2), I-V; Urk. IV, 1449.14: mAA bw nfr nw pr-nswt Dsrw wAst. The inscription that accompanies the adjacent registers indicates that the recipient of the items is Amun-Re. 938

213

production and presentation of “every good and pure thing for pleasing the heart” and “sending the vegetables which are made for the palace”.942 Thus we see Suemniut intimately involved with the health of the king and provisioning of the palace, as well as providing for festivals on the king’s behalf. Suemniut’s responsibilities as a royal butler were clearly those of a trusted official. It seems likely that this level of trust was formed while Suemniut served on the military campaigns of Thutmosis III. We can say with certainty that Suemniut participated on the 8th campaign, during which Thutmosis III crossed the Euphrates, because this is the only one for which the “gold lion” was given as a reward.943 The king to whom Suemniut presents New Year’s gifts in his tomb is probably Amenhotep II, although the name of the king is not preserved.944 This would seem to indicate that Suemniut was promoted not by Thutmosis III, but by Amenhotep II. If this is correct, then it also suggests that he may have participated in the expeditions that Amenhotep II lead as co-regent and in his early years as king. It was mentioned above that TT92 is stylistically quite similar to the tomb of the idnw Mahu, TT85, which is located nearby.945 In Mahu’s tomb however, when he gives his autobiography he is depicted standing before Thutmosis III, despite the fact that his final promotion came from Amenhotep II. This seems to support the possibility that the depiction of Amenhotep II in Suemniut’s tomb is due to his service under this king, and that Suemniut received his position of royal butler from Amenhotep II as well.946 942

PM(2), VI-VIII; Urk. IV, 1450.7-8: mAA x[t nbt nfrt wabt n sHtp-]ib sby smw irw r pr-aA anx wDA snb From the autobiography of Mahu; cf. Breasted, ARE II, pp.232-2; Redford, Wars, pp.167-72. 944 This is on the right rear wall of the front room, at PM(8). The king is depicted standing with Hathor. 945 See note 916. 946 The lack of an autobiographical inscription for Suemniut contributes to the difficulty of ascertaining what he might have done on the campaigns of Thutmosis III and who promoted him to royal butler. Undoubtedly we would have much more to say about Suemniut’s career were the inscription available. 943

214

The depiction of a king in Suemniut’s tomb shows that he benefited from royal favor. We can also say that because Suemniut was awarded with the gold fly, this favor is likely tied to his military service.947 However, this favored status started as a result of his father’s connection to the royal family. Without Iamnefer’s presence in the court Suemniut would not have received the type of attention that allowed him to participate on the campaigns as a standard-bearer rather than a soldier. Suemniut would quite likely have had a much less noticeable career were it not for Iamnefer. It is worth mentioning that although Suemniut’s parents, Iamnefer and Meryt, are depicted in scenes generally reserved for the tomb owner’s parents, there are no inscriptions in the tomb that directly state their filial connection to Suemniut.948 The relationship is only stated clearly in one of the Aswan graffiti, a short two column vertical inscription which, according to Mariette, reads “Suemniut, son of the mayor of Neferusy, overseer of the hem-priests of Thoth lord of Ashmunein, Iamnefer, justified”.949 Was Suemniut attempting to indicate that he was favored by the king not because of his family but because of his own performance? Certainly other men who participated in the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II and went on to become high officials appear to have come from rather lower-status backgrounds than Suemniut.950 Even Usersatet, who, as I will demonstrate below, came from an elite background, stressed his

947

Gnirs suggests that the presence of officials with titles “standard-bearer” and “chief of stables” during the early to mid-18th Dynasty in upper level state and palace postions reflects a system of meritocracy within the military organization; cf. Gnirs, Militär, pp.20-21 with notes 159-163. While this may be the case for some officials, it is not for Suemniut. 948 Suemniut did not record his lineage in any of his texts on the tomb walls or the ceiling, and the kinship terms it.f(his father), and sA.f (his son) are not used in the offering scenes. 949 Urk. IV, 1452.20; de Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 103.46 (Mariette 46): %w-m-niwt sA n HAty-a n Nfrwsy imy-r hmw-nTr n +Hwty nb Hmnw IAm-nfr mAa-xrw 950 E.g., Amenemheb-Mahu, Dedy, Minmose and Iamunedjeh, though the latter two were not military officials.

215

personal relationship to the king.951 For Suemniut, portraying himself as an official who was rewarded and favored by the king for his military service may have thus been more important than demonstrating a familial connection to the court.

Usersatet, viceroy of Kush (A man of elite origins) One of the most famous officials of the time period being examined is the viceroy of Kush Usersatet. Generally viewed as one of Amenhotep II’s closest officials, his subsequent “fall from grace” has long puzzled scholars.952 He has also been held up as an example par excellence of Amenhotep II’s “childhood friends” whose relationships were strengthened by warfare.953 A thorough review of Usersatet’s monuments follows so that these assumptions can be reevaluated. A great deal of discussion and debate has occurred over who the viceroys of Kush were in the 18th Dynasty, beginning with the early studies of Reisner and Gauthier in the 1920s,954 who each presented the data (as it was then known) on the viceroys and their assistants during the whole of the New Kingdom. Their work was much enhanced by the detailed studies of Labib Habachi from the late fifties into the early seventies,955 and by Dewachter’s work in the late seventies and early eighties.956 More recently, the issue of the 18th Dynasty viceroys has been revisited in a series of articles in the journal Göttinger

951

This is the next official to be discussed. Cf. Der Manuelian, Amenohpis II, p.158. 953 Cf. Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.269f. 954 Reisner, JEA 6, pp. 28-55. Gauthier, RT 39, pp. 179-238. 955 Habachi’s articles, which were published in several volumes of the journal Kush, have since been collected in a volume entitled Sixteen Studies on Lower ubia. 956 Dewachter’s work revolves around not only the viceroys but also the title sA nswt “king’s son” in general; cf. RdE 2, pp. 66-73; RdE 32, pp. 69-73; RdE 35, pp. 195-199; Archeologia 72, pp. 54-58. See also the work of Schmitz on the title king’s son, Schmitz, Königssohn. 952

216

Miszellungen.957 While this is not the place for an extensive discourse on the subject, two items should be made clear. The first is that until the reign of Thutmosis IV, the viceroys of Kush were identified by the combination sA nswt imy-r xAswt rsyt “king’s son and overseer of the southern foreign lands”.958 This does not in any way denote that any of these men were actually members of the royal family.959 The second point is that the gap between the last concrete date for the viceroy Nehi in year 25 of Thutmosis III and the first solid date for Usersatet in year 23 of Amenhotep II leaves a rather large span time into which Nehi’s career must be extended, another (unknown) vizier must have taken over, or Usersatet’s career must be pushed back to fill. We will come back to this issue below. Usersatet’s history comes to us from his shrine at Qasr Ibrim (no.4),960 stelae from Wadi Halfa,961 Amara-West962 and two from Semna,963 eight graffiti in the area of Aswan,964 a statuette from Thebes,965 and statues from Deir el-Medina,966 Sai,967 and

957

El-Sabbahy, GM 129, pp. 99-102; Pamminger, GM 131, pp. 97-100; Dziobek, GM 132, pp. 29-32. See also the most recent succinct discussion by Bryan, In: Thutmose III, forthcoming, and the literature cited therein. 958 Reisner, JEA 6 p.78; Habachi, JARCE 13, pp.113-6 = Sixteen Studies Ch.VI, pp.111-9; Müller, Verwaltung, p.177; Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.250-1. Beginning in Thutmosis IV’s reign they are called “king’s son of Kush” sA nswt n KS 959 Reisner, JEA 6, pp. 28-55. Gauthier, RT 39, pp. 179-238. 960 Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-75, pls.23-35; Urk. IV, 1345-6 and 1490 961 BM 623; cf. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.34, Urk. IV, 1486-7 962 Fairman, JEA 25, pl.xvi 1, Urk. IV, 1484-6. Now in the Louvre, E.17341. There are also four fragments of a stele in the Aswan Museum, originally from Gebel Tingar, that may belong to Usersatet; cf. Dewachter, Archaeologia 72, p.56 (6) and the references cited there. 963 Dunham and Jannssen, Second Cataract Forts I, 1960, p.17, pl.82 and pp.43-4, pl.39c; BMFA 25.632 and 25.633. For 25.632 see Helck, JES 14, Urk. IV, 1343-4, der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.157-8, fig.37. 964 The recent (unpublished) work of Gasse and Rondot has confirmed De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, nos. 86.28, 91.106, 92.112 and Ras Sehel p.75; added De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, nos. 91.89 (right text) and 100.207; questions the attribution of 91.103; reads the name of Paheqaemsasen for 92.116; and equated De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 91.100 with 90.90. I would like to thank them both for sharing their work with me, and especially thank Annie Gasse for meeting with me and going over their documentation while I was in Paris. Sehel = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 86.28, 91.100, 91.103, 91.106, 92.112, 92.116; Gebel Tingar = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, 128.5; Ras Sehel/Shamra = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p. 75; Habachi, Kush 5, nos.4-11.

217

Uronarti.968 In addition, four of the graffiti give us the names of Usersatet’s assistants969 while a statue of Usersatet that is carved at the rear of Shrine 11 at Gebel es-Silsilah seems to provide further information about his family.970 A tomb has not been discovered, although locations in Qurnet Murai at Thebes and Qubbet el-Hawa in Aswan have been suggested as possibilities.971 Almost half of these monuments bear cartouches that date them to Amenhotep II: the Amara-West and Semna stelae, Qasr Ibrim shrine, and statues from Deir el-Medineh and Uronarti. This fact, combined with the new information suggesting that there was an unknown viceroy between Nehi and Usersatet, seems to indicate that Usersatet was made viceroy by Amenhotep II, though he may well have begun his early career during the co-regency between Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, or perhaps during the sole reign of Thutmosis III. Helck reconstructed a career path for Usersatet based on his Semna stele (MFA 25.632) that most scholars seem to have accepted (Fig.22, p.488).972 On the stele is transcribed a letter that Amenhotep II sent to Usersatet in year 23 on the anniversary of

965

Chassinat, BIFAO 10, p.161 The lower part of a seated statue found in front of the temple at Deir el-Medina; Maystre, Melanges Maspero II, pp. 657-63, Urk. IV, 1487-9. 967 Vercoutter, Kush 4, p.72 no.10; Arkell, JEA 36, 1950, p.34. Now in the Khartoum Museum, cf. Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.56 (11). 968 Khartoum 32; cf. Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, p.38, fig.18, p.47 G; Dewachter, Archeologia 72, pp.54-8. 969 Sehel = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, pp.91.106, 92.112, 100.207 and Gebel Tingar = De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.128.5 970 Shrine no.11 of Seninefer; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.30-4. 971 Located at Qurnet Murai are the tombs of Nehi, Huy and Merimose; cf. Maystre, Mélanges Maspero II, p.663; Helck, JES 14, p.30-1; Habachi, Sixteen Studies, Ch.IX, p.160. Habachi also suggested Qubbet elHawra; cf. Habachi, Kush 5, p.22 972 Helck, JES 14, pp.30-1. Despite DeWachter’s reevaluation of Nehi’s year 52 date, der Manuelian follows Helck; cf. Amenophis II, pp.154-5. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.186, n.54 does suggest that Usersatet may have been older than Amenhotep II and begun his career under Thutmosis III, although her reasoning is based on the assumption that Usersatet was the father of the owner of Shrine 11 at Silsilah and the incorrect statement that there are cartouches of Amenhotep II on the exterior of the shrine. Bryan does not deal with Usersatet, but since she accepts Nehi in years 23-5, presumably would reevaluate Usersatet as well; cf. Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 966

218

his accession to the throne.973 The text of the letter and the colloquial language employed indicate that a close relationship existed between the king and his viceroy. According to Helck, after growing up in the court of Thutmosis III as a Xrd n kAp, Usersatet began his career as a royal herald (wHm nswt) and in this capacity participated and plundered on Amenhotep II’s Syrian campaign in year three, and perhaps in years 7 and 9.974 Helck does not deal specifically with Usersatet’s title of chariot-warrior (snny) and it’s placement in this sequence, other than to use it as proof that Usersatet was not a viceroy until the reign of Amenhotep II.975 However, in his discussion of the text’s translation, Helck seems to imply that he views the term snny as a clarification of, or in connection with, Usersatet’s honorific “brave one” (qny).976 Following his role on these campaigns Usersatet is taken out of the military and placed as an overseer of the house (steward) of Meidum,977 presumably some type of royal residence.978 He appears to stay in this position until his final promotion to viceroy. Two points are important with regard to the interpretation of the Semna stele and its meaning for Usersatet’s career. First is our understanding of the title snny and it’s placement within the overall military organization, as well as the burgeoning chariotry. Schulman’s work on the military clearly shows that the title snny in fact indicated an actual position, perhaps a rather prestigious one as chariots and horses were still

973

Translations of the text can be found in Helck, JES 14, p.25; Helck, Übersetzung zu den Heften 17-22, p.50; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.157-8; Leprohon, CAA Boston 3. 974 Usersatet does not bear the title wHm nswt on this stele, but only on the Amara-West stele. He is called a Xrd n kAp on the Deir el-Medina statue, Amara-West stele and funerary statuette. 975 Helck, JES 14, p.31. 976 Helck, JES 14, p.26 (k): “snj "Wagenkämpfer" ist hier des Anklanges an das vorhergehende knj wegen benutzt worden.” 977 This title, imy-r pr n Mr-tm, appears only on Usersatet’s Wadi Halfa (BM 623) stele; cf. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.34, Urk. IV, 1486-7. 978 As der Manuelain notes it would have been small in comparison to the one at Perunefer; cf. der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.154-5.

219

relatively new to the ancient Egyptians. However Schulman nonetheless places the chariotry as a sub-division of the army, without a clear organization of its own. Chevereau appears to agree with Schulman, classifying snny as parallel to the term for army soldier, waw.979 Contra this, Gnirs sees an organized chariotry already in the first half of the 18th Dynasty, even if it is was to some degree still considered part of the overall “army” or military organizational structure.980 Although she does not discuss the title snny, she bases this on iconographical sources, references to tA nt-Htri (chariotry) and titles such as chief of stables (Hry-iHw) and overseer of horses (imy-r ssmwt). Given the importance of the use of horses and the personnel that went with them following the wars with the Hyksos, it seems that Gnirs interpretation is the more likely. In addition, the emphasis that Amenhotep II placed on horses and his mastery of them suggests that at least by his reign,981 and probably his father’s, the chariotry may have gained in both importance and status, making a snny somewhat higher than a mere wow. The second point concerns the phraseology of this section of the inscription. In line 5 of the Semna stele, the text reads “… a brave one who plunders/captures upon all foreign lands, a chariot-warrior who fights for his Majesty Amenhotep, who-rules-inHeliopolis”.982 Der Manuelian discusses the Semna stele in reference to the Thutmosis

979

Chevereau, Prosopographie du ouvel Empire, p.189-90. However, he also views it as having been added as an honorific title to the ranks of some officials. Which officials Chevereau means is unclear since he has a rather limited list of men, only 5, with the title snny. 980 Gnirs, Militär, pp.19-21. 981 Amenhotep II’s connection to horses, horsemanship, and presumably the chariotry is well demonstrated in the Great Sphinx stele. He calls himself “one who knew horses” (line 12, Urk. IV, 1279.13), and lines 19-26 (Urk. IV, 1281.8-1283.4) tell of how Thutmosis III placed his son in charge of the stables and training of the horses. See der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.181-8, 196-200 for a translation, discussion and relavent literature. 982 //// [q]ny kfaw Hr xAswt nbt snny Sfaw n Hm.f. kfaw Urk. IV, 1343.15-1344.1. The phrase kfaw qny, which is similar to that seen here, is also used twice in the tomb of Amenemheb-Mahu’s, cf. Urk. IV, 898.17 and with a variation at 899.11, Faulkner, Concise Dictionary p.285, WB V, 121.7. For Sfo WB IV, 460.1 lists only the combination “make war (?) and plunder in all foreign lands” Sfa kfaw Hr xAst nbt. It appears that’s the use of Sfaw here is in parallel to that of kfaw.

220

III-Amenhotep II co-regency983 and Amenhotep II’s campaign to Takhsy in year 3.984 Based on der Manuelian’s work, it is clear that this “first” campaign of Amenhotep II in fact took place during the co-regency, though Thutmosis III likely died before it was concluded.985 Perhaps then the use of the simpler Hm.f “his majesty” in reference to Amenhotep II signifies that indeed he was co-regent at the time of the campaign that is being remembered in this letter. In this scenario, Usersatet’s bravery, skill as a chariotwarrior and abilities as a fighter would have been especially important to Amenhotep II, and something that would have caused the king to remember Usersatet’s performance in a letter written some twenty years later. It also seems to imply that Usersatet might have been slightly older than Amenhotep II, rather than his exact contemporary. Supporting this theory is the fact that Usersatet does not bear any epithets such “chief of the followers of his majesty”986 commonly found among officials who were contemporaries of their king. Nor does Usersatet make reference to Amenhotep II as a youth, as is the case for men who were significantly older than the king, but well-known by him when he was a prince.987 Schulman does not deal with the title royal herald, but given that being a herald imparted to its holder a great deal of authority988 it seems likely that Usersatet was a chariot-soldier prior to becoming a royal herald. How exactly Usersatet moved from a charioteer to a royal herald is unclear. Usersatet may not have been old enough to have participated in the last battles of

983

der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.21 no.5, 32-4. der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.54. 985 der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.19-34. 986 Hry Smsw n Hm.f - Paser in TT367, Iamu in TT85 of his father Amenemheb-Mahu who was tpy n iryw.f “first among his followers.” 987 I.e. in the inscriptions of Mahu (TT85). 988 As seen elsewhere with Intef, Iamunedjeh, and Sennefri; cf. Pardey, Essays Lipinska, pp.377-97. 984

221

Thutmosis III,989 but he probably would have had early interactions with the crownprince and co-regent due to the latter’s involvement with the chariotry and horses mentioned above. Although the royal herald has traditionally been viewed as tied or connected to the military in some way, as we have seen with Iamunedjeh and Sennefri, this is not necessarily the case. For Userhat, there seems to be no clear method by which he would have transitioned from chariot-warrior to royal herald, except royal favor.990 Usersatet bears the title royal herald on only one of his known monuments, the stele from Amara-West (Louvre, E.17341), on which he is also called a Xrd n kAp.991 The lunette of the stele depicts Amenhotep II, identified by cartouche, offering before Khnum and the goddesses of Elephatine, Satis and Anoukis. Within the expected Htp-di-nsw offering formula Usersatet requests “a long lifetime as one praised of the king, a mouth for speech, ears for hearing.992 These phrases seem to speak directly to the content in the remainder of the text. As a royal herald Iamunedjeh (TT84) was mostly concerned with building and renewing monuments (he was also an overseer of works), and presenting tribute and tribute-bearers before the king.993 Sennefri on the other hand was involved with gold from the eastern desert and was likely sent to Lebanon to obtain cedar trees in his capacity as royal herald.994 In the case of Usersatet we seem to have evidence for both areas of authority. In the Amara-West inscription Usersatet is first called “the favorite of 989

Assuming Usersatet was in his mid- to late-twenties in the year 3 campaign, his birth would have been somewhere in the third decade of Thutmosis III’s reign. He likely would not have become a chariot-warrior until between the ages of 16 and 20, yrs. 46-50. This makes Usersatet too young for the campaigns led by Thutmosis III in Syria-Palestine, which lasted until about year 42, though perhaps somewhat later in Nubia. However, it would fit well with a co-regency campaign c. year 51; cf. Redford, Wars, pp.241ff. 990 That Usersatet was clearly favored by the king is demonstrated by the fact that three of his monuments contain representations of the king: the Amara-West and Semna stelae and the Qasr Ibrim shrine. See below for a discussion of the shrine. 991 Fairman, JEA 25, pl.xvi 1, Urk. IV, 1484-6 992 Urk. IV, 1485.6-7, lines 1-2 of the stele. 993 See the discussion in Chapter 3. 994 See the discussion in Chapter 3.

222

the king in southern foreign lands in embellishing/restoring his monuments of eternity (m smnx mnw.f n nHH), king’s son and overseer of southern foreign countries”.995 While not conclusive on its own, the remainder of the text elaborates: “(I) erected many monuments for (my) lord, this good god … (I) undertook journeys (Tsi nmtt) under the command of the king. He placed me before his courtiers, he made me great more than the great ones of the palace, he caused that my stride is broad (i.e. have influence), the royal herald, who his lord loves, king’s son, Xrd n kAp”.996 It would appear that activities described are exactly those that a royal herald could have carried out. Usersatet’s Xrd n kAp appellation may have been granted later in life. I suggest this despite the fact that there is evidence Usersatet came from a family who would have had court connections, resulting in Usersatet’s perhaps being brought up in the court (see below). Nonetheless, it seems that he, like others of this time period, received this honorific title as a symbol of his status and personal (here as opposed to familial) tie to the king. Earlier in the Amara-West text, Usersatet asks for a “good burial after old age.”997 This indicates that the stele may have been made towards the end of his career at a time when a burial would have been of concern to this prestigious official. The only other monuments on which Xrd n kAp appears are Usersatet’s funerary statuette and Deir el-Medina seated statue.998 On the statuette the title appears twice, both times in the final position. In the offering formula that appears on the right side of the Deir el-Medina statue Xrd n kAp appears at the beginning of a list of epithets that all stress Usersatet’s

995

Urk. IV, 1485.10-11, lines 1-4 of the stele. Urk. IV, 1485.13, 1485.17-1486.2, lines 4, 6-7. 997 Urk. IV, 1485.8. 998 For the funerary statuette, see Chassinat, BIFAO 10, p.161. For the Deir el-Medina statue, see Maystre, Mélanges Maspero II, pp.657-63, Urk. IV, 1487-9. 996

223

connection to the king and the court.999 Three separate texts appear on the back of the statue, one of which includes the name of Amenhotep II in a place usually reserved for the name of a deity. The text reads “revered … before the king Aakheperrure, life eternally, king’s son, Usersatet, justified”. The fact that the inscriptions on both of these monuments are directed towards Usersatet’s funerary cult suggests that Usersatet perceived his connection to the king to be second only to his highest title of viceroy in terms of importance for how he was perceived in death. It also supports the theory that the honorific was a later addition to Usersatet’s repertoire, augmenting his functional titles of royal herald and overseer of the house of Meidum. Usersatet’s movement into the position of overseer of the house/steward of Meidum is probably connected at least in part to his position as royal herald. In the latter post Usersatet carried the authority to speak on behalf of the king in foreign lands. Assuming he performed his tasks as well as he claims, it is not unthinkable that he would have been brought further into the royal sphere and placed in charge of a palace, albeit a small one. Two of Usersatet’s monuments carry this title, his stele from Wadi Halfa and statue from Uronarti, neither of which, interestingly, are anywhere near Meidum.1000 In the lunette of the Wadi Halfa stele, the king’s son overseer of the southern lands Usersatet offers to Thoth, who is designated as the lord of Nubia (TA-sty). The five-row inscription in the bottom half of the stele informs us that the stele is dedicated to Usersatet as “one great of the tribute (inw) of Nubia, who fills the treasury (pr-HD) with fine gold (Damw), who enters bearing riches to the place where the king is … steward

999

Urk. IV, 1488.1-6. For example, “one beside the good god” (Xry-tp n nTr nfr), a variation on the title “chamberlain of the king” (Xry-tp n nsw) 1000 BM 623; cf. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, pl.34, Urk. IV, 1486-7. Khartoum 32; cf. Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, p.38, fig.18, p.47 G; Dewachter, Archeologia 72, pp.54-8.

224

(imy-r pr) of Meidum (Mr-tm), king’s son, overseer of the southern foreign countries”.1001 Although the tribute and gold of Nubia is what Usersatet is collecting, the place to which it goes is the treasury and “where the king is”. As a steward of Meidum, Usersatet was presumably in charge of a royal palace of some type, much in the way that Qenamun was for the much larger palace at Perunefer, Amenhotep II’s garden estate. However, the inscription in the stele seems to imply that his duties as steward involved the treasury and presentation of tribute to the king. Perhaps then the Meidum establishment also had some role in this. The Uronarti statue depicts Usersatet in a supplicant position, kneeling with his hands on his legs, and with the cartouches of Amenhotep II on his right pectoral and shoulder.1002 On the front is an offering formula in which Usersatet is simply called king’s son. The inscription on the back pillar occupies three columns, the last two of which are damaged. Unfortunately only a tantalizing fragment remains of the autobiographical portion of the text: “… (I) arrived at/reached (spr.n(.i)) the southern foreign land … the steward of Meidum (Mryw-(t)m), king’s son, overseer of [southern] foreign lands”.1003 Nevertheless, the text seems to support Helck’s theory that Usersatet was steward in Meidum prior to being brought south to be made viceroy. Three of the five graffiti found in the area of Aswan that depict Usersatet contain basic offering formula for Khnum and Anuket.1004 One of these is especially interesting because it is the only graffito in which Usersatet may be called “king’s brave one” (qny 1001

Urk. IV, 1486.17-1487.2 Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, fig.18; Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.54-5, 58. 1003 Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, p.47 G; Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.55, 58 1004 In Gebel Tingar (De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.128.5) Usersatet gives praises to Khnum, while in Sehel (De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, nos. 91.89 and 90.89 [right side]) the praises are for Anuket. De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.90.90 (old 91.100) contains a Htp-di nsw in which Anuket is named. 1002

225

nsw).1005 However, a graffito that Usersatet had carved at Ras Sehel records some of his activities in the area, presumably after he was made viceroy of Nubia (Fig.23, p.479).1006 The lengthy six-column inscription begins with praises given by the king’s son and overseer of southern foreign lands Usersatet to Amun and Re-Horakhty on the occasion of his visit to Sehel for the festival of Anuket. Following this, Usersatet says: “He makes accordingly five lakes/canals/basins/ramps (?) (S)1007 with cooked (i.e. fired) works (m kAt snwx) in order to build in //// that which was done anew.”1008 No other record of this activity exists for Usersatet, but it is clear that part of his duties as viceroy involved maintaining the area of Aswan. Usersatet’s main responsibilities as viceroy of Nubia are perhaps best exemplified by the walls of his shrine at Qasr Ibrim, shrine no.4.1009 The exterior lintel of Usersatet’s shrine bears only the cartouches of Amenhotep II, indicating that it was built during this king’s reign.1010 On the jambs Usersatet is called “leader, brave one of the king, king’s son” and “king’s son, overseer of southern foreign countries”.1011 The interior of the shrine is damaged, but what remains provides a great deal of information about Usersatet’s career. While on the north wall Amenhotep II, accompanied by Horus,

1005

De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions 90.90 (old 91.100), corrected by Gasse and Rondot (pers. comm.). In Habachi, Kush 5, fig.4, insc.7, the inscription is essentially correct, but the depiction is wrong. 1006 This is on p.75 of De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions; Habachi, Kush 5, fig.5, insc.10. Gasse and Rondot have numbered it 231a. 1007 The translation of this term is unclear. Usually S refers to a lake, garden, or perhaps canal (substituting for the more common mr), and basin is also known. Gasse and Rondot have suggested ramps (rampes / marches), but without any evidence for this usage elsewhere. 1008 The translation is based on the transcription made by Gasse and Rondot, thus it differs slightly from that done by Habachi, Kush 5, p.20-21. 1009 Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-75, pls.23-35; Urk. IV, 1345-6 and 1490. 1010 Amenhotep II also appears in the inside of the doorway (north side of the west wall), being offered to by a goddess, Caminos, Ibrim, pp.61-2, pl.26. 1011 Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-60, pl.24; Urk. IV, 1490.8-9. The titles HAwty qny n nswt sA nsw appear on the right jamb, and those of sA nswt imy-r xAswt rsyt on the left. The text as given in Urk. IV, 1490.9 (B) is incorrect.

226

presents offerings to several southern deities,1012 on the opposite (south) wall Usersatet stands before the enthroned king and the goddess Satis while three registers of men leading the tribute of Kush follow him.1013 In the upper register, a lengthy inscription accompanies this scene that is an extraordinary text telling of the tribute brought from the southern foreign countries following an expedition into Nubia.1014 The tribute is apparently greater than that of the lowlands (tAw), utilizing more than 2500 men to carry items such as gold, ivory, ebony and live panthers.1015 It is concluded in the second register with a badly damaged address to Amenhotep II by Usersatet, whose figure is lost.1016 The rear (east) wall of the shrine contains a niche in which three statues are placed that, based on comparisons with the other shrines, probably represent Horus, Amenhotep II and Satis.1017 The multiple representations of Amenhotep II in the Qasr Ibrim shrine are not unusual. Shrine 1 belonging to Nehi, the viceroy under Thutmosis III, bears almost exactly the same layout and decorative scheme.1018 The unfinished shrine 3, dated to the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency, also has the kings’ names and figures executed on the exterior lintel and east wall respectively.1019 However, on the north half of the west wall of Usersatet’s shrine, Amenhotep II is again depicted, receiving “all life, stability 1012

Caminos, Ibrim, pp.62-5, pl.27 Caminos, Ibrim, pp.65-71, pl.28 with details on plates 29-32. The scene actually begins on the south half of the west wall, where there are three registers of men leading various animals; cf. Caminos, Ibrim, p.62, pl.26. 1014 According to der Manuelian (Amenohpis II, pp.92-4), this scene demonstrates that Amenhotep II did indeed undertake a campaign into Nubia, as opposed to merely receiving tribute based on his father’s campaigns. 1015 Caminos, Ibrim, p.67, pl.28, 32; Urk. IV, 1345-6. 1016 Caminos, Ibrim, pp.67-71, pls.31-2. 1017 Caminos, Ibrim, p.71, pl.33. All three figures wear the white crown of Upper Egypt, though the left (northern) figure also wears the nemes headdress. This is exactly the arrangement seen in the shrine of Thutmosis III’s viceroy Nehi, where the statues are identified as Horus, Thutmosis III, and Satis; cf. Caminos, Ibrim, pp.42-3, pl.11. 1018 Caminos, Ibrim, pp.35-43, pls.6-11. 1019 Caminos, Ibrim, pp.50-8, pls. 17-22. 1013

227

dominion” from Satis.1020 This is not the case in Nehi’s shrine, where both sides of the west wall depict Nehi with inscriptions above him that indicate he is making offerings to the gods.1021 In addition, to either side of Usersatet’s niche Amenhotep II is depicted presenting offerings to the statues,1022 as opposed to simply inscriptions as in the shrine of Nehi.1023 It would appear that part of Usersatet’s personlia,1024 was a relationship to Amenhotep II that allowed for additional representations of the king. Caminos views each monument as “a crown undertaking meant to be finished so as to meet the personal wants of some meritorious high Nubian official.”1025 If this scenario is correct, then it provides further evidence for Usersatet’s privileged position and status within the court of Amenhotep II, and demonstrates that Amenhotep II thought highly enough of Usersatet to grant him a shrine amongst his predecessors at Qasr Ibrim.1026 As viceroy Usersatet had at least four men at his immediate disposal. Three of these have for sometime been known from Usersatet’s graffiti around Aswan, and from the recent work of Annie Gasse and Pierre Rondot a fourth can now be added.1027 Usersatet is depicted with his idnw Meh in a graffito at Sehel. Usersatet is “giving praises to Khnum” as the king’s son and overseer of southern foreign lands, while behind him

1020

Caminos, Ibrim, pp.61-2, pl.26. Caminos, Ibrim, pp.26-7, pl.8. 1022 Caminos, Ibrim, pp.71-3, pl.33. 1023 Caminos, Ibrim, pp.42-3, pl.11. 1024 This is the term used by Caminos to describe those areas of the shrine whose representations revolved around the shrine’s owner, depicting “their names, titles, and episodes incident to their careers”; cf. Caminos, Ibrim, p.29. 1025 Caminos, Ibrim, p.29. This is based on the nearly identical representations found on the entrance lintel and rear wall of the shrines, all of which contain religious or royal elements, leaving the remainder for the “personal” elements of each official. The fact that Shrine 3 has these elements and the walls are prepared for decoration, but is otherwise unfinished led them to this conclusion. 1026 It may also indicate that indeed Nehi served beyond year 25 of Thutmosis III, since he too was given a shrine here. 1027 I am indebted to Ms. Gasse and Mr. Rondot for sharing their work with me. 1021

228

stands the idnw of the king’s son Usersatet, Meh.1028 In another graffito it appears that two assistants of Usersatet stand facing each other. One is the idnw of the king’s son, overseer of foreign southern countries Sennefer. The man Sennefer faces is probably also an assistant because he is drawn at the same scale and the title “(king’s) son overseer of [southern] foreign countries” can be read in the badly damaged inscription.1029 Due to Gasse and Rondot’s epigraphic work in the region, a graffito that De Morgan erroneously recorded was fixed and the scribe Nehesy can now be added to the list of Usersatet’s subordinates.1030 The final man known to have served under Usersatet is a charioteer (kDnw) whose name was hammered out, much as Usersatet’s was in all of his graffiti.1031 Information about Usersatet’s family comes from two of his monuments. Usersatet records his lineage on either side of the front of his granite seated statue from Deir el-Medineh.1032 His parents were the sAb Saamun and his mother the Xkrt nswt Nenhermentes. However, the most interesting information with regard to Usersatet’s possible relatives comes from shrine 11 at Gebel es-Silsilah.1033 The shrine suffered the loss of the entire top half of its walls due to ancient quarrying in the cliff above.1034 As a result, the entrance lintel and jambs are no longer extant, leaving the question open as to

1028

idnw n sA nsw Wsr-stt MaH. De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p. 128.5 (Gebel Tingar); Habachi, Kush 5, fig.6, insc.11; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.113 III.8. The inscription was not checked by Gasse and Rondot. 1029 idnw n sA nsw imy-r xAswt rsyt Wsr-stt %n-nfr facing //// sA [nsw] imy-r xAst ////. De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.91.106; Habachi, Kush 5, fig.2, insc.5; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.113 III.10. This was viewed and the inscription confirmed by Gasse and Rondot. 1030 sS sA nsw Wsr-stt NHsy. De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p. 100.207. This was viewed and the inscription confirmed by Gasse and Rondot. 1031 kDnw n sA nsw Wsr-stt ////. De Morgan, Monuments et Inscriptions, p.92.112; Habachi, Kush 5, fig.3, insc.6; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.116 III.12. This was viewed and the inscription confirmed by Gasse and Rondot. The orthography of the title is rather unusual, previously being known only after the Amarna period; cf. WB V,148, 12-17. 1032 Maystre, Mèlanges Maspero II, pp.657-8; Urk. IV, 1487.6-11. The inscription of Usersatet’s father is on the right side and his mother’s on the left side of the legs. 1033 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.30-4, pls.22-5. 1034 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.30.

229

its date and ownership.1035 However, Caminos and James stated the shrine “was principally hewn for a certain Senynūfe and his wife Hatshepsut … (a) clue for the purposes of dating being the sculptured figure of Usersatet, a well-attested viceroy of Nubia under Amenhotep II, at the rear wall of the shrine.”1036 This is the date and attribution that has since been accepted by scholars. However, a careful re-examination of the shrine as it is published, combined with the evidence of Usersatet presented above leads to an entirely different conclusion. There are four issues to be dealt with: the shrine’s architectural plan, the type and style of the shrine’s decoration, the people represented in the shrine and their relationship(s) to each other, and lastly the probable function of the monument. The plan of shrine 11 is extremely unusual when compared to the others at Gebel es-Silsilah.1037 As Caminos and James note, all of the shrines have essentially the same layout: a single room with statues carved out of a niche at the rear of the monument.1038 However, shrine 11 has two rooms. The first room (A) is rectangular in shape and this is followed by a square room (B) with five statues carved at the rear.1039 In addition, it is the only shrine that has five statues, the rest have at most four, and most often only one.1040 The depictions on the walls of the shrine also contain scenes that appear to go beyond the usual funerary banquets and related scenes that are seen in the rest of the shrines. On the south wall of room A, Senynefer is shown with fat rolls and is seated with Hatshepsut (?) 1035

Roehrig’s claim (Royal urse, p.182) that the shrine is securely dated to Amenhotep II by the presence of his cartouches on the shrine is incorrect. 1036 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.30. 1037 It is not, perhaps, as unusual as Shrine 4, which has two rooms and three side rooms or niches each with three statues. The original owner of this shrine was likely the scribe of the treasury Djhutymes, but it is dated to the end of Dyansty 18. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.3-4, 16-18, pls.10-12. 1038 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.2-4 1039 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.22 1040 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.5-6 list the shrines with statues, or traces of such, seven contain 1 statue, five have 2 and 3 statues, and three have 4 statues.

230

overseeing what is clearly a type of agricultural activity (Fig.24a, p.480).1041 The largerscaled figure that is placed within the scene may be an assistant, or may perhaps even be another depiction of Senynefer himself. This is certainly outside the scope of what is normally shown on the walls of the Silsilah shrines, but compares well with tomb depictions of the mid-18th Dynasty.1042 This is also true of the banquet placed on the north wall of Room B, where three musicians and “clappers” entertain Senynefer and Hatshepsut (Fig.24b, p.480).1043 Although the presence of two rooms would in theory allow for more variety in what is placed on the walls, it seems more likely here that the shrine has multiple functions, one of which required tomb-like scenes. Another important aspect of the decoration is that the only persons represented are Senynefer, Hatshepsut and some of his family. Despite the fact that only the bottom of the walls remain, it seems significant that this should be the case. A consistent feature of the Silsilah shrines, and of 18th Dynasty tombs, is to place family members, offeringbearers, or subsidiary scenes in the lower registers while the monument’s owner appears in the upper register.1044 If Senynefer is the owner of this shrine, then it must be that he also appears in the now destroyed upper registers. This seems highly unlikely since this type of double representation does not occur in the other shrines, or in the tombs. It is clear from what remains of the upper registers that additional, and seemingly elaborate,

1041 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.30-1, pl.23/1. The identification of this as Senynefer is based on the column of text behind the seated couple in which Seneynefer’s name is preserved. 1042 This type of scene is common in tombs, see PM I.1 pp.464-5 (7), 466-7 (15) for excellent lists. Caminos and James also mentioned the unusualness of this scene and its similarity to those found in tombs, cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.4-5, 30-1. 1043 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.31-2, pl.23/2. The similarities with tomb depictions was again mentioned by Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.4-5. 31. See also PM I.1 pp.469-70 (24-25) for a list of tombs with these types of scenes. 1044 E.g., Shrines 6, 15, 17, 23.

231

banqueting scenes were portrayed on both the north and south walls of room B.1045 On the upper register of the north wall of room B a man followed by two women and a child stand before what appears to be a boat or sledge of some type.1046 The upper register of room B’s south wall portrays a couple seated with a scribal case under the chair and offerings stacked behind it while a cat plays with a bone under the offering table.1047 Although I am unaware of exact parallels for the scene on the north wall,1048 that on the south is of a type commonly found in mid-18th Dynasty tombs.1049 Senynefer was a wab-priest of Amun (in the first phyle), chief of the department (at) of the great house (i.e. pharaoh) in the southern city (i.e. Thebes), and overseer of the royal apartments (ipt nswt), but beyond these titles and this monument nothing is known about him. 1050 Thus the dating of shrine 11 has depended largely on the presence of Usersatet, viceroy under Amenhotep II, among the five statues carved out of a niche in the rear wall of the shrine (room B).1051 Disregarding his statue there is plenty of stylistic evidence that suggests a date late in the reign of Amenhotep II or even early Thutmosis IV. The elongated shape of the eyes, drooping flowers, elongated fat cones, and sandals are all typical features seen in tombs of dating to later Amenhotep II.1052 Likewise the movements and hairstyles of the female musicians or dancers, and the “realistic” depiction of the cat are developments that belong in the latter portion of his reign and into

1045

All traces of the upper portion of room A’s south wall are lost. Another offering and banquet scene was depicted on the lower register on the south wall, which continued onto the east wall as well. 1046 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.31, pl.23/2. 1047 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.32, pl.24. 1048 See also Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.31 n.2. 1049 See PM I.1 p.467 (19a). 1050 At the end of the line of text above the scene on the south wall of room B he is called: wob n [Imn] cny//// and on his statue at the rear of the shrine: wab [n Imn] Hr sA tpy %ny-nfr ///. In the banquet scene on the north wall of room B is the final title: //// %ny-(n)fr Hry tA at pr-aA m niwt rsyt imy-r ipt nswt %ny-nfr. 1051 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.33-4, pl.25. 1052 I.e., TT93 of Qenamun, TT56 of Userhat.

232

early Thutmosis IV.1053 While the costume worn by Senynefer and Hatshepsut is perhaps earlier in style, this is suggestive of their not being the main owners of this shrine, but rather older family members depicted in the styles current when they were alive.1054 Returning now to the niche and the persons represented in statue form, there is on either side of the niche a column of inscription that is destroyed but for the very bottom: “overseer of the royal apartments Senynefer, justified” on the right and “Hatshepsut, justified” on the left.1055 This combined with Hatshepsut’s presence in the shrine seems to indicate that she is indeed Seninefer’s wife.1056 Although the entire top of the niche and statues is damaged, the inscriptions are essentially preserved on all but one of the statues (Fig.25a, p.481). Moving from right to left, the statues are inscribed for [Hatshepsut],1057 the wab-priest of [Amun] in the first phyle Senynefer, the Xkrt nswt Nenwenher[men]tes, king’s son and overseer of the southern foreign lands Usersatet, and the [royal] nurse, who [nurtured] the god, praised of the good god, mistress of the house Henuttawy.1058 None of the statues bears inscriptional evidence for the relationships among the people represented. However, Roehrig posits that the directionality of the hieroglyphs can be used to suggest the remainder of the relationships.1059 In the case of Nenwenhermentes and Usersatet, whom we know to be mother and son from Usersatet’s Deir el-Medina statue, the inscriptions on each statue face each other. The text on Henuttawy’s dress 1053

The dancing girls are quite similar to those in TTs 56, 74, 90. The cat brings to mind TT130 of May (previously dated to Thutmosis III, but certainly Amenhotep II-Thutmosis IV based on stylistic criteria). 1054 This type of “antequating” is a common feature in tombs. 1055 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.34, pl.25. 1056 The only other remaining inscription for Hatshepsut is on the north wall of room B, where she is called simply “mistress of the house”. 1057 The inscription on this statue is lost, but Roehrig convincingly suggests that it belonged to Hatshepsut “whose name appears at the bottom of the text to the left of the five statues, and who is not otherwise represented by any of the other statues.” Roehrig, Royal urse, p.183 1058 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.34, pl.25. Henuttawy’s inscriptions reads [mn]at wrt Sd[t] nTr [Hs]yt nt nfr nTr nbt pr Hnwt-tAwy mAat-xrw, but there is should have been room for nswt in front of the mn-sign. 1059 Roehrig, Royal  urse, pp.184-5.

233

faces Usersatet, leading Roehrig to propose that she was Usersatet’s wife.1060 Senynefer’s hieroglyphs face the statue surmised to belong to Henuttawy, who was probably his wife. Parallels to this arrangement can be found in several of the Silsilah shrines, despite the fact that none of the others have five statues. Three shrines have four statues in the niche, and in all cases the women are placed on the outside of the male statues, while five shrines contain two statues.1061 In the one case in which the inscriptions are legible, the texts on each pair of couples face each other.1062 This indicates that the statue to Senynefer’s left was indeed his wife. Among the four shrines that contain three statues, the owner is always in the middle, between his parents in two shrines, and with a woman placed at either side in two shrines.1063 In the two shrines in which the owner is clearly between his parents, the mother is always placed to his left, as in the case of shrine 11.1064 It seems that in shrine 11 the statues form two discreet, though related, groups. Senynefer and Henuttawy as one set, and Usersatet seated between his mother and wife as the other. Roehrig draws the conclusion that Senynefer was the son of Usersatet and Henuttawy, Henuttawy was a nurse for Amenhotep II, and Usersatet was thus older than this king and probably served more of his career under Thutmosis III.1065

1060

Roehrig, Royal  urse, p.184. Roehrig also suggests she may have been “a sister or aunt who was included by virtue of her connection to the royal family as a nurse” (p.185), but this seems unlikely. 1061 Shrines 17, 22, and 32 each have four statues, while shrines 5, 13, 20, 21 and 29 each have two statues. See Caminos and James, Silsilah I. 1062 In Shrine 17, which belonged to the vizier under Thutmosis III, User(amun), the statues depict User(amun), his wife, and his parents. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.62-3, pl.33, 47. 1063 Shrines 12, 23, 27, and 28. In shrines 12 and 23 the owner is placed between his parents. In shrine 28 he is placed between two women, presumably his mother and wife, while in shrine 27 it may be two wives since a child is carved into the stone on either side of the man’s legs. Shrine 24 also has three statues, but they are too unfinished to be certain of the gender identifications; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I. 1064 In shrine 12, the relationships are based on the wall scenes and the similarities with shrine 23, which was probably owned by the same man; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah I. In Shrine 23 the owner Minnakht is placed in the middle, with his inscription facing his mother’s statue. His mother’s text, however, face outwards, i.e., away from Minnakht, while the directionality of the father’s inscription is unclear. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.76, pl.57 no.4 1065 Roehrig, Royal  urse, p.185-6, with note 584.

234

There are several problems with this. The first is that Roehrig placed Henuttawy as a nurse for Amenhotep II based on the incorrect assumption that his cartouches are on the façade of shrine 11; they are not. Secondly, as I have suggested above, the decoration of the shrine suggests that Senynefer was not the main owner, but rather a relative of the shrine’s owner. In addition, a stylistic analysis of the shrine leads to a date in the latter half of Amenhotep II’s reign. All of these items point towards one conclusion: Usersatet was in fact the owner of Similar shrine 11, which was built at the end of his career, and he used it commemorate two generations of ancestors. Thus, I would interpret the relationships indicated by the statues to be Senynefer and his wife Hatshepsut, their daughter Nenwenhermentes, and her son Usersatet and his wife Henuttawy. This realignment is still in accord with the directionality of the hieroglyphs, and provides a better explanation for Nenwenhermentes’ central position, as now the statues follow a chronological and genealogical order.1066 Although the names of Senynefer and Hatshepsut appear on either side of the niche, this is not conclusive that the shrine was primarily theirs. The earlier portion of the inscription may have recorded Usersatet’s lineage, or he may be honoring them further by placing their names in this prominent position. I would also point out that the name of Senynefer’s wife, Hatshepsut, makes it more likely that she (and by extension Senynefer also) was born prior to year 46 of Thutmosis III’s sole reign. It was at this point that he began the program of defacing Hatshepsut’s name from her monuments and those of some of her officials’,1067 and thus it is unlikely that a child would be named after the queen/king. However, if Senynefer 1066

Roehrig suggested that Nenwenhermentes was placed in the center “for reasons of seniority”; cf. Royal  urse, p.184-5. 1067 The officials include those who were especially high-placed like the steward Senenmut and royal butler Djehuty and the activity continued into the early years of Amenhotep II; cf. Dorman, Senenmut and Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.243, 248-9.

235

and Hatshepsut are the parents of Nenwenhermentes, then they probably would have been born during the reign of Thutmosis I’s, at a time when the name of Hatshepsut would have been considered an excellent choice.1068 One final note about shrine 11 concerns its function.1069 Along the top of the statue base there is an inscription that implies the shrine may have been dedicated to all five of the people depicted in the statues: “An offering that the king gives (Htp-di-nsw), and that Osiris, Geb, Nut, and the gods who are in pure water (give). May you (plural) give invocation offerings of bread, beer, cattle, fowl, cool water, wine, milk in the course of every day for the kA of the lords (i.e. owners) of this funerary chapel (Hwt), the noble ones (Spssyw) who are beloved of the ruler (HqA)” (Fig.25b, p.481).1070 Of special interest here is the last segment, which implies that the shrine was intended as a monument to be shared by all five of the individuals represented by the statues. The phrase nbw Hwt tn is similar to nbw wabwt, “owners of tombs”,1071 and suggests that indeed this particular shrine had a dual purpose. On the one hand, Usersatet appears to be using this monument to commemorate his ancestors in the style of the contemporaneous tombs at el-Kab.1072. However, the use of “tomb scenes” seems to also indicate that Usersatet may have been

1068

This is based on the idea, posited above, that Usersatet was in his mid-twenties during Amenhotep II’s year 3 campaign (c. 1426-7), placing his birth in the later years of the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency (c.1452). Assuming that children were generally born when the mother was between 15 and 25, this would mean his mother Nenwenhermentes should be born during the early part of the co-regency (c.1467-77) and thus her parents would be born roughly twenty years earlier, (c.1482-1502). 1069 On the function of the shrines in general, and the importance of shrine 11 for understanding their purpose, see Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.6-10. 1070 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.34, pl.25; Roehrig, Royal  urse, p.183. 1071 Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.128 in reference to Papyrus Leiden 344 and Gardiner’s edition of the “Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage”; WB II, 231, a. nb.w. 1072 I.e., the tomb of Ahmose-Pennekhbet, an official from Thutmosis I to Thutmosis III whose tomb however was built much later, in the later years of AMenhotep II’s reign. As B. Bryan communicated to me, the fact that several generations are included in the tomb, so many of whom were already deceased, led to an earlier (and incorrect) date for the tomb. (November, 2004). I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for valuable discussions and encouragement concerning my ideas about Usersatet and Silisilah shrine 11.

236

providing them with a monument in lieu of, or at least in addition to, their own tomb(s).1073 The new genealogical information for Usersatet also changes the way we view the beginning of Usersatet’s career. It would now seem that Senynefer’s positions as chief of the department of the palace in Thebes and overseer of the royal apartments led to an increasing closeness with the royal court of Thutmosis II – Hatshepsut/Thutmosis III that resulted in his daughter Nenwenhermentes being called a Xkrt nswt. This title was a court honorific that previously has been attributed to Nenwenhermentes due to Usersatet’s status. However, if in fact Nenwenhermentes was already a Xkrt nswt when she bore Usersatet, then it also seems possible that his ability to join the ranks of the chariotry, even as a lower-order chariot-warrior, would have been due in part to a recognition on the part of Thutmosis III of the elite status of Usersatet’s family. A final note on the life and career of Usersatet concerns the apparent mutilation of several of his monuments. The theory that a damnation memoriae was carried out on the person or memory of Usersatet was first suggested by Helck in his publication of the Semna stele (BMFA 25.632) and reiterated by Habachi when he (re-)published Usersatet’s Aswan graffiti.1074 In the lunette of the Semna stele Usersatet’s figure and the last two columns of text, including his name, are disfigured (Auskratzung) (Fig.22, p.478). Based on this, Helck suggested that Usersatet fell into disgrace, lost his position as viceroy, had his tomb destroyed, and “probably suffered a violent death”.1075 Not wanting to implicate Amenhotep II in this affair, Helck compared User to officials such 1073

This also appears to have been the case at el-Kab, where the tombs served as “memorial chapels” erected when the families had the resources to provide a monument to honor their clearly important, and long dead, ancestors. (B. Bryan, pers. comm., November, 2004). 1074 Helck, JES 14, p.31; Habachi, Kush 5, p.17. 1075 Helck, JES 14, p.31.

237

as Rekhmire who seem to have suffered during the transition between kings.1076 Habachi was likewise unable too suggest a reason for the intentional defacement of Usersatet’s name on his Aswan graffiti.1077 Since these two publications, scholars have generally followed this reconstruction of events, with the culprits ranging from agents of Amenhotep II or Thutmosis IV to private individuals.1078 However, my re-examination of Usersatet’s monuments, though based largely on publications, leads me to the conclusion that the situation has been grossly exaggerated. While it is clear that the graffiti suffered from intentional defacement, the work of Gasse and Rondot has led to the realization that this was a wide-spread occurrence amongst the graffiti of the New Kingdom.1079 Dewachter states with regard to the Uronarti statue (Khartoum 32) that although the socle is missing, the statue’s head was re-attached, and the face, hands, and sides of the apron are damaged, the name is intact.1080 The reason(s) for this is unknown, but Dewachter does not attribute it to part of a damnation memoriae because Usersatet’s name is preserved.1081 Likewise although the Deir el-Medina and Sai statues are apparently broken, the name of Usersatet was left untouched, and the rest of the monuments seem to bear only the signs of damage accrued over a span of more than 3000 years. This is especially significant for the Qasr Ibrim shrine, whose outer jambs still bear Usersatet’s name quite clearly, and the Gebel esSilsilah shrine, where the inscription on Usersatet’s statue is likewise untouched..

1076

Helck, JES 14, p.31. Habachi, Kush 5, p.17. Gasse and Rondot confirmed that Usersatet’s name and figure were “hammered out” on all of his graffiti. 1078 Notably der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.158. 1079 A. Gasse, pers. comm., September 2003. 1080 Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.55. He does not mention the inscription on the back pillar in the list of damage, thus I assume that it is simply eroded. In addition, it is not clear whether the head was removed and put back on in antiquity, modern times, or a combination thereof. 1081 Dewachter, Archeologia 72, p.55. 1077

238

According to Caminos and James, both monuments are badly damaged due to the sliding of the rock above and around them, as well as quarrying activity.1082 In the Silsilah shrine this resulted in the loss of the top portion of the walls, the entrance lintel and jambs, and the top portions of the five seated statue at the rear of the shrine. At Ibrim, they state clearly that with regard to the damaged wall where Usersatet once stood before the king, “no sign of hammering, hacking, scraping, or deliberate excision of any kind is to be seen upon the wall. In so far as can be judged by meticulous examination of the affected area, the damage is accidental and for the most part due to the falling away of the surface plaster brought about by the movement of the cliff”.1083 In view of the evidence it appears that Usersatet was not the victim of a damnatio memoriae due to a fall from grace. The destruction of the graffiti was apparently part of a larger, generalized effort, while Usersatet’s other monuments are untouched except for the effects of time. This leaves only his Semna stele as an intentionally disfigured monument. As is well-known, many of ancient Egypt’s artifacts, from temples and tombs to stelae and statues, suffered from the activities of Coptic Christians and local beliefs that the objects carried magical properties. This has resulted in, for example, huge gouges in the walls of Karnak and the scratching out of the images of deities painted or carved onto the walls. Is it possible that this is the cause of the Semna stele’s condition? Whatever the reason, it is clear that unlike in the case of Rekhmire (TT100) and Amenmose (TT42), both of whose figures are carefully and completely excised from their tombs, Usersatet was not the object of a concerted effort to erase his person and memory.

1082 1083

Caminos, Ibrim, and Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.30. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, p.70.

239

The foregoing discussion, has after some length, demonstrated that Usersatet descended from a court-connected family. The influence that his family’s elite status brought enabled his career and subsequent ability to develop a relationship with Amunhotep II. In addition, it seems certain that Usersatet was neither the victim of a damnatio memoriae nor the object of any type of concentrated effort to erase his person and memory.

The Family of the Mayor of Thebes Sennefer A. The Parentage of Sennefer1084 The following discussion is undertaken in an effort to finally put to rest the idea that the mayor of Thebes Sennefer was the brother of the vizier Amenemopet-Pairy (henceforth Amenemopet) and son of Ahmose-Humay. Both of these officials came to distinction under Amenhotep II, and much has been made of their relationship.1085 The debate about Sennefer’s parentage has centered primarily on the evidence found in TT96A (upper tomb).1086 The issues involved are outlined below and, it is hoped, will demonstrate that in fact Sennefer was the maternal cousin of Amenemopet. This will become significant in the following section (part b) where the influence that Amenmopet’s father Ahmose-Humay had as a tutor over the careers of his son and Sennefer is considered.

1084

For the kinship terms and their use, refer to Table 1, p.457. Roehrig seems to have been the first to point out that Sennefer was probably a cousin and not brother to Amenemopet, (Royal urse, pp.154-5). This has been confirmed by Dimitri Laboury’s work and by my own examination of the three tombs. 1085 Originally espoused by Helck, Verwaltung, pp.297-8, 423-4, 439(9), 525f.(6) and more recently der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.152-4; Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.317, no.502. 1086 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.360-4, type VIa. The tomb is currently being excavated and conserved by a Belgian team led by R. Tefnin. I would like to thank Professor Tefnin for allowing me to visit these tombs in 2002.

240

The first issue concerns the identification of the couple Nu and his wife (Hmt.f) Henutiry/Ti-iry, depicted in four offering scenes in Sennefer’s upper tomb, and their relationship to Sennefer. In two of these scenes,1087 Nu and Henutiry/Ti-iry are placed behind another couple in the lower register, while Sennefer and Senetnay are depicted in the upper (main) register receiving offerings. In PM(2), the first couple is destroyed, and there are traces before Nu’s title that suggest the reading it.f. “his father.” In PM(8) the first couple is partly lost, but the woman is identified as mwt.s By “her mother By,” suggesting that they were Senetnay’s parents. The second couple is identified as it.f “his father” Nu and mwt.f “his mother” Henutiry, and the man offering to them is unnamed but called “the mayor” (pA HAty-a), a term that is used to refer to Sennefer in his lower tomb.1088 Thus it seems likely that the parents of Sennefer and Senetnay are represented in the lower register. In PM(9), Sennefer and Senetnay are offered to by their daughter Nefertiry on one half of the upper register, and the other half is destroyed. Below this are three registers of offering scenes placed on either side of a (destroyed) stele. In the lowest register on the left (west) side Sennefer offers to Nu and Henutiry, but any filiation is lost to damage.1089 Finally, the large offering scene located at PM(21), in the rear chamber, depicts Sennefer and Senetnay being offered to by Nefertiry.1090 Behind Nefertiry are seated, at the same scale as Sennefer, Nu (sans filiation) and Ti-iry, followed by two registers of banquet guests. Although Sennefer never refers to himself as “born of” (ir n

1087

PM(2) and PM(8). TT96b. The texts are at PM(26) and PM(40). 1089 Sennefer’s presence is based on the partial title HAty-a. 1090 This is based on the inscription. 1088

241

or ms n) anyone, based on the extant inscriptions and scene composition, it appears that Nu and Hunetiry/Ti-iry are Sennefer’s parents.1091 The second issue surrounds the inscriptions in TT96A in which Sennefer calls Ahmose-Humay it.f, “his father,” and Ahmose-Humay’s son Amenemopet sn.f, “his brother.” These are found in the offering scene at PM(22) and in a scene between PM(11)-(12). The double offering-scene located at PM(22) depicts Sennefer offering to Ahmose-Humay and his wife Nebu at one side, with Sennefer and Senetnay offered to at the other. Ahmose-Humay is referred to as the “overseer of the god’s wife, royal tutor Humay” and his wife is called “mistress of the house, Xkrt nswt Nebu.” The inscription that accompanies Sennefer describes himself as giving offerings “for his father, the steward of the god’s wife Humay, justified.”1092 In a scene on the south wall of the passage, Sennefer is seated with his wife below his chair. This representation, located between PM(11) and (12) on the wall, was not noted by PM. From the inscription we learn that Sennefer is reminiscing about days spent sitting with his brother (sn.f) Amenemopet-Pairy.1093 The adjacent offering scene depicts Sennefer offering to Amenemopet-Pairy and his wife Weret, but no indication is given of the relationship between Amenemopet and Sennefer.1094 However, Amenemopet is called ir n “born to” the steward of the god’s wife Humay and ms n “born of” Nebu. Amenemopet also offers to his parents in PM(23), though no filiation is given in the accompanying descriptions. Equally significant are four inscriptions in TT2241095 of Ahmose-Humay in which Sennefer is consistently identified as sA n snt.f mnx n sn.f “son of his sister, effective for 1091

Laboury has drawn this same conclusion, pers. comm., 2002. n it.f imy-r pr n Hmt-nTr Hwmy mAa-Xrw in HAty-a n niwt rsyt %n-nfr 1093 Hmst m sH n sXmX-ib ir Xt nfrt Hno sn.f mrr.f wa Ax ib n nTr nfr imy-r niwt TAty Imn-m-ipt Dd.f PA-iry 1094 PM(12). 1095 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.498-501, type IVa. 1092

242

his brother”. In all of the related scenes, Sennefer is depicted in a manner common to sons of the deceased. On the east wall of the passage Ahmose-Humay and his wife are seated at the end of the funerary procession receiving offerings presented by “[their] son, who causes that their name live, overseer of the estate of the god’s wife of Amun, [name lost], justified” and the “son of his sister, effective for his brother” Sennefer.1096 On the opposite wall in the top register a son, name and titles lost, presents offerings to AhmoseHumay and his wife. Behind him, Sennefer offers to the first of the seated male banquet guests.1097 Below this in the second register, Ahmose-Humay offers to his parents Senwosret and Taidy and is accompanied by Sennefer. The last scene is that of fishing and fowling, found at PM(8) in the transverse-hall. At the east (left) end of the scene Sennefer stands before Ahmose-Humay offering rope to him.1098 Additionally, in Amenemopet’s tomb, TT29,1099 Sennefer and his wife Senetnay are offered to by their daughter Mutnofret in a “family tableaux” located at PM(8). At the front of the scene a destroyed figure offers to Amenemopet, while behind him another destroyed figure, possibly Amenemopet himself, offers to the seated couple it.f AhmoseHumay and Hmt.f Nebu (Amenmopet’s parents). Behind this Mutnofret (sAt.f mrt it.s) offers to her parents the mayor of Thebes Sennefer and Hmt.f Senetnay. The last group is the depiction of Paser (sA.f) offering to his parents the vizier Amenemopet and Hmt.f Weret.1100 Despite his depiction in Amenemopet’s tomb, Sennefer’s relationship to either Amenemopet or Ahmose-Humay is never given. Amenemopet, however, designates

1096

PM(5). The inscription with the unnamed son is: sA // sanx rn.sn imy-r gs-pr n Hm(t)-nTr nt Im(n) //// mAa-xrw 1097 PM(6). 1098 He is again called “son of his sister”, sA n snt.f 1099 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.214-5, type VIIa. 1100 Both figures are destroyed, but their identification is certain based on Paser’s inscription.

243

himself as ir n … Hwmy “born of … Humay” in three other inscriptions found in the tomb.1101 From the chart detailing ancient Egyptian kinship terminology1102 it is clear that the term sn “brother” was used in ancient Egypt to denote other types of relationships as well, including (maternal and paternal) uncle, nephew or male cousin, and brother-in-law. Similarly, it “father” could mean also grandfather (maternal and paternal), father-in-law, or male ancestor. The phrase sA n snt.f is unambiguous, as it can only mean “son of his sister.”1103 Thus, this last set of terms is where we should look to determine the relationship between Sennefer, Amenemopet-Pairy and Ahmose-Humay. From the phrase sA n snt.f , it becomes evident that Sennefer was indeed a nephew of Ahmose-Humay through his mother, Ahmose-Humay’s sister, who is now clearly identifiable as Henutiry/Ti-iry. This places Nu, Henutiry/Ti-iry’s husband, as certainly Sennefer’s father. The entire phrase sA n snt.f mnx n sn.f is best interpreted as denoting the relationship between Sennefer and Ahmose-Humay by using terms that define AhmoseHumay’s relationship to Sennefer’s parents. Thus, Sennefer is the “son of [AhmoseHumay’s] sister, excellent of [Ahmose-Humay’s] brother(-in-law)”. Sennefer’s reference to Amenemopet-Pairy in TT96 as “his brother” can now also be understood to mean in fact “his (male) cousin”. Sennefer’s use of “his father” to refer to Ahmose-Humay must be interpreted in light of the fact that the term “father” in ancient Egypt was only applied to lineal kin. Therefore, at some point during his life, Sennefer considered himself as a true son of his uncle.

1101

PM(4), PM(10), and the passage ceiling. Figure 1, p.457 1103 When ancient Egyptian kinship terms are used to form compound expressions, only their simple meanings are employed; cf. Robins, CdE 54, pp.197-217. 1102

244

Although Ahmose-Humay never identified Sennefer as “his son” in his own tomb (TT224), he must have had a close relationship with Sennefer. This is indicated by the number of times and types of scenes in which Sennefer was represented in AhmoseHumay’s tomb. Whether Sennefer was figuratively or literally a son of Ahmose-Humay, possibly through adoption, remains unclear. The fact that he is designated as “effective for his brother” indicates that his parents were deceased, as this phrase generally denoted that one had acted as the dutiful son in terms of a parent’s burial.1104 This is certainly suggestive of a situation in which Sennefer came under the supervision, if only nominally, of his uncle. However, by the time Sennefer’s tomb was being decorated, Sennefer thought of Ahmose-Humay as his father. The evidence for this is that Sennefer refers to Ahmose-Humay as his father in the prominently placed tomb scene on the rear wall of TT96A’s rear chamber.1105 Here Ahmose-Humay and his wife receive offerings from Ahmose-Humay’s biological and adopted sons, Amenemopet and Sennefer respectively.1106

1104

Janssen and Janssen, Getting Old. PM(22) 1106 These scenes are placed at either end of additional offering scenes in which Sennefer receives offerings from a priest on one side and his grandson (sA n sAt.f ) on the other. Sennefer is perhaps drawing a parallel between the two representations, suggesting that he favors his grandson in the way he was himself favored by his uncle Ahmose-Humay. 1105

245

The genealogy of Sennefer’s family as discussed above, and with a few additions, is as follows1107: Senwosret -- Taidy | | | ebu -- Ahmose-Humay | | | | unknown son Amenemopet -- Weret (TT29) | | | Paser

| Henutiry/Tiiry -- Nu ? -- By | | | | | | Sennefer -- Senetnay/Senetnefer (TT96) | | | | Mutnofret efertiry

B. Ahmose-Humay, his son Amenemopet (called Pairy) and his nephew Sennefer (A tutor, his son the vizier, and nephew the mayor of Thebes) Amenemopet called Pairy was installed as the new vizier by Amenhotep II.1108 This appointment brought to a close the control of the vizierate family that had held this position for three generations from Thutmosis I through the accession of Amenhotep II.1109 New investigations into the tomb of Amenemopet (TT29) and his cousin Sennefer (TT96 upper) by a Belgian team led by Dr. Roland Tefnin will no doubt shed light on the reason behind this change, and the way in which it was effected.1110 I would like here to present a few of my own conclusions about how Amenemopet and Sennefer became two of the most powerful officials during the reign of Amenhotep II. These are based largely

1107

See notes 1111, 1121 and 1143 below for comments on additional family members. He succeeded Rekhmire in this position. 1109 See Ch.1, pp.75-100 for a discussion of this family. 1110 I would like to thank Professor Tefnin for allowing me to visit these tombs in 2002. 1108

246

on my examination of the tombs and other monuments and artifacts that belonged to Ahmose-Humay, Amenemopet, Sennefer and their families.1111 Ahmose-Humay was the father of Amenemopet and the owner of TT224.1112 TT224 is constructed as a reverse T-shape, with entry directly into a passage that leads to the transverse-hall.1113 Off the transverse-hall, on the central axis, is a small shrine with a niche in the rear wall and a vaulted ceiling. The scenes in the passage are carved, while those in the transverse-hall and shrine are painted.1114 All of these features argue for dating the tomb’s construction and decoration during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III coregency.1115 However, in the lunette of his autobiographical stele Ahmose-Humay presents offerings to the cartouches of Thutmosis III,1116 while the name of Hatshepsut does not appear in his tomb.1117 From the inscriptions in Ahmose-Humay’s tomb and on his funerary cones it becomes evident that he was a high official connected to the estate of the god’s wife of

1111

Dimitri Laboury is working on the relationships between these men as a part of Tefnin’s team. In 2001 he graciously shared his own work on the family of Amenemopet and Sennefer, and we also had several productive discussions about them. Much of what follows incoporates his own opinions, as of 2001, on the family structure, especially as it relates to Sennefer. I would caution though, that since the tombs are as yet unpublished, his reconstruction could subsequently change. In an attempt to keep “pers. comm.” notes to a minimum I will present Laboury’s position on the family structure when the discussion turns to Sennefer. For the relationships dealt with in the following treatment of Ahmose-Humay and Amenemopet, the family tree presented at the end of the preceding section contains the basic genealogy. To this can be added that Ahmose-Humay and Nebu have an additional six daughters, none of whom are known outside the tomb. In addition, based on an inscription in TT224, Laboury assigns the unknown son of Ahmose-Humay the title of “steward of the god’s wife of Amun.” See also below, note 1121, 1143. 1112 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropolen, pp.498-501, type IVa. 1113 The architectural plan is the same as that of the tomb of Qen (TT59), pp.xxx above. 1114 This is the same pattern of decoration found in TT109 of the mayor of Thinis and tutor Min whose tomb depictions with the young prince Amenhotep (II) indicate that Min died before Amenhotep II became king. See also TT112 of the high priest of Amun Menkheperresoneb (i), Chapter 1. 1115 Cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropolen, p.21, where the comporanda for this tomb dates primarily from the early 18th Dynasty to the reing of Hatshepsut/Thtumosis III. 1116 PM(9). 1117 This is also similar to TT112, see above, Chapter 1.

247

Amun, and within the palace.1118 If the reconstruction of one of his more damaged titles is accurate, then Ahmose-Humay may also have been an overseer for the funerary estate of the deified queen Ahmose-Nefertary.1119 The method(s) by which he achieved these positions is unclear, as all that is known about his parents are their names, Senwosret and Taidy.1120 In addition, Ahmose-Humay’s autobiographical stele is completely destroyed but for a few traces in the top five lines of the text. Nonetheless, the traces that do remain, as well as the groupings of titles in the remainder of the tomb allow for a possible reconstruction of his career. Throughout the passage Ahmose-Humay is consistently referred to as “scribe”, “overseer of the estate” (imy-r gs-pr), “overseer of the estate of the god’s wife” and “overseer of the granaries of the god’s wife Ahmose-Nefertary” (Fig.26, p.482)1121 In the transverse-hall Ahmose-Humay is also called “overseer of priests” 1122 and “one who nurtured the flesh [of the god].”1123 Ahmose-Humay is one of only two tutors to hold this

1118

In TT224 Ahmose-Humay is identified variously as “overseer of the estate”, “overseer of the estate of the god’s wife (of Amun)”, “overseer of the granaries”, “overseer of the granaries (of the god’s wife of Amun)”, “overseer of all priests”. He is also called “one who nutured the flesh [of the god]” and “[father and nurse ?] of the king’s son of his body, his beloved, Amun[-hotep].” On his funerary cone he is the “father and nurse (tf mnay), overseer of the ipt-nswt, overseer of the aXnwty (chamberlain), and overseer of stables”; cf. Daressy, Cônes Funéraires, no. 19, Davies and Macadam, Corpus. 1119 The title, imy-r Snwty n Hmt nTr (/////-iry)|, appears on the east wall of the passage, in the offering scnee located at PM(5). 1120 They are depicted receiving offerings on the lower portion of the west wall of the passage, PM(6). 1121 The titles appear in inscriptions placed on the east and west walls, as well as the outer entrance to the transverse-hall; cf. PM(5)-(7). At least one of Ahmose-Humay’s sons, whose name is unknown, appears to have followed in his father’s footsteps as an overseer of the estate of the god’s wife of Amun. The erasure of the son’s name suggests that it contained the theophoric ‘Amun’ element, but it does not seem likely that this was Amenemopet because he does not carry this title, or indeed any of his father’s titles, in his own tomb or that of his cousin Sennefer. The scene is in the bottom register at the north end of PM(5). The unknown son and Sennefer offer to the overseer of the estate and overseer of the granaries of the god’s wife Ahmose-Nefertari, Ahmose and his wife. See the family tree on p.245 and note 1111 above. 1122 On the stele on the east wall; cf PM(9). 1123 In the fishing and fowling scene at PM(8), and traces in line 4 of the stele at PM(9). This is contra Roehrig, Royal  urse, p.192f.

248

title, which indicates that its bearer survived to see their charge become king.1124 In addition, on the façade of TT224 Ahmose-Humay is called “[father and nurse] of the king’s son of his body, his beloved, Amen[hotep]” (Fig.27, p.483).1125 Ahmose-Humay’s royal nurse titles were also accorded to him in the tombs of his son, the vizier Amenemopet (TT29),1126 and nephew, the mayor of Thebes Sennefer (TT96).1127 In addition, on his funerary cone, Ahmose-Humay is called “father and nurse (tf mnay), overseer of the ipt-nswt, overseer of the aXnwty (chamberlain), and overseer of stables”.1128 The fact that the titles having to do with the palace and his role as a tutor only appear at the rear of the tomb, on the façade, and on the funerary cones, seems to suggest that Ahmose-Humay acquired these positions well after construction of his tomb had already begun.1129 In this reconstruction, Ahmose-Humay’s duties in the king’s palace would all have been received later in his career, after he had already distinguished himself in the administration of the estates of the god’s wives. If he did indeed live to see Amenhotep II become king, as his epithet implies, then his tomb decoration, which is in 1124 Roehrig, Royal urse, p.327ff. The other tutor was Hekareshu, whose charges included prince Thutmosis (IV). 1125 PM(3): //// n sA-nsw n Xt.f mry.f Imn ////. Min of TT109 also carried this title in his tomb and like Ahmose-Humay probably acquired it at the end of his career. Also Itrury, father of Pahery, was designated “tutor of the king’s son of his body” by his son Herari in the tomb of Ahmose sA Ebana at el-Kab (no.5); cf. Champollion, otices I, p.658. 1126 In TT29, Ahmose-Humay’s name and titles appear in PM(4) (damaged), (10) – nswt mna Sd nTr How, and on the northern band of the Passage ceiling inscription – nswt mnay wr . He is depicted in a “family tableaux” at PM(8) as the imy-r pr n Hmt nTr nswt mna Sd nTr Haw !wmy . 1127 In TT96, Ahmose-Humay receives offerings from Sennefer in PM(22) as the imy-r gs-pr Hmt nTr nswt mno !wmy. Ahmose-Humay is also mentioned as the father of Amenemopet in PM(12), where he is referred to as the imy-r pr Hmt nTr, and he receives offerings from Amenemopet in PM(23) as the imy-r gspr n Hmt nTr !wmy. 1128 Of the 70-odd funerary cones currently stored in Ahmose-Humay’s tomb, not one appears to be his. Davies notes to Daressy’s publication record that several cones in poor condition were found, but the location of them is unknown. The 4 column inscription recorded by Daressy no.19 reads: (1) tf mnay aH-ms (2) imy-r ipt-nswt (3) imy-r a-Xnwty aH-ms mAa-xrw (4) mr iHw aH-ms; cf. Daressy, cônes funéraires. 1129 The decoration of tombs began even while they were still being fashioned out of the rock. Thus the passage would have been decorated first. The decoration of the façade was generally left to the end.

249

the style of the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency period, would have progressed over some fifty years. Although not impossible, it is perhaps not very likely either. One explanation for the seeming incongruousness of Ahmose-Humay’s tomb and a life-span into the reign of Amenhotep II might be that his role in the administration of the god’s wives estate allowed him to begin tomb construction at a much earlier point in his life. The institution of the “God’s Wife of Amun” (GWA) was established during the reign of Ahmose as part of a concerted effort to increase the wealth of the royal family and strengthen its ties to the cult of Amun, the main god of Thebes who became the national deity during the 18th Dynasty.1130 Although the initial assets attached to this office were created under Ahmose-Nefertary in the form of a priesthood, land, and endowments, its visibility increased significantly during the reign of Hatshepsut.1131 The priests and staff attached to these domains would have thus benefited enormously from the attention that was lavished on it, and the Amun temples in general, during the reign of Hatshepsut.1132 It seems possible then that Ahmose-Humay’s positions as overseer of the estate and overseer of granaries of the GWA may also have given him the ability to begin work on his tomb much earlier than might be otherwise expected. Another possibility is that his tomb was later finished by one of his sons or Sennefer, and thus the façade and perhaps other portions of the tomb were finished or added to after Ahmose-Humay’s death. This might imply that Ahmose-Humay’s status in the palace was to some extent an “invention” on the part of his descendants to elevate the standing of both their ancestor and themselves. However, since Ahmose-Humay’s

1130

Redford, History and Chronology, pp.70ff.; Robins, in: Images of Women, p.66. Bryan, in: Mistress, p.32; Dorman, Senemut, pp.113ff., 204-6. The St. Petersburg Papyrus mentions land holdings belonging to the god’s wife estate in Middle Egypt during this period. 1132 Bryan, in: Mistress, p.32f.; Dorman, Senemut, pp.113ff. 1131

250

funerary cones do attest to his role as a tutor and presence in the palace, it seems more likely that he would have held these titles during his lifetime. It seems that Ahmose-Humay initially rose to prominence in his administrative role within the GWA estates and that this led to his being given positions that brought him into the palace sphere. How he was able to do this is uncertain. However, when examining the careers of his son Amenemopet and nephew Sennefer, it becomes clear that his relationship with the young Amunhotep II furthered their careers. Prior to Amenemopet, control of the vizierate was firmly cemented in three generations of the same family.1133 For a new man to take over this position, and for a new king to be able to break the control of an old and powerful family, a strong interpersonal connection was apparently required. From his monuments it is clear that Ahmose-Humay was a trusted official during the later years of Thutmosis III’s sole reign, at a time when Amenhotep II was perhaps already or soon to be nominated as heirapparent. Ahmose-Humay’s constant presence at the royal court likely facilitated his ability to use his role as a tutor and advisor to Amenhotep II to further the careers of both his sons and nephew. When Amenhotep II attained the throne and decided to install a new vizier, he chose the son of his own tutor. This strongly suggests that Amenemopet owed his position almost completely to the status and relationship of his father with Amenhotep II. Unfortunately, the damage to Amenemopet’s tomb, TT29,1134 has left us without an installation or appointment text.1135 Unlike other high and secondary officials of this

1133 1134

These are Aametu, User and Rekhmire, discussed in Chapter 1, pp.75-101. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.214-5, type VIIa.

251

time period, he does not seem to have participated in any of the military campaigns of Thutmosis III or Amenhotep II. Although Amenemopet may have been too young for the wars of Thutmosis III, his lack of involvement in the campaigns of Amenhotep II suggests that he was installed after the excursions into Syro-Palestine in year nine. We know from Rekhmire’s tomb (TT100) that this vizier witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II to the throne, thus it is likely that he remained in power until shortly after year nine of Amenhotep II.1136 One of the most interesting aspects of the titles and epithets of Amenemopet is that they are purely civil and vizier-related.1137 In addition, Amenemopet does not seem to have held any of the upper-level titles related to the administration of the Amun precinct in Thebes that his predecessor Rekhmire bore.1138 It is of course possible that these titles, and the scenes to which they would relate were originally planned or placed in the now destroyed south bay of the transverse-hall of Amenemopet’s tomb, TT29. However, it seems more likely that the reason Amenemopet did not carry any of these titles is because his cousin Sennefer did. This seems to indicate that along with the change in the person of the vizier came a change in his influence, and quite likely his duties as well. Perhaps Amenhotep II was attempting to dilute the power that the vizier had in an effort to prevent the position from again becoming a hereditary right.

1135

It is possible that this scene was placed on the south side of the rear wall of the transverse-hall, a location that parallels the installation text of Rekhmire. There are traces here of text columns and a kiosk. When the conservation being undertaken by Tefnin is complete, perhaps some of this will come to light. 1136 Rekhmire is shown returning from acclaimg Amenhotep II after his accession at the south end of the east wall of the passage, PM(17). Davies noted that the inscription in fact overlays an earlier one, indicating that this text was a later addition, made after the tomb was already completed; cf. Davies, Rekh-mi-re I, pp.63-6, 68-9 and Rekh-mi-re II, pl.lxviii-lxxii. 1137 Amenemopet’s titles of priest of Maat and opener of truth are certainly vizier-related, while that of smpriest is essentially non-funcitonal. 1138 Eichler does not include him in her catalog; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”.

252

Amenemopet, like his father, married an Xkrt nswt, a woman called Weret.1139 However, she was also bore the following titles and epithets: chantress of Amun; praised (?) of Hathor, mistress of Denderah; foremost (?) in the house of the queen; excellent of speech, who does all that which Horus says.1140 Clearly she too was part of the elite, but whether from her husband’s position as vizier, or through her own birthright, is uncertain. She was represented with her husband four times in his tomb, as well as in the tomb of Sennefer where her Xkrt nswt title and name are given after those of Amenemopet’s parents.1141 Based on the exclusion of her parents from apparently all the scenes in Amenemopet’s tomb, including the one that depicts Amenemopet’s own parents, as well as his cousin Sennefer with his wife, I would suggest that her secondary titles at least were granted due to the status of her husband and his family. Amenemopet’s son Paser was a lector-priest of Amun, and may have gained entry into the Amun temple through his paternal uncle Sennefer, who held several upper-level administrative titles connected to the Amun domain.1142 Ahmose-Humay’s nephew Sennefer is in some ways a more obvious benefactor of his uncle’s status. Sennefer’s own parents were Ahmose-Humay’s sister Henutiry, also

1139

Ahmose-Humay’s wife was the Xkrt nswt Nebu. This title is only preserved in TT96 of Sennefer, at PM(22). In TT29 of her son one inscription is damaged, PM(4), and in the other [PM(8)] this title is not given. However, Nebu’s inscriptions are all damaged in TT224 of her husband [PM(5)-(6)] and thus it is possible that she bore this title there as well. 1140 PM(1) = Hmt.f //// t mn /// Wr mAat-xrw. She appears at PM(2), contra P&M, = sn.f //w nb n irt.f (?) //// Xkrt nswt nbt pr Wrt mAat-xrw. PM(6) = Hmt.f mrt.f //[n st ib.f]// /// !wt-Hr nbt //[Iwn]// t //[Hswt / Xntwt (?)]// m pr Hmt-nswt Smayt //[nt Imn ?]// /// t pr ikrt mdw irwt Ddwt Hr nb Wrt mAat-Xrw. PM(8) = Hmt.f Smayt n //[Imn ?]// Xkrt nswt nb pr Wrt mAat-xrw. 1141 See also the family tree on p.245. In TT29 Weret accompanies her husband on the south thickness of the tomb’s entrance [PM(1)], in the brazier offering scene [PM(2)], and in the offering banquet scene in the passage [PM(8)]. At PM(6) She is either depicted alone or as a continuation of the scene with her husband at PM(5). In TT96 upper, PM(12), Sennefer offers to Amenemopet and Weret. 1142 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” no.502.

253

called Tiiry, and her husband Nu. 1143 Nu was a second priest of Hor-wer (Horus), lord of Gesy (Qus), in Middle Egypt. Sennefer may have started out following in his father’s footsteps, and even risen beyond him, based on his title of overseer of priests of Horus, lord of Qus.1144 However, at some point he seems to have come to Thebes and subsequently been “adopted” by his uncle Ahmose-Humay. Although it was not among his more common titles, Sennefer was an overseer of priests of Ahmose-Nefertary and overseer of priests of the god’s wife.1145 In addition, he held several other titles related to funerary temples of previous kings.1146 This suggests that Ahmose-Humay used his influence to introduce Sennefer into this area of religious administration in the manner of familial nepotism discussed in the previous section.1147

1143 The relationship between these individuals was demonstrated at the beginning of this section, pp.23945 above. It is now appropriate to present Laboury’s position, as of 2001, on the family structure of Sennefer and his descendants. In the two tombs of Sennefer, TT96 upper and lower, several different women are presented. There is as yet no consensus on who they all are, or how they all relate to Sennefer; cf. Whale, Family, pp.144-51. The four women who could possibly be Sennefer’s wives are Senetnay, Senetnefer, Senetmay and Meryt. The first three women all appear in the upper tomb, TT96A, and are called variously “his wife” and “his sister.” Laboury views Senetnay and Senetmay as variants of each other, probably due to scribal errors in the orthography of A and m. In the current work she is referred to as Senetnay. He also makes Senetnay and Senetnefer the same woman, believing the latter to be an alias, since they share the same royal nurse titles. Meryt is the dominant figure in the lower tomb, TT96B, and Laboury has suggested that she might in fact be an actual sister of Sennefer since she is only called “his sister” and is a chantress of Amun (Sennefer was the steward of Amun as well as mayor of Thebes). There are also issues concerning the identification of Sennefer’s children. Laboury views Sennefer and Senetnay/Senetnefer as having three daughters, the “foster-sister” Mutnofret, Nofretiry and Muttuy. Mutnofret is only attested in TT29 and on a dyad statue of Sennefer and Senetnay/nefer in Cario (CG 42126), while Nofretiry is on the dyad as well as in TT96 with the epithet mAat-xrw, indicating that she is deceased. Muttuy is only known from the lower portion of TT96 (TT96B). It is the current author’s belief that Mutnofret and Muttuy are likely the same women, and that Mutnofret is an alias for Muttuy, following after the pattern of her mother Senetnay/Senetnefer. 1144 This title appears in TT96 at PM(7) = imy-r Hmw nTr !r-wr; PM(14) = imy-r Hmw nTr !r ////; ceiling inscription along the center axis band in the transverse-hall (upper tomb) = imy-r Hmw nTr !r-wr nb Gsy; and possibly on the center passage ceiling band = imy-r Hmw nTr ////. 1145 Pillar Ab (south face): imy-r Hmw-nTr (aHms-Nfrt-iry)\; Pillar Da (east face): imy-r Hmw-nTr n Hmt-nTr. 1146 Pillar Ab (south face): imy-r pr n [Imn] imy-r pr n (+sr-kA-ra)\; Transverse-hall, center, ceiling inscriptions (south band): imy-r pr n (+sr-kA-ra)\ sSm Hb n (aA-xpr-kA-ra)\; Hm-nTr tpy n Imn m Mn-swt ; xrp nfrwt nt Imn m +sr-Dsrw. 1147 It is possible that in fact Sennefer came to Thebes due to his family’s position as opriests in Middle Egypt. The Restoration stela of Tutankhamun describes the appointment of the sons of local magnates to the priesthood in Karnak; cf. Bennet, JEA 25, pp.8-15; Sauneron, Priests p.58.

254

As is the case for his cousin Amenemopet, there is no indication that Sennefer was involved in any military campaigns. Sennefer’s main two positions concerned the Theban mayoralty and the administration of the Amun precinct in Thebes.1148 It thus appears that instead of placing upper-level control over the estate and workshops of the Amun precinct in the hands of the vizier, with lower-level positions granted nepotistically to their relatives (as with User and Rekhmire), Amenhotep II gave these titles, and any duties attached to them, to Amenemopet’s cousin Sennefer. Undoubtedly it was AhmoseHumay’s “adoption” of Sennefer that led to his position as mayor of Thebes and administrative controller of the Amun precinct. Sennefer probably wielded more actual control than Amenemopet would have in these positions. Of the approximately thirteen different Amun-related titles that Sennefer bore, only two were also held by the contemporary high priest of Amun, Mery, two by the chief steward Qenamun, and one by the overseer of works Minmose.1149 Sennefer’s wife in his upper tomb was the “chief royal nurse” and “nurturer of the body of the god” Senetnay/Senetnefer.1150 Like several other nurses of this time period, namely Baky, Mery and Neith, Senetnay/nefer also seems to have been a wet-nurse.1151

1148

Almost all of his titles concern these two areas, and it seems significant that the titles awarded him in TT29 of Amenemopet were those of overseer of the granaries of Amun and Mayor of the Southern City. 1149 According to Laboury (pers. comm.), all four men bore the title of overseer of the iHw-cattle of Amun, Mery was also an overseer o the #hwt-fields of Amun, and Qenamun was also an overseer of the nfrwtcattle of Amun. 1150 See note 1143 above. The two names appear to be used interchangeably, occurring an almost equal amount of times, with both being designated as “his wife” (Hmt.f) and “his sister” (snt.f). These titles appear in three different formats throughout Sennefer’s upper tomb: mnat (n) nswt (PM(9), (15), (19), (22), Pillar Ab, Ac); mnat nswt Sdt nTr Haw (PM(1), restored); mnat wrt Sdt nTr Haw [PM(2), (14)]; damaged at PM(7), Pillar Cc. Senetnay is also depicted with her husband in TT29 of Amenemopet: PM(8) = Hmt.f nswt mnat //[Sdt]// nTr %nt-ny mAa-xrw. 1151 In a previously unrecorded scene and inscription inTT96upper, located on the south wall of the passage between PM(11) and (12), Sennefer is described as “sitting in the hall of pleasure with his brother … the overseer of the city and vizier Amenemopet”. Senetnay kneels below his chair and is referred to as snt.f nb pr mrt.f st ib.f Hsyt nTr nfr Xnm.n !r //[Snbt.s]// //// “his wife, mistress of the house, his beloved of the place of his heart, praised of the good god, Horus having united [of her breast] …”.

255

The king for whom Senetnay/nefer was a nurse is never named, but Roehrig lists her as a nurse to Amenhotep II, further stating that “It is impossible to say what influence Senetnay/nefer’s position as nurse had on her husband’s career.”1152 However, since Sennefer’s upper tomb belongs stylistically to the early years of Amenhotep II’s reign, and the lower dates to the mid-late portion of Amenhotep II’s reign, it seems probable that Senetnay/nefer was indeed a nurse to the young Amenhotep II. Senetnay/nefer’s parents are depicted once, and possibly twice, in the tomb of Sennefer, but the inscription is damaged beyond revealing more than the name of the mother, By.1153 They seem to have been held in high esteem by Sennefer, who places them before his own parents as recipients of offerings in banquet scenes. Although it is certainly possible that Senetnay/nefer’s position may have contributed to Sennefer’s rise, it seems more likely that Sennefer was able to marry a woman of elite status due to his own position as the nephew of the tutor Ahmose-Humay and mayor of Thebes. Throughout the upper tomb, Senetnay/nefer plays a prominent role and consistently bears her nurse titles. In the lower tomb however, she is only called Senetnefer and is depicted just twice in the outer room, once as the royal nurse and once as a chantress of Amun.1154 This is also the only time Senetnay/nefer bears the chantress

1152

Roehrig, Royal urse, p.153. Following Roehrig’s logic, the fact that the only king named or represented in the tomb is Amenhotep should indicate that this was the king that Senetnay nursed. 1153 In the lower register of PM(2), Senetnay’s parents may be the ones seated before those of Sennefer’s. This composition is suggested by a lower scene at PM(8) which depicts an unknown man offering to “… her beloved, mistress of the house, By, lady of reverence” followed by Sennefer offering to his parents. In the register below this two additional but unidentified couples are depicted, perhaps those of Aemenmopet and Weret and Ahmose-Humay and Nebu? 1154 PM(29) = snt.f mr.f nbt pr Smayt n Imn %nt-nfr mAat-xrw; PM(30) = nbt pr mnat nswt %n-nfr mAat-xrw. She also appears on the thicknesses of the entrance between the puter chamber and inner [pillared room, but these are limestone and sandstone blocks removed from the original entrance to the upper tomb and reused here; on each she is awarded the title of royal nurse.

256

title, which is unusual given its prevalence among nurses of this time period.1155 However, in the second room of the lower tomb the chantress of Amun Meryt takes precedence and is shown with Sennefer in nearly every scene. She is consistently called “his sister” (snt.f) and thus could have been a second wife of Sennefer’s, a sister, or sister-in-law.1156 The near exclusion of Senetnay/nefer from the lower chamber may indicate that she had already died and was included as a memorialization, or perhaps that she did not require the services of the lower tomb for her funerary cult since she was honored by being buried in the Valley of the Kings with Sennefer. The high status with which Amenhotep II regarded both Amenemopet and Sennefer is especially evident in their each being granted a tomb in the Valley of the Kings. Shwabtis bearing the name and titles of Amenemopet were found in KV48, while fragments of funerary equipment made for Sennefer and Senetnay were discovered in KV42.1157 There is still some question as to whether KV42 was the tomb originally meant for Senetnay and Sennefer, or whether it was a location used as a cache for some of their objects and mummies.1158 From foundation deposits placed on the entrance we know that the tomb, which bears architectural resemblance to that of Thutmosis III (KV34), was originally intended as the burial place for Hatshepsut-Meryetre, the great royal wife of Thutmosis III and mother of Amenhotep II.1159 It is possible that Amenhotep II decided to honor primarily his nurse Senetnay and also her husband Sennefer by granting them a tomb near his, and this is partly the reason for Senetnay’s near absence from TT96 lower.

1155

E.g., Baky, Hunay and Neith are all chantresses of Amun; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.321. See note 1143 above. 1157 There were also objects made for the Xkrt nswt Baketre. 1158 Roehrig suggested that the nearby tombs KV26 and KV37 were perhaps those originally used by Senetnay and Baketre; cf. Roehrig, in: Sun Kings, pp.82-107; Roehrig, JARCE 29, pp.208-9. 1159 For an unknown reason she was instead apparently interred with Amenhotep II in his tomb, KV35. 1156

257

If this is the case, then it seems at least possible that Amenhotep II presented Senetnay with the tomb originally designed for his mother as a way of honoring Senetnay’s role as his wet-nurse. Whether Sennefer benefited from his wife’s position as a nurse or not may be uncertain, but their daughter Nofretiry was a Xkrt nswt,1160 while a second daughter, Mutnofret, was granted the title of “foster-sister of the lord of the Two Lands.”1161 This indicates that the prince she was raised with certainly became king, in this case Amenhotep II. Mutnofret should also probably be identified with the daughter Muttuy who appears in TT96 lower as the chantress of Amun-Ra.1162 This is the almost certainly the same Muttuy who was the wife of the mayor of Thebes and overseer of the granaries of Amun Qenamun, owner of TT162.1163 It would appear that Sennefer was able to retain control over his position as mayor of Thebes and pass it on to the husband of his daughter, since he did not have any sons. Amenemopet and Sennefer were two of the more prominent men during the reign of Amenhotep II as the vizier and mayor of Thebes, respectively. Yet neither one reports any titles that would indicate how they achieved these positions. The common element is Ahmose-Humay, and more specifically his connection to the palace as an overseer of the ipt-nswt and tutor. The influence these positions created was directly beneficial for both Amenemopet and Sennefer. In addition, it would also appear that Ahmose-Humay used his influence within the estate of the god’s wife to bring Sennefer into this domain, 1160

She was depicted at least three times in TT96 upper, as well as on the Cairo statue (CG 42126) Mutnofret bears this title in TT29, PM(8): sAt.f snt mna n nb tAwy mrt it.s Mwt[-nfrt] maAt-xrw. On the dyad statue of Sennefer and Senetnay in the Cairo Museum (CG 42126), she is only called a chantress of Amun. 1162 The difference in orthography parallels that seen for her mother Senetnay/Senetnefer. See above note 1143. 1163 Murnane, in: Amenhotep III, p.194 1161

258

perhaps shortly after the death of Sennefer’s parents, and “adoption” by Ahmose-Humay. While Sennefer may have continued on in the priesthood administration and still be known through his monuments today, there is no indication that Amenemopet, without the help of his father, would have achieved a significant level of visibility in the administration.

Hunay and her son Mery (A royal nurse and her son the high priest of Amun1164) The high priest of Amun Mery, who succeeded Amenemhat during the reign of Amenhotep II, achieved this position through very different means from his predecessor. Despite a father who was himself an upper-ranking priest, Mery appears to owe his rise to his mother’s role as a royal nurse. An examination of his monuments also demonstrates that there is a great deal of parallelism between Mery and Menkheperresoneb (i), discussed above. Mery is known to us from several sources. He was the owner of TT95 in Thebes,1165 several funerary cones,1166 and is mentioned in the tomb of his steward Djhuty, TT45.1167 In addition, Mery usurped TT84 of Iamunedjeh, perhaps due to structural issues with the rock in TT95. 1168 Mery’s own tomb is unpublished, though currently it is being studied and prepared for publication by Andrea Gnirs in conjunction

1164

Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” no.268. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.358-60, type VIII. 1166 There are two funerary cones attributable to Mery, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 390 and 400, and he is also mentioned on the funerary cone of his steward Djhuty, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.402. 1167 Djhuty’s tomb is published by Davies, Seven Private Tombs. Gnirs discounts Mery’s ownership of the graffito in Wadi Shatt er-Rigale which only bears the title of overseer of the treasury, Gnirs, MDAIK 53, p.60, n.15. 1168 This is the reason given by Gnirs as the most likely for Mery’s usurpation of TT84 of Iamunedjeh; Gnirs, MDAIK 53, p.60, with n.22. Iamunedjeh is discussed in Chapter 3. 1165

259

with tombs 84 and 88.1169 Thus, some of the information presented here is previously unknown, and some of it will no doubt be corrected by the work of Gnirs and her team.1170 Tomb 95 is amongst the largest of the Theban necropolis, being composed of a large 12-pillared and 4-pilastered front hall and 4-pillared rear chamber. Although it was largely unfinished, the shafts were used by Mery,1171 supporting Gnirs contention that he usurped Iamunedjeh’s tomb to provide himself and his mother Hunay with the funerary and cultic areas that are reserved for the rear of the tomb. The tomb was further damaged by Coptic re-use. Despite the lack of decorated surfaces, both banquet and duty-related scenes are present on the finished walls and pillars.1172 Not only was Mery the high priest of Amun, but he was also the steward of Amun and the overseer of several aspects of the Amun temple’s domain, including the fields, cattle, and granaries.1173 In addition, he reported the titles of overseer of priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, god’s father of the double throne, overseer of both the gold and silver treasuries, and the chief and overseer of Upper Egypt.1174 By contrast, his father Nebpehtetre was simply the high priest of Min of Coptos,1175 a position that although high in its own regard, would have wielded much less authority than Mery. Mery’s 1169

Preliminary reports on Gnirs’ work in TT95 and discussions of the tomb’s significance as well as its relationship to TT 84 can be found in Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp. 57-83 and Gnirs, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp. 233-253. Other articles that discuss TT95 and its owner Mery are Polz, MDAIK 46, pp.301-336; Polz, MDAIK 47, pp. 281-291. 1170 I would like to thank the SCA for allowing me to visit the tomb for a few days in 2002. I would also particularly like to express my thanks to Ramadan Ahmed Ali and Abdel Rahman, two inspectors who were especially helpful and watchful while I was in the tomb. 1171 Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.61ff. 1172 The front (east) wall carries offering scenes on the south side [PM(1)], and the presentation of braziers as well as two inspection scenes on the north side [PM(3)-(5)]; the north side of the rear (west) wall bears the sketch of what would have been a “Königsszene”, i.e. the deceased standing before the king in a kiosk. 1173 Mery is included in Eichler’s catalog; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung das “Hauses des Amun”, no.268. 1174 These titles are found in his tomb inscriptions and on his funerary cones 1175 Gnirs, MDAIK 53, p.66 calls him Nebpehtira, but the name is clearly written with only one lion-head and two bread loves, as opposed to two lion-heads or lion-head, bread loaf, double-stroke.

260

mother Hunay however, was the chief nurse of the Lord of the Two Lands – most likely the young Amenhotep II, as suggested by her additional title of Sdt nTr.1176 Throughout his tomb, Mery carries only the highest titles that he possessed, along with the usual repertoire of epithets. Thus unlike Amenemhat of TT97, there is no evidence for Mery having been a lower level priest prior to his rise to high priest.1177 Nor did he bear the priestly title of his father. Roehrig in fact pointed out that “Mery does not seem to have moved through the ranks of the Amun priesthood to attain his high position, and it is possible that his mother’s close relationship to the king was instrumental in his promotion to the high priesthood”.1178 This is supported by the prominence of Hunay throughout Mery’s tomb, in which she is depicted and identified by inscription at least three times.1179 It is possible that she was also in a fourth scene depicting Mery and a woman receiving offerings, and was the woman accompanying Mery on the east face of the two central pillars.1180 Hunay’s name and titles appear along with those of Nebpehtetre’s (Mery’s father) on the northeast architrave where Mery presents his lineage.1181 The important role that Hunay played for Mery is also suggested by her 1176 This title does in fact appear in TT95 on the east face of the northern architrave (Pillars A-C), with a slight variant in PM(3), and (restored) in the scene adjacent to the south side of the tomb’s entrance (no PM number), contra Roehrig, Royal  urse, p.142. 1177 Gnirs agrees with this, noting that this Mery cannot be the same as the wab-priest of Amun Mery from the Marseille stele and TT56 of Userhat due to the variations in the orthography of their names, the different names of their wives, and the fact that they do not share any titles. Gnirs, MDAIK 53, p.60. 1178 Roehrig, Royal  urse, p.142. 1179 See Gnirs’ discussion, MDAIK 53, pp.66 ff. Hunay accompanies Mery on either side of the entrance in the brazier offerings (PM (3) and without number) and in the offering scene at the south end of the southeast wall [PM(1)]. Although Gnirs (p.64 and n.38) places Hunay in the southern brazier scene, she does so for reasons of symmetry as opposed to inscriptional evidence which is unnecessary. There is a column of text behind the legs of Mery in which there are traces of the Sdt nTr Haw title, making it clear that Hunay followed Mery here as on the northern side. 1180 If Hunay is the woman seated with Mery in PM(7), then perhaps one of the two women standing behind is his wife. However, it seems more likely that this scene should depict Mery and his wife seated with two daughters standing behind them. The pillars are PM Aa and Ga and any inscriptions that might have accompanied the women are lost. 1181 Hm-nTr tpy //// //// maA-xrw ir n Hm-nTr tpy Min //[Nb-]-PHtt-[Ra]// maA-xrw ms n nswt mnat Sdt nTr Haw !wny. This is also given in the first column of inscription at PM(6), where Nebpehtetre’s name is more

261

presence in TT84, which Mery usurped from Iamunedjeh and his wife Henutnofret. The inscriptions in which Mery replaced the original owner’s name and titles with his own also have Hunay’s name and titles inserted.1182 From the three complete inscriptions in TT95 we learn the full repertoire of Hunay’s titles. She was the great nurse of the Lord of the Two Lands,1183 royal nurse and nurturer of the body of the god,1184 and “… great nurse, one who nurtures the god, Horus having united of her breast, chantress of ….”1185 This last inscription is perhaps the most important because it adds three new titles to Hunay’s list, and demonstrates the connection between Hunay and two other nurses Baky and Neith.1186 All of these women shared essentially the same titles, and listed them in almost identical order.1187 Baky’s husband Mahu served from Thutmosis III into early Amenhotep II and Baky was a nurse to Amenhotep II.1188 Neith’s husband Pehsukher was roughly contemporary with Amenhotep II and was likely the nurse of Thutmosis IV.1189 Since Mery was high priest only during the reign of Amenhotep II, it seems likely that Hunay’s tenure as nurse to Amenhotep II probably followed that of Baky’s.

complete, though Hunay’s name and titles are lost: //// //[Mr]y maA-xrw ir n Hm-nTr tpy n Min Gbtiyw Nb(p)Htt-ra maA-xrw (m)s //// //// ////[!w]-ny 1182 In several places in TT84 Hunay’s name is inserted into inscriptions that give the name of Iamunedjeh’s wife, and the filiation changed from snt.f to mwt.f. In two of these texts her title of “nurse who nurtures the body of the god” are also added. At PM(7) the last four cols were changed to Hm-nTr tpy n [Imn] Mry maAt-xrw ms n mnat Sd nTr [Haw (?)] !wniA ////. In the lower register at the north end of PM(14) the last two columns were changed from “Henut-nofret, justified”, to “one who nurtures the god, Hunay”. 1183 PM(1): mnat wrt n nb tAwy !wnAy maA-xrw xr Wsir 1184 Northern architrave, east face: mnat nswt Sdt nTr Haw !wny 1185 PM(3): //// mnat wrt Sd nTr Xnm !r Snbt.s Smayt //// //[!wn]y maA-xrw ////. 1186 For Neith, wife of Pehsukher, who was probably a nurse to Thutmosis IV rather than Amenhotep II, see below, pp. 274-5 and pp.304ff. 1187 Compare Urk. IV, 913 and 1460. 1188 Mahu and Baky are discussed in Chapter 3, pp.304ff. 1189 Pehsukher and Neith are discussed below,. See also the discussion of Pehsukher with regard to Qenamun on pp.274-5.

262

Although his mother was a mnat nswt, Mery does not bear the title of fosterbrother, suggesting that he was perhaps older or much younger than Amenhotep II when Hunay became the prince’s nurse. However, one inscription in TT95 does suggest that Mery might have grown up in the court. In the text accompanying the offering of braziers on the north side of the entrance, a change was made by the scribe. Here Mery’s final listing of titles reads “iry-pat HAty-a, companion great of love, favorite of the king, high priest of [Amun], his beloved, Mery, justified”. Underneath the title nswt mH-ib is the title Xrd n kAp “child of the court.”1190 It appears that the sedge plant and n of nswt were used for the subsequent title, but the kAp-sign is left hanging at the top of column five. Why this inscription was changed is unclear, but its presence, even if only in the planning stages, makes Mery one of few officials connected with the priesthood who were called Xrd n kAp.1191 As for the rest of Mery’s family, very little information is known. Only one other woman appears with certainty in TT95 – on the rear (west) face of pillar A in the hall – where the woman accompanies Mery and is called snt.f nbt pr My.1192 She has traditionally been identified as the Mery’s wife, and this seems to be confirmed by the presence of canopic jar fragments found in one of the burial shafts. On the fragment she

1190

On this title see most recently, Feucht, Das Kind, esp. pp.266-304; Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.38-

47. 1191

According to Feucht’s list, Das Kind, pp.272-92, the only others who had priestly positions as their highest post were Ptahemhat of TT77 (Thutmosis IV); Nebseni, Amenhotep and Nendjuref (18th Dynasty). Ahmose of TT 241 (Thutmosis III) was a Xrd n kAp of Thutmosis III’s daughter Meritmaun, suggesting that he was a tutor or adminsitrtor for her. See above for a discussion of Ahmose and his son Ra. 1192 PM Ac. It is of course possible that My was in fact a sister of Mery, and Mery was unmarried, especially since it is his mother that clearly accompanies him in scenes otherwise reserved for a wife, i.e. both brazier offering representations. However, it is also possible that Mery married late in life, and thus his wife only appears on the pillars, and possibly in the offering scene at PM(7) where the inscription does not preserve the names of the seated individuals.

263

is also given the title of “chantress of Amun.”1193 Whether Mery and My had children is not known, as none of their names are preserved in the tomb. Besides his parents, the only other family members mentioned in TT95 are two brothers, though since neither name is preserved, they may be the same man. In each of the scenes where Mery is depicted performing some of the duties required by a high priest of Amun he is assisted by a man called sn.f.1194 The one inscription that records his titles labels him as “his brother, chief in Karnak … master of secrets (of) Amun …”.1195 This may in fact be a case where Mery, by virtue of his position as high priest, was able to bring his brother into a subordinate position. Mery’s title of “master of secrets in Karnak”, which appears three times in the tomb, lends support to this.1196 From the picture presented in his tomb, there is no indication that Mery was ever anything but a high priest of Amun, despite the fact that his father was a high priest of Min in Coptos. Mery’s lack of any titles except those belonging to a high priest of Amun combined with his mother Hunay’s status as a nurse of Amenhotep II suggests that his position was a direct result of Hunay’s influence over the young king. Once Mery was established, he began to use his influence as high priest of Amun to further the career of his brother at Karnak.

1193

Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.67-8, fig.2. These are scenes PM(4) and PM(5) where Mery inspects the recording of cattle, donkeys, and other animals and the workshops of the Amun temple. 1195 PM(5): sn.f r-Hry m Ipt-swt //// Hry-sStA (n) Imn //// 1196 Hry-sStA m Ipt-swt. The title appears on the east face of pillar F (PM Fa), on the northern band of the ceiling inscriptions located on the east half of the central axis, and is a likely restoration in PM(7). 1194

264

Amenemipet and her son Qenamun (A royal nurse and her son the steward of the king and steward of Perunefer) The chief steward of the king and chief steward of Perunefer Qenamun was probably one of Amenhotep II’s most trusted men. His enormous tomb in Thebes, TT93, although unfinished, stands as a testimony to the status Qenamun held vis-à-vis the king due to both its size and the quality of the painting where it is finished.1197 There are two main topics that must be treated in order to fully appreciate the way in which Qenamun obtained his positions and his status. The first is genealogical. Qenamun was the son of a chief royal nurse who was recognized and favored by Amenhotep II. She seems to have played a large role in her sons’s standing within the court. The identification of Qenamun’s father and his possible role in Qenamun’s career is less certain. Also important is determining the name of Qenamun’s mother and the relationships between Qenamun and some of the individuals portrayed in his tomb. Once the genealogical and relationship issues are discussed, Qenamun’s career will be examined. His possible participation in the military campaigns is especially germane to this discussion. Also significant for this discussion is the status of Qenamun’s mother and her personal relationship to Amenhotep II when he was a youth. Piecing together the members of Qenamun’s family is somewhat problematic as all of our information comes from his unfinished and badly damaged tomb in Thebes (TT93).1198 The names of both of his parents are lost, and although the titles of his mother survive, that of his father is incomplete. Previous scholars have suggested that Qenamun 1197

TT 93 is published by Davies, Ken-Amun. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.352-6, type VIIb. Fortunately, the tomb was published by Davies in 1930 (Puyemre). I was able to visit the tomb in 2002 and coallate Davies’ publication with the scenes and inscriptions. Although generally correct, Davies did make a few mistakes, and incompletely copied a few scenes and inscriptions. Some of these “new” inscriptions, which I copied, are quite relevant to the discussion at hand. See also Urk. IV, 1385-1408 for inscriptions from his tomb and some of his other monuments. 1198

265

might have followed in his father’s footsteps as a steward, based on the latter’s title as an imy-r pr ….1199 According to Davies’ publication, the only preserved inscription in which the father would have been named is in a ceiling text on the southwest side of the transverse-hall. Here, following Qenamun’s name, is the phrase “born of the steward …”. Likewise the only scene, according to Davies, in which his depiction might be preserved is in an unfinished offering scene on the southwest wall of the rear chamber.1200 However, this is not the case. Davies incompletely copied the scene located on the southern corner of the west wall of the hall.1201 On Davies plate 25 are placed a number of fragmentary inscriptions, one of which (G) belongs to the very southern end of this scene.1202 Davies apparently did not copy (or did not publish) the inscription above the figures at the northern end of the scene (Fig.28, p.484),1203 which is as follows: ////// unknown number of columns lost (1+x) ///// (2+x) m //// (3+) imy-r pr wr n nswt (4+) TAy Xw n nb tAwy (5+) ///// (6+) it.f imy-r pr // mn (?) //// (7+) ///// (8+) ///// (9+) ///// (10+) mAat-xrw xr nTr nfr “…… chief steward of the king, fan-bearer of the lord of the Two Lands …… his father, steward [of Amun ?] …… justified before the good god”.

1199

Helck, Verwaltung, p.366; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.159. PM(23). Davies, Ken-Amun, p.48. Whale, Family, p.155 identifies these figures as Qenamun with his wife and father. This may be the case, but it is unclear to me why the father would be embracing his son’s wife, as he does indeed appear to do when viewing the wall first-hand. Nothing in Whale’s analysis of the representations of family during this time period suggest that this was ever done (Whale, Family, pp.240 ff.). Could it perhaps be the case that the first two figures are those of the parents, followed by Qenamun, and that the two sons doing the offering are sons of the father, thus Qenamun’s brothers, rather than Qenamun’s sons? Or Qenamun followed by his parents? Whale discounts these because they are not the normal method of representing a tomb owner and his parents (Family, p.38 n.29, 259ff.), but given the status in which Qenamun (and the king) held his mother it seems quite possible. 1201 This is PM(7). 1202 Davies mentions this scene and translates the inscription he reproduced on plate xxv. He identifies the figures seated at the north end as “Ken-Amun and his mother (?)”, apparently not remembering the inscription accurately; cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, p.44. This is repeated by Whale (Family, p.156), who states that Davies did not have “any supporting evidence” to suggest that the seated figures were Qenamun and his mother. Clearly he did, though he neglected to reproduce the text. 1203 It can be found in Urk. IV, 1406,18-19, though here too it is incomplete. 1200

266

The first figure, that of Qenamun, is completely lost but those of his parents are preserved in outline, their bodies and faces being completely hacked out. Both the traces of the mn-sign and the pattern of hacking at the end of column (6+) suggest that the father’s title might be restored as “steward of Amun”.1204 If this is correct, then Qenamun did not inherit one of his father’s titles, for despite the abundance of Amun-related titles he bore, steward is not among them.1205 The next three columns are so damaged that it is impossible to say for certain what the names of Qenamun’s parents were. While they may have contained the theophoric Amun element, the destruction is so precise and thorough that it seems to be more than the usual Atenist destruction. This suggests, as does the systematic defacement of Qenamun’s figure throughout the tomb, that the damage was done intentionally for more personal reasons. The fact that Qenamun’s father was clearly a steward of something, if not of Amun, and his lack of the title of scribe mean that it is unlikely that Qenamun’s father was the deputy Nebiry as suggested by Van Siclen.1206 Davies’ restored the name of Qenamun’s mother as Amenemipet, and this has almost consistently been accepted.1207 In the famous nursing scene where she is depicted holding the boy-sized king Amenhotep II on her lap, Qenamun’s mother is referred to as the “chief royal nurse, who nurtured the god, …m…t, justified before the great god”

1204

If Qenamun’s father was a steward of Amun, then he would have been a rather high-ranking priestly official, and one previously unknown to us. 1205 Lists of his titels are given in Urk. IV, 1385-1408; Davies, Ken-Amun, pp.11-16; Helck, Verwaltung, pp.479-80; Wild, BIFAO 56, pp. 233-7, pl. I; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.114-5; Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no.514. 1206 Van Siclen, BES 7;Van Siclen, Serapis 5. Van Siclen mentions that Qenamun’s father held the two positions of steward and scribe, but does not cite the references; cf. Serapis 5, p. 19 and BES 7, p.90. To my knowledge, Helck, Verwaltung, p.480 is the only place where the title of scribe is attributed to Qenamun’s father. Having scoured both the published literature and the tomb itself, I am certain that Qenamun’s father never held this title. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.131 also thought that Nebiry was an unlikely candidate for Qenamun’s father. 1207 The notable exception is Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.111-121, especially pp.114f, 117f., 121.

267

(Fig.29, p.485).1208 The traces of the Sdt nTr title are certain, as is the identification of the bird as an ‘m’ from the color palette and the edge of its head which is barely visible in the damage. Although small, the space between the title and the bottom of the name is enough for Imn to fit, and the tip of what looks to be a blue sign just under the nTr-sign lends support to this. Of the ipt-sign, there is perhaps a small blue corner just above the ‘t’. The name would be written in slightly smaller glyphs than the rest of the inscription, but as it was presumably the title that was the most important part, this does not seem to be an obstacle to the reconstruction. The problem arises from the one other inscription that preserves her title and traces of her name, at the beginning of which are visible elements of ‘Imn’, but following which there is certainly not an m-bird. However, there is the tip of a red sign which could very well be the horizontal ‘m’, and in the remainder of the damaged area ‘ipt’ could easily fit. There would not be space for the mAa-xrw phrase, but as it does not appear after Qenamun’s (restored) name in the adjacent column, this does not pose a significant problem.1209 Thus it appears that Davies was likely correct to restore the name of Qenamun’s mother as Amenemipet.1210 Three men depicted in Qenamun’s tomb have also been identified, and generally accepted, as family members.1211 Two of them appear as offering bearers following Qenamun and his wife on the east wall just south of the entrance.1212 Neither man is designated by a filial relationship to Qenamun. The first is the third priest (of Amun), Kaemheribsen and the second is the mayor of Thinis and overseer of the priests of 1208

PM(16), Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.ix. mnat wrt [Sdt] nTr /// M // t mAat-xrw xr nTr aA Her title can be found in yet another two inscriptions, though the name is completely lost: PM(20) and the west face of Pillar A (Ac). In both she is identified in relationship to Qenamun as ms n mnat wrt Sdt nTr. 1210 Contra Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.114f, 117f., 121. 1211 Davies, Ken-Amun, p.39 and Whale, Family, pp.157-8. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.130-5, questions these relationships. 1212 PM(2). 1209

268

Onuris, whose name is lost. Kaemheribsen was matched by Davies to the owner of TT98 who has the same name, was a third priest of Amun and the son of a royal nurse.1213 On this basis he was included as a brother of Qenamun. Roehrig argued against this, citing the difference in the titles of the two women as the main reason.1214 It does seem significant that in Kaemheribsen’s tomb, his mother, whose name was hacked out, is called the “chief nurse of the Lord of the Two Lands, praised of the good god …”,1215 while Qenamun’s mother did not hold either of these titles. Roehrig’s suggestion that Hunay, the mother of the high priest Mery (TT95) was also the mother of Kaemheribsen on the basis of a shared title, can also no longer be supported.1216 Kaemheribsen’s tomb, which is located adjacent to Qenamun’s courtyard and above the tomb of Mery (TT95), is damaged and almost completely unfinished. It may be possible that if Kaemheribsen were an older brother of Qenamun, their mother might have had different titles in the two tombs, especially if Amenhotep II had not yet succeeded to the throne or been named as heir at the time that Kaemheribsen’s tomb was being decorated.1217 If we accept Kaemheribsen as a brother of Qenamun, then it becomes possible that he entered into the Amun priesthood through the influence of his father who may have been a steward of Amun. If we consider him as a non-relative, it is nonetheless likely that Kaemheribsen’s status as a son of royal nurse and position in the Amun priesthood gave him the ability to place his tomb near that of the more prestigious 1213

Davies, Ken-Amun, p.39 with note 1. For the publication of TT98, see Fakhry, ASAE 34. The tomb has suffered greatly since the 1930’s, with the result that Fakhry’s photographs are the most complete record of the decoration of the front wall. I visited the tomb in 2002, at which time only the right third of Fakhry’s fig.2 [PM(1)] actually remained on the wall; three fragments on the floor of the tomb were reconstructable as the torso and partial inscription of the seated couple at the west end of the scene. 1214 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp, 119-120, 130-1, 135-7. 1215 PM(2) 1216 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.136-7, 142-3. Mery is discussed in this chapter pp.258ff. 1217 As an older brother Kaemheribsen would probably not have grown up with the young king and thus does not carry the “foster-brother of the king” title, which Qenamun has.

269

nurses’ sons Qenamun and Mery. It is interesting to note that of the other three tombs in the immediate vicinity two belong to the vizier under Amenhotep II, Amenemopet (TT29), and his cousin the mayor of Thebes Sennefer (TT96). Both of these men were related and/or married to royal nurses, and their tombs are placed just below and before those of Mery and Qenamun. The third tomb, which is slightly lower and adjacent to the Qenamun’s courtyard (on the opposite side from Kaemheribsen’s) belonged to the first royal herald and fan-bearer on the right of the king Ramose called Aamay (TT94). This appears then to be a small enclave of high and secondary officials of the reign of Amenhotep II all but one of whom was related to a royal nurse or tutor of Amenhotep II.1218 The nameless mayor of Thinis and overseer of priests of Onuris, whose name was hacked out in Qenamun’s tomb, was identified by Van Siclen as likely being the unknown owner of TT A19 and a funerary cone that was made for a man called Amenhotep who held the same titles.1219 Van Siclen’s arguments are quite persuasive and he is undoubtedly correct in his assessment of the identity of the figure. Amenhotep’s relationship to Qenamun is another matter. As demonstrated by Van Siclen, Amenhotep was the son of the deputy in the Thinite nome, the scribe, Nebiry and his wife Ry.1220 There is, however, nothing to substantiate the claim that Nebiry’s second wife was the same woman as Qenamun’s mother, making Amenhotep his half-brother.1221 Also, as

1218

Qenamun, Mery, and Kaemheribsen were all sons of royal nurses, Amenemopet was the son of a royal tutor, Sennefer was the nephew of the same tutor and a husband of a royal nurse. 1219 Van Siclen, Serapis 5, p.18; Van Siclen, BES 7, pp.89. The funerary cone is Davies and Macadam, Corpus, 482. 1220 Van Siclen, BES 7, pp.87-89. 1221 Van Siclen, BES 7, pp.89-90.

270

mentioned above, the titles of Nebiry and Qenamun’s father do not match, lending further weight to an argument against any kinship between Amenhotep and Qenamun. The scene in which both Kaemheribsen and Amenhotep appear depicts Qenamun and his wife offering braziers followed by two registers of men bearing bouquets; Kaemheribsen and Amenhotep are the men in the top register. This type of scene often includes additional persons, who can be relatives, colleagues, or attendants.1222 The text above Qenamun and his wife is somewhat damaged, but seems to record only Amunrelated titles for Qenamun. The remainder of the wall depicts Qenamun accompanying his statues to Karnak, “to the temples [of all the gods of] the south [and north]”, and to his tomb,1223 and ends in a scene of Qenamun adoring Osiris and the Western Goddess in a kiosk. Perhaps in this case the men fall somewhere in the middle – as colleagues of Qenamun.1224 Furthermore, although not family, they may well have been close friends of Qenamun. Kaemheribsen presumably grew up around the court as Qenamun did, while Amenhotep’s early connection to Thinis as a son of the deputy meant that he would have had contact with Amenhotep II when the prince visited or stayed in the area. This is especially likely given that the mayor Min, who Amenhotep’s father Nebiry served under, was a tutor to prince Amenhotep II.1225

1222

In the tomb of Min [TT109, PM(3)] an identified son follows him in this position, while in the tomb of Ptahemhat [TT77, PM(1)] a male relative may follow and in the tomb of May (TT130, PM(1)] daughters may follow. In TT72 of Ra [PM(5)] there may be a combination of brothers and colleagues accompanying Ra in an offering scene before Amenhotep II and his mother Queen Merytre. The presence of (usually) unnamed attendants is very common, cf. TT343, PM(6); TT94, PM(1); TT367, PM(1), (4); TT74, PM(2), (7); TT96, PM(1); TT58, PM(7); TT77, PM(5). 1223 Sms twt n imy-r kAw n //[Imn Qn-Imn]// r Hwt-nTr //[n Imn m]// I//[pt-swt]// r rw-prw //[n nTrw nbw n]// rsyt //[mHtt] m-Htp sp-sn r is.f n Xrt-nTr . Davies, Ken-Amun, pp.39 ff, pl.xxxviii. 1224 Similar to the presentation scene in TT72 in which Re is followed by an actual brother as well as by colleagues. 1225 Van Siclen, Serapis 5, p.20; Van Siclen, BES 7, p.89.

271

The third man appears with Qenamun standing before the king, who is seated on the lap of Qenamun’s mother, his nurse (Fig.30, p.486).1226 The man is identified by a small inscription placed near the bottom of the scene as the deputy of the king, Pehsukher. Based on the title and the strangeness of the name, as well as its orthography, this man has been matched to the owner of TT88 Pehsukher called Tjennu, whose tomb is not far from that of Qenamun’s.1227 Whale however questions the figure’s association with Pehsukher because the text is in fact a graffito, not unlike others placed along the lower portion of the same scene.1228 Roehrig stated that although “in more abbreviated hieroglyphs than the main text … the style of the writing is similar to secondary texts in other parts of the tomb and therefore seems to be contemporary (unlike several hieratic graffiti written elsewhere on the same scene).”1229 It is indeed the case that the graffito that mentions Pehsukher is both much larger and written in a glyphic script.1230 It is also placed adjacent to an otherwise unidentified man, while the other graffiti are inserted between the legs of the female musicians who follow Qenamun. It seems likely then to have been inscribed with the intention of identifying the first man accompanying Qenamun in this scene. Roehrig goes on to suggest that the composition of the scene itself supports an identification of Pehsukher as a relative. To support this, she draws parallels between this scene and two in Pahery’s tomb in which family members present offerings to a tutor and

1226 PM(16). This scene is extremely damaged, but the traces which Davies recorded that suggest the presence of two figures before the enthroned king and his nurse are still extant, as are the graffiti; cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.ix. 1227 Davies, Ken-Amun, p.20 with n.6. Pehsukher’s tomb is slightly east and further up the cliff from Qenamun’s. 1228 Whale, Family, p.158. 1229 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.134, 177. 1230 Two of the graffiti are hieratic, while the third is a much more “glyph-like” hieratic and belongs to the Ramesside vizier Paser Davies, Ken-Amun, p.22, pl.ix.

272

princes.1231 Both of these scenes however are part of the repertoire of offering scenes, and even though Pahery holds prince Wadjmose on his lap, they are not enclosed within a kiosk or overhang of any type. A more analogous depiction can be found in TT64 of the royal tutor Hekarneheh.1232 Here Hekarneheh is preceded by a prince and followed by six others, and offers a bouquet to the royal tutor Hekareshu seated with the small-sized king on his lap.1233 The relationship between Hekarehsu and Hekarneheh is unclear, though they may be father and son.1234 The presence of unrelated fan-bearers preceding and following the deceased in a presentation scene before an enthroned king is not unknown, nor is the inclusion of colleagues in this type of scene.1235 The inscription that accompanies Qenamun seems to support a collegial rather than kin relationship, as the epithets and titles at the beginning are military in nature and include fan-bearer on the right of the king.1236 Pehsukher was also a fan-bearer of the lord of the two lands, and it seems quite likely that these two men may have known each other while on military campaigns. This seems especially likely since they are in fact depicted holding fans before Amenhotep II. The one unusual part of Qenamun’s scene is that the kiosk extends over both Pehsukher and Qenamun, a fact which Roehrig also uses to support her argument.

1231

Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.132-3, 178. The different methods of portraying a nurse or tutor and the nursling in painting and relief is discussed by Roehrig in Chapter 2, section 2.2, pp.288-305. 1232 PM(7). At another scene in the tomb, PM(3), Hekareshu is seated behind an offering table with a prince (as an adult) on his lap, while adjacent to this Hekareshu alone receives offerings from a man, perhaps Hekarneheh. 1233 PM(7), cf. Newberry, JEA 14, pl.xii;Lepsius, Denkmäler III pl.69a. 1234 Lepsius, Denkmäler III p.261; Roehrig, Royal urse, p.203 with n.642, p.207-9. There is a graffito from Knosso of the “divine father” Hekareshu depicted with the princes Amenhotep and Aakheperure (Petrie no.23), while in another nearby (?) graffito Hekarneheh is called a Xrd n kAp following the names of the same princes (Petrie, no.32). Petrie, A Season in Egypt, pl.i; Newberry, JEA 14, p.85. 1235 For example, in the roughly contemporaneous tombs of Re (TT72), Paser (TT367), Haremeheb (TT78); or in the slightly later tombs of Nebamun (TT90), Kaemhat (TT57), Neferhotep (TT50). 1236 The titular sequence is: iry-pat HAty-a irty n nswt anxwy n bity ir n nb tAwy kA.f TAy xw Hr wnmy nsw sdty Hr mr.f ir.n n.f wrw n aAt n wr Hsw /// imy-r nfrw nt [Imn] imy-r mrw Smaw mHw imy-r pr wr n /// ////

273

However, in the scene in TT64 mentioned above Hekareshu and the small king are also seated under a similar type of canopy, though without a pillar, that extends beyond the seated figures to include Hekarneheh and the six princes who stand behind him. Davies suggested that Qenamun’s kiosk was meant to be understood as more of a canopy that one might find on a garden estate such as at Perunefer.1237 Indeed, the kiosk is not of the type usually found in presentation scenes before the king. It lacks the cowhead and Hathor-uraeus frieze along the top, the upper inscriptional band is missing, and the column resembles those used in garden estates or houses rather than the one that typically frames the kiosk of an enthroned king.1238 The idea that a more intimate setting is indicated here is further supported by the inscription that accompanies the female musicians who stand outside the kiosk/canopy and complete the scene. The text seems to describe the scene as taking place in Perunefer, the estates of which may be represented both below and at the north end of this wall. Based on these details I would argue that the entire composition should be read as an indicator of Qenamun’s and Pehsukher’s individual closeness to the king, the former through his mother and the latter through his military career and wife. In this situation Pehsukher does not necessarily have to be a relative, and thus his placement before Qenamun and under the overhang of the kiosk/canopy reflects their collegial, personal, and royal relationship.1239

1237

Davies, Ken-Amun, pp.19-20. The kiosk scenes at PM (4), (9) and the adjacent PM(17) in Qenamun’s tomb all carry these characteristics. Other parallels can be found in the tombs of Rekhmire (TT100), User (TT131), Haremhab (TT78), Pehsukher (TT88), Sennefri (TT99), and others. 1239 I would also like to point out here that the portion of the scene in which Qenamun and Pehsukher are depicted is completely destroyed. In his reconstruction, Davies left a large blank space behind the two figures, and there is just enough room for a third figure. Davies in fact states with reference to this scene that “a group of officials was shown approaching him [i.e. the king] in an act of homage. Two men held first place together, it seems; one of them, Ken-Amun, … the other, ‘the fan-bearer Peh-su-khēr’”(Davies, Ken-Amun, p.20). The overlapping hands above the offering table indicate that there were certainly two 1238

274

There is also a chronological issue that may go against the identification of Pehsukher as a brother of Qenamun. Pehsukher’s own tomb has not been properly published, though it is currently being re-investigated by Guksch, et alia, in conjunction with the tomb of Amenemhab called Mahu, TT85.1240 These two tombs share remarkable architectural and decorative similarities, a situation that was determined to be intentional on the part of Pehsukher, who served as a military official somewhat later than Mahu, a career military man already during the reign of Thutmosis III.1241 Pehsukher’s tomb, like that of Qenamun fits stylistically in the reign of Amenhotep II. However, while Qenamun was the son of a nurse of Amenhotep II, Pehsukher has traditionally been called the husband of one, implying that Pehsukher’s career started during the reign of Thutmosis III and ended during the reign of Amenhotep II, in whose reign he then probably would have died.1242 Amenhotep II was the not the first heir-apparent, and indeed was already in his late teens by the time he became the recognized successor. Thus it would not be impossible for Pehsukher to be a much older son of the royal nurse Amenemipet and the husband to the royal nurse Neith, both being nurses for Amenhotep II. The name of Amenhotep II is not preserved anywhere in Pehsukher’s tomb, nor is the name of Neith’s nursling ever mentioned. Both women were nurses to princes who became kings during their lifetime based on the use of the epithet wrt and title Sdt nTr. In her discussion of Neith, Roehrig lists her as another nurse to Amenhotep II, but recognizing the chronological difficulty of Pehsukher as a brother to Qenamun, she also

men at the front, however it seems at least possible that these were both fan-bearing attendants, and that Qenamun’s figure stood behind them, now completely lost. 1240 Both TTs 85 and 88 were partially published by Virey, Sept Tombeaux. The new study was most recently reported on in Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.57-83. 1241 This topic was the focus of an article by Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, and discussed again by Guksch, cf. Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp. 74ff, esp. 79-81. 1242 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, pp.55, 67.

275

suggests that Neith may have been a nurse to Amenhotep II’s son Thutmosis IV.1243 This latter situation would certainly solve the chronological issue. Pehsukher can easily be a son of a nurse to Amenhotep II and husband of a nurse to Thutmosis IV. However, his tomb decoration does not suggest in any way that he was the son of a royal nurse. Despite its unfinished and damaged nature, it is clear that his wife had a prominent place in the decoration. In fact, neither of Pehsukher’s parents are mentioned in the preserved inscriptions. It seems more likely then that Pehsukher, like Kaemheribsen and Amenhotep, was placed in the tomb as a colleague and close friend of Qenamun. Pehsukher’s inclusion in the kiosk scene is also due in part to his own personal connection to Amenhotep II. In this scenario, Pehsukher would need to be roughly contemporary with Amenhotep II, thus pushing his career more firmly into the reign of Amenhotep II and perhaps even early Thutmosis IV, and Pehsukher’s wife would have been a nurse for Thutmosis IV.1244 From the lengthy discussion presented above several new items are presented regarding Qenamun’s family. First, his father remains unidentified except by his title “steward of ….” It is possible that this can be restored as “steward of Amun”, but it remains doubtful that Qenamun’s father was particularly influential for the career of his son since he is only depicted twice in the tomb. Second, Qenamun’s mother was the chief royal nurse Amenemipet, as Davies first suggested. The three contemporaries of Qenamun who are depicted in his tomb are the 3rd priest of Amun Kaemheribsen, the mayor of Thinis and overseer of priests of Onuris Amenhotep, and the idnw Pehsukher. Each official owned a tomb in Thebes and all were probably colleagues of Qenamun,

1243 1244

Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.178-9, Appendix I, p.342f. Pehsukher and Neith are discussed below, pp.304ff.

276

though it is highly unlikely that any of them were related. They were depicted in his tomb because they were of the same generation and social group. Based on his placement in the tomb, Pehsukher was probably an especially close friend of Qenamun’s. This relationship may have developed because they were both fan-bearers for the king. We can now turn to the discussion of Qenamun’s career and the way in which he achieved his positions of chief steward of Perunefer and chief steward of the king. Although not a career military man like others of his time period, Qenamun’s military service has long been considered the main reason for his later high-level court and administrative positions.1245 However, the military titles that Qenamun held are almost all non-combative in nature. He is called a Hry pDt only once in the tomb, on a ceiling inscription in the passage. 1246 As has been discussed elsewhere, while this could involve the ability to command troops, there was likely an administrative aspect to the position as well. 1247 The other position the Qenamun bears on these ceiling inscriptions is Hry iHw, chief of stables, which probably denoted a non-active position within the military, or perhaps an administrative position connected to the palace.1248 However, most of the information for Qenamun’s participation on the military campaigns comes from descriptive phrases such as “one who follows the king on his marches upon the foreign land of vile Retjenu (Syria)” and “one relating to the two legs upon water, upon land, and upon all foreign countries”.1249 The only lengthy inscription

1245

Helck, Verwaltung, p. 366; Gnirs, Militär, pp.26 n.207, 30 n.230, p.31, 69; der Manuelian also credits his personal relationship with the king as a foster-brother; Amenophis II, pp.159-160. 1246 In a ceiling inscription located at the north-west end of the passage. As many of the ceiling inscriptions are damaged, it is possible that it appeared more than once; cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl. liv. 1247 Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6. See also the discussion below, pp.281 ff., on Nebamun and Paser. 1248 Schulman, MRTO, pp.51-3, p.86 table 4. 1249 Sms nsw r nmtt.f Hr xAst RTnw Xst and iry rdwy Hr mw Hr tA Hr xAst nbt . Similar epithets which are used include Sms n nb.f r nmtt.f Hr xAswt rsyt mHtt, irty n nsw anxwy n bity and irty nsw r wAwt PDt psD.

277

in his tomb that seems to preserve some record of military exploits is the painted stele on the east half of the south wall of the transverse-hall. Though it should be mentioned that here too, the connotation is derived solely from epithets, and Qenamun is also called “follower of the king” (Sms nsw).1250 In fact, the most commonly found “military title” is that of fan-bearer and its extended versions fan-bearer of the Lord of the Two Lands and fan-bearer upon the right side of the king. These are found in both wall and ceiling inscriptions, as well as on funerary statuettes, shwabtis and a statue.1251 This title, like the epithet Sms nsw, is one that implies a level of close proximity to the king while on campaign, as opposed to any actual military duties or functions.1252 From this it would appear that Qenamun in fact did not have much of an active military career in the manner of men such as Mahu. In fact, it bears a great deal of similarity to that of his contemporary Pehsukher.1253 This is in part due to the fact that Qenamun was an official during the reign of Amenhotep II, when much less military campaigning was taking place as compared to the reign of Thutmosis III. It might thus be suggested that Qenamun, like Pehsukher, was demonstrating a connection to the king more than any real military involvement. Qenamun’s relationship with the king is a focal point of his tomb decoration and is represented in two very distinct and equally significant ways. On the right half of the rear wall of TT93’s front room, Qenamun is depicted standing before the enthroned king

1250 PM(5); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.xliv, xxv.. The inscription is badly damaged, and the entire bottom portion is lost, but lines 3 through 8 contain a series of epithets, titles, and statements some of which are military in nature. Including in l.7-8 the following: “He [Qenamun] says: ‘I was a servant beneficient to his lord, one who made [a following of the king/him upon water, upon land upon] every foreign country who does not turn away in night like day …’”. 1251 Wild, BIFAO 56, p.237 nos.138-140. 1252 In this respect it differs from the title “standard-bearer” (TAy sryt), which did denote military repsonsibililty; cf. Schulman, MRTO, pp.69-71, 84-6 table 3. 1253 See below, pp.304ff.

278

receiving his appointment to office, in this case as steward of Perunefer.1254 As in the tomb of the vizier User, the installation text is placed within the structure of the Königsnovelle, or séance text, in which the king asks his courtiers for assistance in choosing an official to appoint to said position, the courtiers defer to the wisdom of the king, and the king makes the final decision.1255 In Qenamun’s text, Amenhotep II states: “I have decreed (wD) [that one place (rdi) Qenamun to steward] in Perunefer”.1256 The king is purportedly looking for a trustworthy and capable man, and in four places in the tomb Qenamun bears the epithet “who the king made great on account of the excellence of his heart”.1257 In this context, this phrase can perhaps be understood as referring to advancement based on the capabilities of the official since the ancient Egyptians viewed the heart as the seat of intelligence. This suggests that Qenamun was providing justification for the position he was awarded. However, there is no indication that he was “hiding” his military career, as Helck suggested.1258 This royal favor was not based solely on Qenamun’s own relationship with the king. Rather it was his mother’s royal connection that provided Qenamun with a higher start than other officials. Adjacent to the installation scene (to the north) is where Qenamun and Pehsukher stand before Qenamun’s mother seated in a kiosk holding the child-sized Amenhotep II on her lap (Fig.30, p.486).1259 This representation is especially significant for two reasons. First, Amenemipet is depicted at a larger scale than the king,

1254

PM(17); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.viii. See the lengthy discussion under User, Chapter 1. 1256 Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.viii, col.18; Urk. 1386, 18: wD.n.i [di.tw Qn-Imn r imy-r pr] m Prw-nfr //// 1257 saA.n nsw Hr mnx ib.f. This epithet comes early in the list in the scenes of Qenamun presenting New Year’s gifts to the enthroned Amenhotep II and Maat [PM(9)] and inspecting the bringing and recording of Delta produce [PM(11)]. It also appears on two pillars, the south face of Pillar D where Qenamun offers to Renutet, and the east face of Pillar G. 1258 Helck, Einfluss, p.71. 1259 PM(16); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.ix-x, xlviii. 1255

279

and second, the king touches her shoulder while she supports his head as though he were a child.1260 This is a testament to the elevated status in which Amenhotep II held Amenemipet. It is quite different from the scenes in TT85 where Amenemheb-Mahu’s wife Baki is shown suckling the king.1261 In all of these, Amenhotep II is shown as a child, making the difference in size appropriate. Although Baki is depicted offering a bouquet to the enthroned Amenhotep II,1262 the overall composition of the scene is exactly what one would expect, namely the king is the largest figure and the offerer is thus being honored by being allowed to present gifts to the king. In Qenamun’s tomb, however, it is Amenemipet who is given the place of distinction over that of her nursling. The fact that Amenhotep II is shown as a boy-sized king rather than a child emphasizes this, and suggests that the king must have favored Amenemipet more than any of his other nurses. As a result of her status, it seems likely that Amenemipet would have wielded a fair amount of influence over the young Amenhotep (II), both when he was a child and perhaps even after he became king. Qenamun’s own rise within the government can then be viewed, at least at the outset, as a direct result of his mother’s relationship with Amenhotep II. As his career progressed, and probably especially after his appointment to the position of steward of Perunefer, Qenamun acquired his own strong connection to the king. In TT93 this, now personal, link is demonstrated on the wall opposite the installation scene in which Qenamun presents New Year’s gifts to Amunhotep II and

1260

This exact pose is also seen in TT109 of the tutor Min, though in this case Amenhotep II is in fact represented as a child. In TT64 Hekareshu supports the small king’s head, but the king does not touch his tutor. 1261 These are discussed in Chapter 3, pp.393ff.. 1262 TT85, PM(9)

280

Maat.1263 It is also perhaps referred to in the installation text, when the the courtiers refer to the newly installed Qenamun as praised by the king and praised in the kAp.1264 Feucht has suggested that the kAp was a type of institution within the palace, and that membership in it would have denoted a position of respect and authority that was recognized by the king.1265 Whether or not Qenamun became a member of the kAp, it appears that his status vis-à-vis the king was known in the palace. The idea that Qenamun was able to move beyond his mother’s sphere of influence and establish his own connection is further suggested by the the appearance of the title “foster-brother of the king” on a number of his shwabtis and funerary statuettes.1266 The fact that Qenaun does not have this title in his tomb indicates that he was probably slightly older or younger than Amenhotep II and thus was not a “milk-brother” of the king. However, the fact that by the end of his life he was considered as such implies that Qenamun could claim to have this type of kinship with Amenhotep II. It was not the title itself that was important, but the close relationship it implied.1267 This claim would not exist for Qenamun without the status of his mother Amenemipet as a chief royal nurse. The manner of Amenemipet’s depiction in

1263

PM(9); cf. Davies, Ken-Amun, pls.xi-xxiv. Davies, Ken-Amun, pl.viii cols. 31ff. These phrases fall in cols. 31 and 33. 1265 This is based on titles such as “chief of the Xrdw n kAp”, and on evidence that it could act as a judicial body in the palace; Feucht, Das Kind, p.303 and in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.43-4. On the Xrd(w) n kAp in general see Feucht, Das Kind, pp.266-304 (pp.272-293 provides a list of Xrd n kAp during the 18th Dynasty, though some are missing) and Feucht, in Pharaonic Egypt, pp.38-47. The latter is essentially an English summary of the material covered in the relevant section of her book. For a brief discussion of the bearers of this title in the reign of Thutmosis III, see also Bryan, in Thutmose III, forthcoming. 1266 Daressy, ASAE 19, pp.150-1; Davies, Ken-Amun, pl. lxix; Sottas, in: MontPiot. 25, pp.409-10; Urk. IV, 1403-4; Wild, BIFAO 6. 1267 There is also a possibility that Qenamun held the title of sA nswt “king’s son”, based on a shwabti in Florence (65555) that Dewachter suggests belonged to Qenamun. Dewachter proposes that this be understood as denoting Qenamun as an administrator of Syria in parallel to Pahekaemsasen as an administrator of Nubia during the reign of Amunhotep II. If the shwabti indeed belongs to this Qenamun, then I would prefer to understand the title as a further indicator of Qenamun’s relationship to the king, a possibility that DeWachter also acknowledges. Dewachter, RdE 32. 1264

281

Qenamun’s tomb indicates that Amenhotep II recognized her as especially important. This implies that Amenemipet played an influential role during Amenhotep II’s formative years, and was able to use her relationship with Aemnhotep II to the benefit of her son Qenamun. While Qenamun’s performance in the military alongside the young Amenhotep may have cemented his subsequent rise, it was through his mother that Qenamun was initially able to rise above other contemporary officials and gain the royal favor of Amunhotep II.

III. Personal Influence "ebamun and his son Paser (Friendship with the king is more important than family) Paser was a “follower of his majesty” and Xrd n kAp during the reign of Amenhotep II. In his tomb, TT367, he appears to stress his relationship to the king over any actual duties he might have performed as aan Hry pDt, the upper level military position that he held. This seems to be the case despite the fact that his father Nebamun was also a hry pDt during the reign of Thutmosis III. Before discussing how Paser was able to develop this relationship, we should first take a look at the career of his father.1268 The Hry pDt1269 Nebamun was the owner of TT 145,1270 an unfinished tomb in Dra Abu el-Naga that dates stylistically to the reign of Thutmosis III.1271 Unfortunately, the 1268

Nebamun may be the same as a man who gave a bull to a temple in order to ensure a job for his brother; cf. Spalinger, in: Studien Westendorf. 1269 This has been translated variously as “colonel” (Oberst)/commander of troops (Helck, Einfluss); commander of a host (Schulman, MRTO; larger in size than a company (approx. 250), but not the full army); commander of a regiment (Chevereau, Prosopographie); commander of archers/bowmen (Gnirs, Militär). The determinative of an archery bow in the word pDt is suggestive that the title refers to archers or bowmen, though to my knowledge there are no depictions that would enable us to draw a firm conclusion on this. WB I:570.10 ff., defines pDt as both a “Truppe von Soldaten” and “die Bogenschützen”. Regardless of translation though, it is clear that this the bearer of this title was militarily active and probably led troops of some kind. 1270 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.430, type IIb.

282

portions of his tomb that were finished contain only offering scenes, and thus almost no information can be gleaned about his military career. However, on the northern wall the unfinished sub-scene depicts a double register of men bringing and recording a variety of animals before the larger image of Nebamun. At the forefront of these is a pair of horses that appear to be led by a Syrian man, based on his facial characteristics such as the beard and hair. Fakhry suggested that this scene represented part of the estates of Nebamun, who would have “entrusted his two precious animals to a foreigner who knew how to care for them.”1272 It does seem likely that Nebamun is inspecting his own herds, and I would further suggest that Nebamun acquired the horses while he was on the campaigns with Thutmosis III. He may have captured them as booty, or perhaps Thutmosis III gave the horses to Nebamun as a reward for his military service. If this were indeed the case, then it would imply that Nebamun was a more distinguished officer than Fakhry thought, since horses were not common in Egypt outside of the military during this time.1273 The only title preserved in Nebamun’s tomb is that of Hry pDt, while his epithets give no further clues as to the nature of his military service.1274 However, it is possible that Nebamun of TT145 is the same as the Nebamun whose statue base was found by Hassan at Giza in 1953.1275 The base originally supported the statue of a falcon, while a

1271

The tomb has never been fully published, but it was discussed and photographed by Fakhry and later in more detail by Helck; Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp. 369-379; Helck, Antike Welt 27/2, pp. 73-85. Fakhry placed in the first half of Thutmosis III’s reign or even earlier based largely on the depiction of the herds of animals and the supposition that Paser of TT367 who was an official under Amenhotep II was Nebamun’s son (Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.371, 376 ff.). Helck also dated it stylistically to the early 18th Dynasty, and most likely Thutmosis III based on parallels with other tombs, i.e. TT81 of Ineni, TT123 of Amenemhat and TT143 (unknown). He also agreed that Paser of TT367 was likely Nebamun’s son (Helck, Antike Welt 27/2, p.75). 1272 Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.378. 1273 “He was perhaps advanced in age and did not distinguish himself in the wars”; Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.376. 1274 The epithets he carries in the tomb are excellent favorite of the lord of the two lands (mH-ib mnx n nb tAwy), great favorite of his lord (mH-ib aA n nb.f), praised of the good god (Hsy n nTr nfr), praised before the lord of the two lands (Hsy xr nb tAwy), and beloved among his courtiers (mrwt xr Snw.f). 1275 Hassan, Giza 8, p.66 fig. 59. See also Zivie, Giza, NE 13.

283

representation of the donor was carved on the front. The five column inscription on the statue’s right side indicates that it was made for the “one who follows his lord upon water, upon land, upon foreign countries of the south and north, great favorite of the lord of the two lands, favorite of the good god, Hry pDt of Nubians, Nebamun, repeating life.”1276 As Zivie mentions, these epithets place the statue in the reigns of Thutmosis III and/or Amenhotep II.1277 Hassan originally translated the name as Amun(em)heb, and it is perhaps for this reason that a connection between the two men has not previously been suggested. Although the epithets granted the two Nebamuns are slightly different, and the owner of the statue was a Hry pDt NHsyw as opposed to simply a Hry pDt, it seems quite possible that the two men should be equated. The unfinished scenes of TT 145 would have almost certainly been related to the duties and functions of Nebamun as a Hry pDt, and it is not improbable that more extensive epithets, such as those of a Sms nsw would have been included here. If the two men are the same, then the epithet of Horus found on the statue also supports the idea that Nebamun was a highly placed official. The more common “Horus in the horizon, foremost of Setepet” is replaced here by “Horus, lord of the horizon in the Setepet.” Hassan suggested that this change reflected Nebamun’s status as an official “attached to the personal guard of the King”.1278 The epithets attested for Nebamun in TT145, such as “beloved among his courtiers”, also support a close relationship to the court and by extension the king.1279

1276

Sms nb.f Hr mw Hr tA Hr xAst rsyt mHtt mH-ib aA n nb tAwy imy-ib n nTr nfr Hry pDt NHsyw Nb-Imn wHm anx. The title Hry pDt NHsyw according to the various translations would then be commander of a troop/host/regiment of Nubians or commander of Nubian archers/bowmen. 1277 Zivie, Giza, p.124. 1278 Hassan, Giza 8, p.66. 1279 See note 1274.

284

Unfortunately we have no information about Nebamun’s parents, or about how he entered into military service. He was married to a woman named Iahhotep, and based on the offering scenes they appear to have had three daughters and perhaps two sons. One son was the chariot-warrior (snny) of his majesty and “one who follows the king (on) his marches” named Paser.1280 This son Paser has generally been identified with the owner of TT367, who was also a Hry pDt (of the lord of the two lands), as well as chief of the followers of his majesty and a Xrd n kAp.1281 In his tomb, Paser carries a number of epithets, many of which are the same or quite similar to those held by Nebamun in TT145 and on the statue of Nebamun. These include, “lord who is foremost among his courtiers,”1282 the sequence “excellent favorite of the lord of the two lands, praised of the good god, friend great of love,”1283 and the sequences “one who follows the king on his marches upon water, upon land, and upon every foreign country”1284 and “one who follows the king upon every foreign country of the south and north.”1285 The only king mentioned or depicted in Paser’s tomb, TT367,1286 is Amenhotep II, and we learn from the inscriptions that Paser considered himself a close companion, and perhaps friend of the king when they were both youths. The phrase “chief of followers of his majesty when the king was as a (royal) child (Hry Smsw n Hm.f ti nsw m inpw)” occurs on the outer lintel leading into the passage, on the false-door stele, and in

1280

The inscription is damaged, but based on the publications does seem to read sA.f mr.f snny n Hm.f Sms nswt nmtt.f; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.373; Helck, Antike Welt 27/2, p.77. 1281 Fakhry published TT 367 with plates, see Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp. 389-414. 1282 PM(1) nb xnt xr Snw.f; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.400 1283 PM(2); cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.402. 1284 PM(5); cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.396. 1285 PM(4), PM(3), 1st column on left; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.399, 406. 1286 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.592-3, type VIIa.

285

the presentation scene before the enthroned Amenhotep II.1287 Although the term Sms nsw, “follower of the king” is commonly used to describe military activity on the part of its bearer, it can also refer to the personal contemporaries of the king.1288 This is especially true when the alternative form of Smsw n Hm.f is employed. The inscription accompanying Paser when he stands before Amenhotep II (Fig.31, p.487) makes it clear that this king bestowed awards on Paser both for his military service and due to his status within the court: Bringing/Presenting every good and pure thing by the great favorite of the Lord of the Two Lands, praised of the good god, who fills the two ears of Horus truly, one who follows the king on his marches upon water, upon land, and upon every foreign country, to whom favors are given by the king consisting of rings of fine gold, Hry pDt, child of the nursery (Xrd n kAp), chief of followers of his majesty when the king was as a (royal) child, Paser, justified, on behalf of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Aakheperura, given life forever to eternity. 1289

The “fine gold rings” are precisely the bracelets and double-necklace Paser wears here and in other depictions in the tomb. Paser is followed in this scene by his wife, daughter, and Egyptian offering-bringers. This inscription is an excellent source for demonstrating that Paser viewed the most important aspect of his life and career to be his friendship with the king. The fact that Paser places his Xrd n kAp and Sms nsw titles last suggests that it was his relationship to the king that Paser valued more than his military positions. In fact, throughout his 1287

PM(6), right (east) side, PM(3), 2nd column from right (with the error nsw i for ti nsw), and PM(5) respectively; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.394, 406, 396 respectively. 1288 Franke, in: Miscellanea Agyptologica Helck, 67-87. Guksch interprets them as expressions of loyalty to the king on the part of the official that did not necessarily reflect participation on campaigns; cf. Guksch, Königsdienst, pp.57-68. 1289 PM(5), north wall, east side, columns 1-9: ms Xt nbt nfrt wabt in mH-ib aA n nb tAwy Hsy n nTr nfr mH anxwy Hr m mAawt Sms nsw r nmtt.f Hr mw Hr tA Hr xAst nb diw n.f Hswt nt Xr nswt m waw n DAm-nbw Hry pDt Xrd n kAp Hry Smsw n Hm.f ti sw m inpw PA-sr mAa-xrw; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.396.

286

tomb the titles which appear most often and closest to his name are “chief of followers (of his majesty (when he was as crown-prince))”, and “child of the nursery”.1290 In contrast, his Hry pDt title never appears as his final designation.1291 Even in the tomb of his father Nebamun, Paser’s title of chariot-warrior is followed by his designation as a follower of the king.1292 In addition, on the false-door it is qualified by the phrases “of the lord of the two lands” and “of his majesty”.1293 Gnirs has interpreted the n nb tAwy epithet to imply a direct connection to the king, implying that the position was gained through this relationship rather than by an official’s own prowess.1294 This is certainly possible in the case of Paser, especially as he claims to be a companion of the young Amenhotep II. It also seems to be supported by the fact that Paser on his false-door chose to characterize himself almost entirely in relationship to the king.1295 Feucht has argued that the Xrd n kAp title is probably an indication that its bearer was raised in the royal court.1296 This certainly seems to be supported by Paser’s claim to be a “follower” while Amenhotep II was still a youth at the court himself.1297 The second point to make about the text quoted above is that Paser is not rewarded for his military exploits by promotion, but with gifts of “fine gold.” Although a

1290

The first title appears alone twice [PM(3), (6)], last in a combination three times [PM(1), (4), (5)], and first on Paser’s funerary cones, twenty of which were found by Fakhry in the courtyard of TT 367. Xrd n kAp always follows Hry pDt, thus it comes last at PM(2)-(3), and second at PM(4)-(5) and on the funerary cones. In addition, it precedes the first title at PM(1); Fakhry, ASAE 43. 1291 Hry pDt is always the first in a list [PM(2)-(5), with 3 occurrences at PM(3)], except on the funerary cone where it comes second; Fakhry, ASAE 43. 1292 Fakhry, ASAE 43, p.373; Helck, Antike Welt 2, p.77. See also note 11 above. 1293 All of Paser’s inscriptions here carry epithets that denote his close connection to the king; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.406-7. 1294 Gnirs, Militär, p.5. 1295 He is called “great favorite of the good god”, “sole excellent one of the lord of the two lands”, “chief of followers of his majesty when he was as a youth”, twice “Xrd n kAp”, twice “Hry pDt of the lord of the two lands”, and “Hry pDt of his majesty”; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.406-7. 1296 Feucht, in: Pharaonic Egypt, pp.266 ff., esp. 303-4. 1297 Perhaps Nebamun, Paser’s father, in addition to being rewarded with horses by Thutmosis III, was also given the distinction of having his son raised in the royal court.

287

reward of wealth in the form of gold or slaves was commonly given to men involved with the campaigns,1298 Paser’s mention of only “fine gold” has several implications. The first is that it is not accompanied by a promotion, as seems to have been the case for other military officials who distinguished themselves.1299 The second is that in one of the inscriptions on Paser’s false-door he is called “one who follows the king upon southern and northern foreign lands”.1300 The type of gold Paser is rewarded with is known to come from mines in Nubia, suggesting that Paser certainly participated on campaigns to the south. Amenhotep II led only three campaigns into the north, in years three, seven and nine, and the first of these was likely done during the co-regency period.1301 Of Amenhotep II’s forays into Nubia we have very little information other than that at least one campaign took place at some point, as it is commemorated in the inscription of Usersatet at his shrine at Qasr Ibrim.1302 Paser’s inscription serves as further evidence of these activities. The fact that Paser does not mention individual places directly, as some other military officials did, may be irrelevant since his tomb was unfinished and without an autobiographical stele. However, it may also be a further indication that Paser’s “military career” was less important as a marker of his status than his personal relationship to the king, which had been formed in childhood. From the inscriptions in the tomb of his father and his own we can characterize Paser’s career as one that relied heavily on a close personal connection to his sovereign, but also had elements of nepotism and heredity in it. The latter two are suggested by the 1298

It is commonly referred to in the Annals of Thutmosis III, and in the autobiographies of the men on these campaigns, such as Amenemheb-Mahu. 1299 For example Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85) or Tjanuny (TT74). 1300 Sms nsw Hr xAst rsy mHtt; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.406-7. 1301 Murnane, Road to Kadesh; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.19ff., 47 ff. 1302 For the publication, see Caminos, Ibrim, pp.59-75. For a discussion of the inscription see der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.92-5.

288

fact that Paser started his military career as a chariot-warrior, a position that Paser’s father Nebamun may have been able to obtain for him due to his service under Thutmosis III. Following this he seems to ascend directly into the position that his father held, Hry pDt. It is certainly possible that Paser replaced his father when Nebamun became too old, in the manner of a mdw iAw or staff of old age, as we know was sometimes the case for recruits from military families.1303 Schulman has suggested that the position of hry pDt was subordinate only to the “general” (imy-r mSa wr), and the highest level a field officer could reach at this time.1304 However, in Paser’s case it should perhaps rather be understood as an example of a friend of the king’s being awarded the position of his father despite an apparent lack of qualifications for it. Schulman admits that the post could sometimes carry administrative duties, and this may be a better interpretation of Paser’s function as a Hry pDt.1305 The emphasis Paser places on his relationship with Amenhotep II throughout his tomb suggests that despite his father’s military connections, it was primarily Paser’s childhood friendship with the king that was the cause for his status in the court. As the inscription on his funerary cones demonstrates, this was what he deemed most important.1306 Thus, although heredity and/or nepotism may have been part of the equation, it was Paser’s personal relationship with the king that furthered his career and made him a favored court official.

1303

From the scribal statue of Amenhotep son of Hapu (CG 583), a scribe of recruits in the reign of Amenhotep III. See Chapter 1, Section Ib, pp.64-9. 1304 Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6. 1305 This is also suggested by Schulman, MRTO, p.55 no.130. 1306 He was called “follower of the king, Hry pDt, Xrd n kAp; cf. Fakhry, ASAE 43, pp.409-10.

289

Amenmose (From the field to the court) Amenmose’s military career spanned the reigns of Thutmosis III and early Amenhotep II, during which time he held the positions of Hry pDt, overseer of northern foreign lands (imy-r xAswt mHtt), and chief of the stables (of the lord of the two lands) (Hry iHw [nb tAwy]). Although he has a demonstrably military career, the wide range in his titles, as well as the size of his tomb, suggests that his relationship with Thutmosis III apparently allowed him to jump from a combat position (Hry pDt) to that of a diplomat in Syria-Palestine (imy-r xAswt mHtt) with seemingly no intervening steps. Amenmose’s tomb, TT42,1307 is one of the larger in the necropolis, consisting of a 3-pillared transverse-hall, very long passage, and 2-pillared rear chamber;1308 the ceiling is also extremely high.1309 Although TT42 is unfinished and the text of the painted stele destroyed, it is nonetheless possible to date the tomb and Amenmose’s career. Above the entrance leading into the rear chamber the prenomens of Thutmosis III (Menkheperre) and Amenhotep II (Aakheperure) are still clearly visible. Both Murnane and Van Siclen included Amenmose among a list of “co-regency” officials who were active during the transition from Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II.1310 In addition to the inscription just mentioned, both kings are represented in the lunette of Amenmose’s stele,1311 and according to Murnane, Amenhotep II may be depicted on the

1307

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.237-9, type VIIb. Published by Davies, Menkheperrasonb. It was originally intended to be a 4-pillared hall, but the architects of the tomb apparently did not realize their proximity to TT110 of the royal butler Djehuty, an official during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency. As a result the easternmost pillar could not be hewn and the transverse-hall is oddly shaped. 1309 The ladder that Raymond Johnson, Director of Chicago House, made available to me resulted in my being able to examine and photograph the tomb with relative ease. I thank him greatly for this. 1310 Murnane, Coregencies; Van Siclen, Uronarti, p.49 (D). 1311 PM(11); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb. 1308

290

right half of the rear wall of the front room, parallel to the depiction of Thutmosis III on the left half.1312 Although the lunette of the stele it is clear that Amenmose offers to two seated kings, the cartouches are almost completely destroyed. There are traces of Menkheperre in the left cartouche, so clearly this was Thutmosis III. It is certainly possible that Amenhotep II was represented on the right, and this may be supported by the fact that the arrangement of the cartouches would then be the same as on the shrine’s lintel. The issue of Amenhotep II’s actual depiction in the tomb is less certain. The wall that Murnane has suggested is almost completely destroyed, but it must be said that the traces which remain are more suggestive of an offering scene on behalf of Amenmose, rather than a representation of Amenmose before Amenhotep II.1313 The scene of Amenmose before Thutmosis III is badly damaged, with the figures of both individuals completely destroyed.1314 The representation of the Syrians bearing tribute that complete this scene, the representation of soldiers on campaign in Syria, and the overall decorative style of the tomb place the majority of Amenmose’s career in the reign of Thutmosis III. Thus it is likely that although Amenmose was an official during the co-regency of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, he may not have lived long past the accession of the latter. Amenmose’s own family background is uncertain. His parents do not seem to appear in his tomb, and his lineage is not recorded. Thus without additional monuments their names and status must remain unknown. Unfortunately, the stele in Amenmose’s tomb is completely destroyed except for the lunette, and thus we do not have direct

1312

Murnane, Coregencies. These scenes are PM(5) and (12) respectively; cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pls. xxxiii-xxxv for PM(5). 1313 There seem to be traces of an offering table and offerings. 1314 PM(5); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pls. xxxiii-xxxv.

291

information about the progression of his career. Yet, based on the scenes and title sequences in TT42, a tentative reconstruction may be attempted. The most complete listing of Amenmose’s various titles comes from the exterior side of the entrance to the rear chamber.1315 The information from this, as well as six other titular inscriptions and the depiction of a Syrian campaign, including a fortress set in a forested area, indicates that the title Hry pDt was the one that Amenmose held for the majority of his career and as a participant in the campaigns of Thutmosis III.1316 In the fragment of inscription that remains next to the figure of Amenmose before the prostrating chief of the Lebanon and other Syrians bearing gifts from their fortress, Davies has restored the title Hry pDt (Fig.32, p.488)1317 There are no traces of this or any other title, but its insertion certainly seems plausible given that the registers below the depiction of the Syrian chiefs and fortress are taken up by rows of soldiers and scribes. The scene adjacent to that of the captured fortress depicts Amenmose leading a procession of Syrians bearing tribute of all sorts, including vases, precious materials, archery equipment, and horses and chariots before an enthroned king, most likely Thutmosis III.1318 None of the inscription is preserved, but it is probable that here Amenmose would primarily be called the overseer of the northern foreign lands, a title he holds elsewhere in the tomb and which, as Bryan states, “included the supervision of revenue deliveries to Egypt”.1319 This then would be the position awarded to Amenmose by Thutmosis III for his service as an officer in the campaigns, thereby moving him out of the frontline and into the area of military administration. The titles Hry pDt and 1315

PM(18); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xxxix. See note 1269 above for a discussion of this title. 1317 PM(4), Davies, Menkheperrasonb, p.30, pl.xxxvi. 1318 PM(5), Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl. xxxiii-xxxv. 1319 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.66; Murnane, in: Essays te Velde. 1316

292

“overseer of northern foreign lands” seem to be Amenmose’s main ones, appearing an almost identical number of times in the tomb, and each placed last in a string of titles of nearly equal length.1320 From his epithets, we learn that Amenmose also regarded himself as the follower of the king in Retenu (Syria) and the eyes and ears of the king in vile Retenu. While these epithets might further speak to his tenure as an active soldier, it seems even more likely that they describe the type of activities that Amenmose would have carried out as the king’s representative in Syria once he became overseer of northern foreign countries.1321 While Hry pDt is certainly a position with active military duties,1322 the overseer of northern foreign countries is purely administrative.1323 According to Helck,1324 the trend during the mid-18th Dynasty was for “front officers” to become placed in upper level administrative positions. He goes on to suggest that because these “new men” were placed here by the king, they were entirely dependent upon the king’s favor.1325 The position of overseer of foreign countries certainly carried with it prima facie evidence for royal trust being placed in the individual who held this title. How Amenmose gained the trust of Thutmosis III is unclear, but it must have had to do with his career as a Hry pDt. Although it could be suggested that this provides evidence for a meritorious rise, in which Amenmose’s ability led to his promotion, the difference in the responsibilities 1320

Hry pDt is listed fourteen times and imy-r xAswt mHtt nine times. When placed together, they each take precedence three times, with a possible fourth occurrence for Hry pDt, and each of the titles also appear in combination with mry nb tAwy. 1321 At PM(16) I would restore [Sms] nsw Hr xAst RTnw Hry pDt imy-r xAst mHtt //// I[mn-m]s; cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xlviG. At PM(8) we have the inscription irty nswt anx.wy bity Hr xAst RTnw Xst ////; cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xlviA. Bryan (in: Thutmose III, forthcoming) also records the title “the one relating to the king in the two lands of Retenu”, which I presume she reads at PM(18), thus iry nsw Hr xAst 2 RTnw; cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pl.xxxix. 1322 See note 2 above. 1323 Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, 251-258. 1324 Helck, Einfluss, p.70f. 1325 Helck, Einfluss, p.72.

293

seems too great for a purely merit-based ascent. A Hry pDt was still essentially a soldier, even if an upper-level one who commanded troops.1326 An overseer of foreign countries, however, would function as the king’s representative in foreign lands and be entrusted to speak on the king’s behalf.1327 Based on the depiction of the Syrian fortress, Helck suggested that Amenmose was the equivalent of the rabisu, or “Kommissar” in Amurru.1328 For Amenmose to have achieved such a post after a combat-oriented career, suggests that the personal relationship that he developed with Thutmosis III is the stronger factor. Amenmose’s final title of chief of the stables (Hry iHw), appears only twice in TT42 – once in an offering scene in the pillared-hall following his main titles and with the qualification “of the lord of the two lands”, and once on the entrance to the rear chamber.1329 Either this was an early post that Amenmose considered of very little importance, or it was awarded at the end of his career. According to Schulman it may not have had an “active military role” attached to it,1330 and Gnirs would interpret the addition of n nb tAwy as supporting this.1331 It is possible that Amenmose was given the post of Hry iHw n nb tAwy as a type of “retirement position,” possibly in recognition of his service in the Syrian wars of Thutmosis III.1332 Whether this was granted by Thutmosis III or Amenhotep II is uncertain, but as it appears last in the list already at the front of the tomb, Thutmosis III is perhaps the more likely candidate. 1326

Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6. Schulman places the Hry pDt as the highest rank a field-officer could attain. Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, p.256f.. 1328 Helck, Beziehungen, p.251. 1329 PM(2) and PM(18); cf. Davies, Menkheperrasonb, pls. xlviF and xxxix. 1330 Schulman, MRTO, p. 51. 1331 Gnirs, Militär, p.5. 1332 Schulman states in his discussion of the title that its holders “really had no active military role” (p.51) and suggests that “the evidence form the protocols shows him more frequently originating from an infantry background as a combat officer or military official. It would not be however unlikely that he became a ‘stablemaster’ after he had left the military.” Schulman, MRTO, p. 53. 1327

294

As stated above, Amenmose was a co-regency official who may not have survived long into the reign of Amenhotep II. In his tomb, the figure of both Amenmose and his wife are thoroughly excised. This was clearly not the work of Atenist defacers since the theophoric element of Amenmose’s name is untouched, the title of his wife Henuttawy, who was a chantress of Amun, is equally undamaged, and none of the sempriests were disfigured. Another explanation of the figures’ treatment is that they had fallen into disfavor with the reigning king or suffered at the hands of a personal vendetta, perhaps by a successor to Amenmose as overseer of foreign lands. There is no direct evidence to support either of these scenarios over the other; the thoroughness of the destruction, as well as the unfinished nature of the tomb, however, lends itself towards royal instigation, or at least compliance. The destruction in fact closely resembles that seen in the tomb of Rekhmire (TT100). He was the vizier under Thutmosis III, witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II, and was shortly thereafter replaced in his post. Rekhmire’s figure is also completely excised throughout his tomb, although the figure of his wife is untouched.1333 We do not have any information on a “retirement post” for Rekhmire, and it may be that he was ousted without compensation in order to ensure his family’s removal from the vizierate. It seems significant as well, that Amenmose’s one identified son, Amenemhab, is given the title of wab-priest of Amun. He clearly was not following his father into the military, but whether through choice or necessity remains uncertain.

1333

Rekhmire, his family, and their downfall is dealt with in Chapter 1, on heredity and briefly mentioned in Section IIb, above, in the discussion of the new vizier and his family. Although it has been suggested that this also happened to the viceroy Usersatet, this does not in fact appear to be the case. See above Section IIb, for a discussion of this official.

295

The lack of an autobiography for Amenmose means that we cannot state with certainty that Amenhotep II did not promote Amenmose to his final position, but I think this is unlikely for two reasons. The first is that the evidence for Amenmose that is preserved centers on his presence in Syria and the presentation of foreign tribute and captives before Thutmosis III in Egypt.1334 It is more likely that Amenmose would present before the king as an overseer than as a troop-commander. In addition, although Amenmose witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II, the intentional erasures suggest that he may have been removed from his position by the new king, which would argue against Amenmose being appointed by him as well. I would tentatively suggest that Amenmose’s removal, like that of Rekhmire,1335 occurred sometime after year 9 of Amenhotep II, after the campaigns in Syria-Palestine had ended. It thus seems that Amenmose, like several of the highest officials who attained their positions under Thutmosis III, was removed relatively quickly by the new king, though not until after the northern lands were (re-) secured.

Montuiywy (Royal butler and court follower) The royal butler Montuiywy, owner of TT172,1336 is another of the few officials whom we know to have crossed the Euphrates River with Thutmosis III when he

1334

Amenhotep II’s cartouches are in the tomb, but it is unclear whether he was depicted; cf. pp.289ff. above. 1335 The discussion of Rekhmire’s removal and its timing is in Chapter 1. 1336 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropolen, pp.459-61, type Vb. The tomb is unpublished. His stele can be found in Urk. IV, 1466-8 and Herman, Stelen, 40*-41*.

296

undertook his eighth campaign into Syria in year 33.1337 Despite this fact, he seems to have done very little on the king’s behalf while in Syria-Palestine. His inscriptions provide an excellent counterpart to military men such as Amenemheb-Mahu and Dedy who distinguished themselves in part through their careers.1338 Montuiywy’s constant focus on his “nearness” to the king may suggest that despite his actual palace-based positions, Montuiywy’s career and visibility owes much to his relationship with the king. Montuiywy was also certainly a “co-regency” official, based on the apparent depiction of both kings in his tomb.1339 This representation, which is rather unusual, appears on the upper half of the east wall above a false-door stele with two registers of offering-bearers on either side (Fig.33, p.489).1340 On the north (left) side Montuiywy praises a king wearing what appears to be the khepresh crown and holding an ankh in his right hand and crook and flail in his left. The king is seated on a throne before an offering table and as expected, he is at a larger scale than Montuiywy.1341 The north scene is approximately 1/3 larger than that on the south (right), where Montuiywy presents a bouquet to a king also holding the ankh, crook and flail, who is seated on a throne placed on a raised platform. The combination of the raised height of the king and smaller size of the composition results in the king’s scale being almost equal to that of Montuiywy’s.1342 Unfortunately, the entire top half of the south side is destroyed leaving the identification 1337

Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85), Iamunedjeh (TT84) and probably Minmose (based in part on his use of the verb DAi, “to cross water”, in his autobiography) are the others. See Chapter 3, for discussions of these officials. 1338 See Chapter 3. 1339 Murnane, Coregencies, p.53 with n.94, placed Montuiywy as a possible co-regency official, and Van Siclen agreed; cf. Uronarti, p.49(D). 1340 PM(3). It is quite different from the depiction in TT42 of Amenmose where the two kings are shown back-to-back receiving offerings in the lunette of Amenmose’s stele [PM(11)]. 1341 Ancient Egyptian artistic convention was that the size of a figure was directly related to the individual’s importance. Thus in a tomb the owner is also represented as the largest figure, except when placed before or in conjunction with kings or deities; cf. Robins, Proportion and Style, Ch.1. 1342 The upper body proportions of the king are at the same level as Montuiywy’s, indicating that if he were standing they would be roughly the same height.

297

of the king unknown. However, although the columns of inscription above the northern side are badly damaged, the very bottom of the cartouche is visible, and there do not appear to be any signs within it. This suggests that the name which should be restored is that of Menkheperre (Thutmosis III), rather than Aakheperure (Amenhotep II) since the latter name would have plural strokes at the very end. Thus, if we assume that two kings are depicted, then it must be Amenhotep II who is at the right. The smaller size of the royal figure placed there now makes more sense, since if he were only coregent when the scene was executed it is not impossible that Montuiywy and Amenhotep II would be placed at a similar scale. In fact, this composition is not unlike that found in Amenemheb-Mahu’s tomb where Amenhotep II followed by Mahu, his wife Baky, and possibly their daughter Amunhedu present offerings to Osiris in a kiosk.1343 Despite the lack of a clear identification of the kings, Montuiywy’s autobiographical stele on the opposite wall seems to indicate that Thutmosis III died and his son Amenhotep II ascended to the throne.1344 Following the offering formula at the beginning of the inscription,1345 Montuiywy begins to recount his activities during the reign of Thutmosis III. Thus we learn that Montuiywy was a servant in the king’s apartments who followed Thutmosis III as a youth (nxn) of twenty-two after having grown up in the palace,1346 and was then promoted to a higher position that related to the

1343

The scene in Mahu’s tomb (TT85) is located on the north end of the east wall of the pillared front hall, PM(16). Thutmosis III is perhaps depicted as Osiris here, while the figures of Mahu and his family are only slightly smaller than that of the newly crowned Amenhotep II. See Chapter 3, for a discussion of the scene. 1344 PM(2), Urk. IV, 1466-8, Hermann, Stelen, 40*-41*, pl.3 (b). The stele is badly damaged, as indicated in Hermann’s plate, but not significantly more than at that time. I was able to confirm the inscription as recorded by Hermann and the Urkunden. 1345 Lines 1-4, Urk. IV, 1466.6-12. 1346 Lines 4-5, Urk. IV, 1466.13-16. The text, with restorations in [ ] from the Urk., reads: Dd.f [in]k //[saH Ax n nb.f]// bAk n ipt-nswt iw Sms[.n].i //[nswt]// bity //[Mn-xpr]//-ra //[Hr xAswt]// nb[t] m nxn n ///x+ 1 i //// xpr.n(.i) m Xnw “He says: I was a [noble beneficial for his lord], a servant of the royal apartments. I followed the king [of Upper] and Lower Egypt [Menkheper]re [upon] all [foreign countries] as a child of

298

other attendants in the palace.1347 Montuiywy proceeds to extol the abilities of Thutmosis III in his chariot and on the battlefield, including mention of traversing (xns) the mountains, crossing the Euphrates River and crossing to Karoy, another name for Napata in Nubia.1348 The text bears remarkable similarity to that on the statue of the overseer of works in the temples Minmose, especially in the verb choice and their order of placement.1349 According to Montuiywy, it was during the latter campaign that he was “in his (the king’s) following”, a phrase indicative of his close relationship to the king1350 and one that likely placed him in close contact with Thutmosis III’s other “followers”, men like Amenemheb-Mahu, Minmose, and Amenmose. The mention of the Euphrates River crossing gives us a date in year 33, the eighth campaign that Thutmosis III made into Syria.1351 At this point in the narrative there is no indication that Montuiywy has been promoted to the position of royal butler, but his personal relationship to Thutmosis III is clear. The next series of events seems to describe the death of Thutmosis III and accession of Amenhotep II, although neither king is named directly. Montuiywy relates:

(22 ?) … after I grew up in the (royal) residence.” I suggest a restoration of “22” based on the fact that a single stroke is visible at the bottom of the damaged section and there is only room for one or perhaps two additional strokes in front of it. Above this the most likely restoration are two signs each denoting the number 10, since it is highly unlikely that Montuiywy was only in his teens on these campaigns. The damage after m Xnw makes it possible that this should be taken as the proposition “within” rather than as a preposition + noun. However, even translated as ‘within’, there would need to be a location named after this, and the palace is still the most likely. 1347 Lines 6-7, Urk. IV, 1466.17-18. The text reads: /// iq[r.k]wi //// nb xpr.kwi m //// n Xrw tp aH “… I was excellent … everyone, I having become as … of those who are under (i.e. subordinates) the head of the palace.” 1348 Wenig, LdÄ IV, col.343. 1349 See Chapter 3, pp.400ff. for a discussion of this official, esp. pp.403ff. for the relevant portion of Minmose’s Medamud inscription. The use of DAi ‘to cross (water)’ is here used both for the Euphrates campaign and the one to Nubia, which is unusual given that this verb is rarely used to indicate land travel. It may be that the wrong determinative was drawn by the scribe, that of a boat instead of a ‘x’ (Gardiner Z9) and arm with stick (Gardiner D40), which would change the meaning to “extend (against)”, a more logical choice with regard to a Nubian campaign. 1350 Guksch, Königsdienst, pp.57-65. 1351 On the campaigns of Thutmosis III, see most recently Redford, Wars.

299

[I went forth] bearing the praises of the lord of the two lands, [he caused that I ?] flourish under the two legs of his eldest son, who came out from [him after] he [appeared in glory], the [image of] the king / a king like … a god who came forth from a god, whose seat Re confirmed.1352 While not as explicit as in Amenemheb-Mahu’s autobiography,1353 it is nonetheless clear that Montuiywy is speaking about a transition between kings. Based on the stylistic dating of the tomb, and Montuiywy’s certain participation on the Syrian wars of Thutmosis III, the only conclusion possible is that the kings referred to are Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. It is also evident that Montuiywy participated in military operations led by Amenhotep II on behalf of Thutmosis III and was active in Amenhotep II’s “first” campaign in year 3, during which Thutmosis III probably died.1354 Once Amenhotep II becomes king, Montuiywy is further promoted within the palace sphere. Under the new king he rises in rank and becomes promoted (sxnt) to a position supervising all the offices of the king’s house.1355 In the Urkunden, the suggested restoration is that Montuiywy was “placed among his [courtiers]” and promoted among his [officials].”1356 Hermann however, includes Montuiywy’s royal butler title in the damaged areas, thus he was

1352

Lines 14-15, Urk. IV, 1467.16-20. The text, with restorations in [ ] from the Urkunden and suggestions in ( ), reads: //[pr.n.i]// xr Hsw nb tAwy swAD //(.n.f wi ?)// [x]r rdwy sA.f smsw pr xn[t.f xAi].n.f //[tw]t nswt /// f //// nTr pr m nTr s[m]n.n Ra nst.f 1353 See Chapter 3 for the discussion of Amenemheb-Mahu’s autobiography. 1354 For a discussion of the Thutmosis III – Amenhotep II co-regency and the events surrounding Amenhotep II’s year 3 campaign see der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.19-40, 45-56. 1355 Lines 17-18, Urk. IV, 1468:6-8. The text as I viewed it, with only obvious gaps filled in ( ) reads: di(.k)w(i) m ///w.f sxnt.kwi m //// iAwt nbt nt pr-nswt anx (wDA snb) r(di).kwi Xr st-Hr “I was placed as/with his (the king’s) …, I was promoted as/among …, every office of the king’s house, life, prosperity, [health], was placed under the place of (my) sight. 1356 Urk. IV, 1468:6-8: : di[.k]w[i] m [-m smr]w.f sxnt.kwi m[-m srw.f] iAwt nbt nt pr-nswt anx wDA [snb] r[di].kwi Xr st-Hr “I was placed among his (the king’s) courtiers, I was promoted among his officials, every office of the king’s house, life, prosperity, health, was placed under the place of (my) sight.”

300

“placed with his [courtiers]” and “promoted as [royal butler].”1357 The damaged area gives almost no indication towards either restoration. I would only point out that if Hermann’s suggestion were accurate, then it is likely that the fuller phrase “royal butler, pure of hands” was used because this would fit the space better.1358 Bryan states that although it is clear that Montuiywy was promoted by Amenhotep II, this does not necessarily mean he was not already a royal butler under Thutmosis III.1359 Indeed, in an offering scene towards the rear of the passage it would appear that Montuiywy was given a possibly higher position late in life. Here he is called the “the two legs of the lord of the two lands upon every foreign country that he traversed, [royal butler] pure of hands, overseer of the royal apartments, Xrd n kAp.”1360 This is the only place in the tomb that the title “overseer of the royal apartments” is found, and one of the few instances in which “royal butler” is not placed just before Montuiywy’s name.1361 Perhaps then Montuiywy’s final position, the one to which Amenhotep II promoted him, was overseer of the royal apartments. If this is the case, then it implies that after a long tenure as a royal butler on the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, Montuiywy was brought back to the palace and given a position in his later years that was the culmination of his early career as a servant in the royal apartments. 1357

Hermann, Stelen, 41*.7: di[.k]w[i] m [smr]w.f sxnt.kwi m [wbA nswt] … iAwt nbt nt pr-nswt r // m Xr st-Hr “I was placed with his (the king’s) courtiers, I was promoted as royal butler, … every office of the king’s house … as under the place of (my) sight.” 1358 There is a trace of a line just before the word iAwt, included in the Urkunden as part of the plural strokes following srw. Hermann does not indicate this stroke, but it could easily be part of a in wab awy. 1359 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.49. 1360 In the offering scene in the middle(-north) of the east wall of the passage, PM(9), Montuiywy is being presented with funerary gifts made in the workshops depicted in the adjacent scene. 1361 Out of seven relatively undamaged inscriptions, in which the end of the text and Monutiywy’s name are legible, or at least easily reconstructable, royal butler appears at the end in at least three (PM(4), (5), Passage ceiling, west band) and possibly four [PM(10)]. Of the remaining three texts, in two “Xrd n kAp” is the last title [PM(1), (9)], while in the third the last title is lost, though it may have read “royal butler of pure hands, [Xrd n kAp]”, which would fit the space [brazier offering to the east of PM(1)].

301

What is especially interesting is that despite the long autobiographical narrative, and Monutiywy’s various duties at home and abroad, almost nothing of this is represented in his tomb. This may be a result of the damaged state of the transverse-hall of the tomb. In the hall, the only scenes that are extant are those that show banqueting, offering, fishing and fowling, and the two stelae discussed at length above.1362 It is certainly possible that the remaining two walls of the tomb’s transverse-hall are where representations of Montuiywy’s activities in the palace would have been placed. While the depictions on the west wall of the passage are purely funerary in nature,1363 those on the east wall could plausibly fit into the realm of “daily life” or even duty-related scenes. At the south end of the wall Montuiywy hunts on foot in the desert,1364 while just to the north is an extensive vintage scene in which all five parts of the process are shown: picking and crushing the grapes, making and storing the wine, and presenting the products to Montuiywy.1365 While both of these scenes are commonly found in 18th Dynasty Theban tombs, and are generally interpreted as representations of an official’s activities on his own estate, in Monutiywy’s case it is also possible that the vintage scene serves as a reminder of his royal butler responsibilities as well. This may also be a second interpretation for the agricultural activities that are placed along almost the entire bottom of the wall and depict the cycle from ploughing to harvesting.1366 The next scene on the

1362

On the south wall, west side [PM(1)] Montuiywy offers braziers followed by several attendants, and is offered to by a priest. PM(2) contains the autobiographical stele, while at PM(3) is the false-door stele and scene of Montuiywy offering to the two kings. The east side of the north wall [PM(4)] contains fishing and fowling as well as an offering scene, while in the lower register Montuiywy is seated in a kiosk receiving the products of the catch. 1363 PM(5)-(6). The wall bears three registers of a funerary procession culminating in the arrival of the people and objects before Anubis (top register), Osiris (2nd register), and a destroyed figure. 1364 PM(7). 1365 PM(8). The scene also includes the figure of Termuthis in snake form placed above staked jars. The inscription with Montuiywy is very faded and difficult to read. 1366 The depictions are below PM(7)-(9).

302

wall, PM(9), is an excellent indicator for the high status that Montuiywy held, though it provides little information about his duties. Here he is seated receiving objects which are being made for the New Year’s Day (wpt-rnpt) festival.1367 Montuiywy’s claim to have gown up in the court accords well with his title of Xrd n kAp.1368 However, unlike other officials who were called Xrd n kAp and whose parents have a demonstrable connection to the court,1369 the only evidence for Montuiywy’s childhood at the court is his own statement. The fact that there is almost no information about his family is not due to his tomb being damaged. Rather, an examination of the scenes quickly demonstrates two points. First, based on the fact that Montuiywy is represented alone in all of the offering scenes save one, at the rear of the passage, he was either not married, or only married late in life, after his tomb decoration had been started.1370 The woman who receives offerings with Montuiywy on the east wall of the passage appears to be “his mother, the mistress of the house, Hepu.”1371 Second, Montuiywy may have come from a relatively low social status since his father is not depicted or mentioned anywhere in the tomb, and his mother is only designated as a “mistress of the house.”

1367

The scene is a similar, though much smaller, version of the one in TT92 of the royal butler Suemniut, placed at the north end of PM(7). Although in Suemniut’s case he is presenting New Year’s gifts to Amenhotep II and Maat. See above, pp.203ff. 1368 Montuiywy bears this title in the offering scene adjacent at PM(1), as well as in the two scenes placed at the north end of the passage’s east wall, PM(9)-(10). PM(9) is the scene with the New Year’s Day gifts, and PM(10) is an offering scene. 1369 I.e., Iamu, the son of the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu, the overseer of the granaries Menkheper(resoneb) (TT79) whose father was the overseer of the granaries Minnakht (TT87), the steward of Perunefer Qenamun (TT93) whose mother Amenemipet was a royal nurse, and perhaps Paser (TT367), the son of the Hry pDt Nebamun (TT145). 1370 Although a woman accompanies Montuiywy in the fishing and fowling scene [PM(4)] and a young boy in the hunt [PM(7)], neither are identified and could thus be related in any number of ways, i.e. respectively a mother/wife/sister/daughter/niece or brother/son/nephew. 1371 PM(10), the north end of the wall. The woman is identified in PM I.1 p.280 as his mother, and although the inscription is rather faded, mwt.f, “his mother” seems to be a better fit than Hmt.f “his wife”.

303

Yet this would appear to contradict Montuiywy’s own statement that he grew up in the court. An important point for reconciling these two issues is that in his autobiography Montuiywy expounds on the virtues and abilities of Thutmosis III,1372 and also credits the king for his advancements. The emphasis that Montuiywy places on Thutmosis III’s role in the campaigns and concomitant lack of any mention of his own achievements suggests that the point being made is that Montuiywy was present on these campaigns. His apparent place in the court from an early age may have allowed him to take advantage of the access he had and develop a friendship with the king that resulted in Montuiywy accompanying Thutmosis III on his military undertakings. At the very end of his autobiography, Montuiywy states, “I praise god for the favors of the king … in the (royal) residence, a lifetime of Ra and the years of Atum”.1373 This would seem to imply that for Montuiywy, the favors granted him by both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II played a central role in his advancements. Schulman has suggested that by the Amarna Period the royal butlers comprised a class of men who were loyal to the king, due to their positions within the king’s household rather than the court itself, and thus they depended on the favors of the king.1374 This description seems to be quite accurate with regard to Montuiywy.

1372

For example, in line 13, Urk. IV, 1467.15.he describes Thutmosis III as “a sole warrior who made himself into portions” aHA waw ir sw m fqdw. The statement seems to imply that Thutmosis was alone on the battlefield, yet was able to be everywhere at once. 1373 Line 18, Urk. IV, 1448.9-10: dwA.i nTr n Hsw nswt //// m-Xnw aHaw n Ra rnpwt Itm. Hermann restores di.n.f n.i “He gave to me” in the damaged portion. 1374 Schulman, CdE 61, p.196-7. For further discussion on the royal butlers, see the discussion of Suemniut in Section IIb, p.203 ff. above.

304

Pehsukher (A court-based military official) The military officer known as Pehsukher called Tjennu bore the titles fan-bearer (of the lord of the two lands), idnw of the king/his majesty and idnw of the multitudinous army, as well as iry pDt of the lord of the two lands. He will be referred to simply as Pehsukher here.1375 Discussions about Pehsukher have generally focused on comparison between him and Amenemheb-Mahu, owner of TT85, who served under Thutmosis III and provides accounts of several of the campaigns on which he participated.1376 This may have led to Pehsukher’s being viewed as more of a military official than he actually was. A reevaluation of Pehsukher’s career and titles follows in an effort to ascertain whether he was truly a military man, or used the military as a context in which to place his relationship to Amenhotep II. Pehsukher’s tomb, TT88,1377 and to a lesser extant his career, are quite similar to that of Mahu’s, the owner of TT85.1378 The numerous points of comparison between the two men’s careers and families are well-known to scholars and have been discussed at length elsewhere.1379 In some areas Pehsukher’s tomb and its decoration replicates that seen in TT85, while in others it appears that Pehsukher borrowed and adapted some of the elements for his own tomb, TT88.1380 This is probably due to Pehsukher and Mahu, as well as Neith and Baky, having comparable duties, even if the titles themselves are not exactly the same. Unfortunately, unlike Mahu’s tomb, the construction and decoration of

1375 1376

TAy xw (n nb tAwy), idnw n nsw; idnw n Hm.f; idnw n mSa aSAw, iry pDt n nb tAwy See Chapter 3, for a discussion of this official. For Mahu’s autobiography; cf. Redford, Wars, pp.167-

72. 1377

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, p.342, type VIIa. Amenemheb-Mahu is discussed Chapter 3. 1379 Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen., pp. 65-80. It has also resulted in the joint republication of TTs 85 and 88, which is currently underway. 1380 Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, pp. 65-80. 1378

305

Pehsukher’s was never completed and as a result we do not have as clear a picture of his career.1381 In basic type and placement, the scenes which were finished mirror those found in TT85: provisioning of troops and storing of provisions on the southwest wall, false-door stele on the north end of the west wall, inspecting troops and offering before the king on the northwest wall, offering braziers and banquet scene on the southeast wall, round-topped stele with offering text on the south end of the east wall, and decorated pillars.1382 In addition to TT88, Pehsukher also owned a stelephorous statue, now in the Royal Scottish Museum,1383 and several funerary cones.1384 He is called the “fan-bearer of the lord of the two lands, idnw of the king” on both. The reconstruction of Pehsukher’s career is made difficult by the lack of an autobiographical stele and the damaged or uninscribed duty-related scenes. The depictions of recording the storing of provisions and recording the troops are unfinished, and in the representation of provisioning troops Pehsukher’s titles are lost. However, this last scene is such an exact match in placement, style and content to Mahu’s earlier TT85 a restoration of Pehsukher’s text can be suggested.1385 The beginning of the inscription duplicates the one in TT85, at the end of which Mahu is called an idnw n mSa.1386 Pehsukher is also assisted by scribes in this depiction, one of whom refers to Pehsukher

1381

TT88, like TT85, has a 6-pillared front room with the end pillars attached as pilasters and the beginning of a passage that was never finished being hewn. It is also placed on a south-north axis. 1382 All of the scenes are in the pillared hall. Respectively PM(1), southwest wall; PM(2), west wall, north end; PM(3), northwest wall, west end; PM(4), northwest wall, east end; PM(5)-(6), southeast wall; PM(7), east wall, south end; the south face of the central pillars (Ba, Ca) and lintel between them as well as the south face of the west pillar (Da). 1383 RSM, Edinburgh, no. 1910.75. Vandier, Manuel III, pl.clx (3). 1384 Davies and Macadam, Corpus, 201. 1385 In both TT85 of Mahu and TT88 of Pehsukher this depiction is placed on the southwest wall of the pillared hall, and the provisioning occurs at the east end of the wall. 1386 Compare Urk. IV, 911.5-11 with 1459.

306

as a TAy xw.1387 It thus seems likely that the end of the text would read either idnw n mSa aSAw (or idnw n nswt) TAy xw PH-sw-xr mAa-xrw. Throughout the rest of the tomb, including in the elements that frame the stele, Pehsukher is called equally idnw (of the king) and TAy xw (of the lord of the two lands). The only variants of this are the titles idnw of the multitudinous army and idnw of the king in the army.1388 The latter is the same as that found once in Mahu’s tomb and bears some discussion here.1389 Gnirs has argued that while at the beginning of the New Kingdom the title idnw n mSa was originally a military office, it eventually became an administrative label denoting logistical responsibilities within the military.1390 This change also brought the position under the subordination of the king, and thus the titles idnw n nswt /Hm.f become variants for it, suggesting that the bearer is always an idnw of the king even when this is not explicitly stated. Gnirs would thus understand the term idnw as shifting from the duties of an adjutant or deputy (Adjutanten) within the military to those of a representative (Stellvertreter) of the king in the military sphere.1391 The fact that both Pehsukher and Mahu held the additional variant idnw of the king in the army lends support to this idea. In Mahu’s case it seems likely that because he was a career military officer who, as an older man, was directly appointed or promoted by Amenhotep II into the position of idnw he straddles the transition of the title from military to purely administrative. For Pehsukher however, his function as an idnw was probably more directly administrative from the beginning.

1387

PM(1), east end, register three: TAy xw PH-sw /// pA Hm-ntr /// In the brazier offering scene at PM(5) and the column of inscription that runs along the left side of the stele, respectively. 1389 In the transverse-hall, PM(26), see above. 1390 Gnirs, Militär, p.25 with note 202. 1391 Gnirs, Militär, p.102 with note 532 and p.152 with note 957. 1388

307

Although Pehsukher’s career seems at first glance remarkably similar to that of Mahu, it is important to mention that while Pehsukher was indeed in the military and participated on the campaigns of Amenhotep II, he was more administrator than warrior. While Mahu stresses his role in the campaigns prior to becoming an idnw, Pehsukher bears no truly soldierly titles. Rather, his military exploits are expressed as epithets. These epithets include “one relating to the legs of the lord of the two lands upon northern and southern foreign countries”,1392 “one relating to the legs of the good god who does not turn away from the lord of the two lands upon the battlefield” and “one who follows the king in his marches upon the southern and northern foreign lands.”1393 Guksch interprets all of these phrases as statements expressing loyalty to the king.1394 Even Pehsukher’s two main titles, “idnw of the king” and “fan-bearer of the lord of the two lands,” as well as the less common “iry pDt,” while essentially military in nature, carry with them a strong inference of court/royal connection. This is especially true for fanbearer, which unlike standard-bearer is more representative of an official’s proximity to the king than of his function on the battlefield.1395 Although Pehsukher’s stele contains an offering text including a hymn to Re, “appeal to the living and the gods” and numerous self-praising statements, it nonetheless provides some insight into Pehsukher’s career.1396 He seems to mention his advancement within the context of the numerous laudatory 1392

PM(5), west end of the southeast wall: iry rd.wy n nb tAwy Hr xAst rsyt mHt Pillar Da (south face), registers 1 and 3 respectively: [iry rdwy nTr nfr] tm [tSy r] nb tAwy [Hr pri] and [(Sms) nswt r nmtt].f Hr [xAst rsyt mHtt]. Based on Virey’s copy as these inscriptions are today badly damaged. 1394 Guksch, Königsdienst, pp.56-73. 1395 Schulman does not deal with the “fan-bearer” titles at all, but views standard-bearer as denoting military responsibility; cf. Schulman, MRTO, pp.69-71, 84-6 table 3. 1396 The Htp-di-nsw formula and hymn concern lines 1-15, while the appeal and “I am/was” (ink …) statements appear in lines 15-33. The form and content of the stele is to a large extant the same as that seen in other tombs of this period, e.g. TT200 of the military official and chief of police Dedi, TT87 of overseer of the granaries Minnakht, and in TT79 of his son, the overseer of the granaries Menkheper(resoneb); cf. Urk. IV, 1515 ff. 1393

308

epithets that are meant to demonstrate his usefulness above other courtiers.1397 Pehsukher claims that the king promoted (sxnt) him because of his devotion,1398 and repeats this on one of the pillars with the epithet “one whom his lord ennobled”.1399 Thus, it appears that throughout his tomb Pehsukher is continually stressing his relationship with the king as opposed to his military abilities or duties.1400 The comparisons that have been made between Mahu and Pehsukher have also been made between Pehsukher’s wife Neith and Mahu’s wife Baky, who were both designated as a chief royal nurse and nurturer of the good god.1401 Pehsukher did not limit his borrowing from TT85 to scenes only related to his own career, the representations pertaining to Neith are also quite similar to Baky’s representations found in TT85. Neith accompanies Pehsukher in the brazier and banquet scenes on the southeast wall, as well as on the pillars, where she bears both of these titles.1402 However, unlike Baky, Neith is never shown suckling the prince, or being offered to by her husband, rather she is consistently shown paired with Pehsukher.1403 One image in particular has often been discussed with respect to Pehsukher’s use of scenes from TT85: the representation of

1397

This is in contrast to Mahu, who explicitly states that he was appointed by the king. Line 12, Urk. IV, 1522.9: sxnt.n nswt Hr mnx-ib.f 1399 Pillar Da, south face, register 3: saH nb.f. 1400 As will be shown in Chapter 3, this is quite different from the case of Mahu, who focuses almost all his attention on his military exploits and career. 1401 mnat wrt n nb tAwy Sdt nTr nfr 1402 PM(5): nbt pr mr.f mnat wr(t) Sdt nTr Nt maAt-xrw; PM(6), from Virey, MMAF 5: Hm.f mr.f mnat wrt Sd nTr Nt mAat-xrw; Pillar Ca, reg.1: nbt pr mnat nswt Sd nTr ///; Pillar Da, reg.2, from Virey: Hmt.f mna(t) nswt Nt mAa-xrw; Pillar Da, reg.3: Hmt.f mr.f mnat nswt Nt mAa-xrw. 1403 Roehrig’s suggestion that a fragment in Berlin depicting a woman suckling a male child comes from TT88 is certainly a possibility, though unproven; Roehrig, Royal urse, pp. 175-6, 302-4. Part of the problem is it’s location – the south end of the west wall and south face of the adjoining pilaster is plastered but undecorated, as is the south face of the eastern pilaster, adjoining the stele at PM(7). If it follows the pattern of the rest of the tomb, it should appear in the lower register of the north end of the east wall. However, this as well as the adjoining northeast wall were either destroyed down to the rock or were left unfinished. The latter seems more likely, especially since this is the only area in the pillared hall in which the ceiling was plastered but not painted, and in general only small parts of the plaster have fallen off to reveal bare rock. 1398

309

Baky offering an Amun bouquet to Amenhotep II in TT85.1404 In TT88 an extremely similar scene is found in the same position, and above it is almost an exact replica of the columns that pertain to Baky (Fig.34, p.490). There are two important differences between the depictions in TT88 and TT85 that have thus far gone unnoticed. First, in TT85, although the majority of the wall is destroyed, the heads of the figures belong to women. This is certain based on both the style of the hair and the fact that the inscription, which relates only to Baky, starts in the column immediately adjacent to the king’s kiosk. However, in TT88 while we are missing the heads of the figures, we have the feet: the first figure is a man and the second is a woman.1405 In addition, the inscription, which is for Neith, begins in the fourth column. Thus the first three columns could easily have been intended for Pehsukher, or even the king. As was mentioned above in connection to Mahu and Baky, scenes in which a couple offers before an enthroned king are uncommon. However, the fact that it is not Neith, but presumably Pehsukher followed by Neith who offer bouquets makes it quite clear that while Neith was probably an important figure due to her status as a royal nurse, she was not individually honored in the way that Baky was. In general, Pehsukher has been thought a somewhat later contemporary of Mahu who served primarily under Amenhotep II, though he probably began his career under Thutmosis III. Unfortunately the name of the king depicted in the kiosk offering scene is completely lost, and it does not appear or is not preserved elsewhere in the tomb.1406 It is

1404

In TT85 it appears at the east end of the northwest wall [PM(9)], adjacent to the scene of Mahu before the troops [PM(8)]. See also the discussion in Chapter 3 1405 In fact, there is a destroyed space before the man into which another smaller figure could fit – perhaps a fan-bearer or two? 1406 This is at PM(4). Unlike in Mahu’s tomb, the name of the king does not appear on the sides of the storehouse in the provisioning scenes, PM(1).

310

thus not possible to say for certain who Neith’s nursling was, although usually prince Amenhotep, later Amenhotep II has been suggested.1407 Above (p.271ff.) Pehsukher was discussed in relation to his appearance in the steward Qenamun’s tomb, TT93, and the issue of Neith’s nursling was also debated. The conclusion reached was that Pehsukher was a contemporary of Qenamun and Amenhotep II, and thus Neith was more likely to have been a nurse to Amenhotep II’s son prince Thutmosis (IV). Although the thematic content of the tomb’s decoration is more reminiscent of that seen in the reign of Thutmosis III and early Amenhotep II, we must remember that Pehsukher copied scenes from a tomb of the earlier period. In addition, the decorative style of TT88 is comparable to that of Qenamun and other officials whose tombs were painted in the latter portion of Amenhotep II’s reign. Pehsukher was an important official in his own right during the reign of Amenhotep II. Despite his tomb’s unfinished status, its size suggests that Pehsukher was honored by the king, as does his marriage to a royal nurse. We know little of his origins as neither his tomb nor his statue provides any information about his own parents, or those of Neith. Whether this is due to the tomb’s unfinished state, Pehsukher’s desire to emulate Mahu (who did not name his parents in his tomb), or was intentional, is unknown. However, based on the type of epithets, and even titles that Pehsukher had, it appears that his career was based primarily on a personal connection to the king. Unlike the idnw Mahu, Pehsukher did not have a truly military career. Rather he was primarily an administrator who probably would have stayed close to the palace. This is reflected by the fact that all of his titles have the qualification “of the lord of the two lands” or “of his majesty” added to them. 1407

Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.172ff.

311

As was mentioned above, Pehsukher copied or adapted scenes from Mahu’s tomb for the decoration of his own. Perhaps Pehsukher emulated Mahu in part to increase his own standing through comparison to the older official, who had achieved his status and relationship with both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II through merit.1408 Pehsukher may even have named his son, the second priest of Amun Mahu after the older official, since the two names are written with the same orthography. What remains clear is that Pehsukher seems to have owed his position to a personal friendship with the king, rather than to his abilities or his family.

IV. Conclusions The foregoing discussion has demonstrated that nepotism was indeed a part of Egyptian bureaucratic society, and that it occurred in different degrees and with varying results. Those officials whose familial influence provided them access to positions are all active throughout the Theban temple sphere, ranging from low to upper- level priests and temple staff.1409 In one example, a family belonging to the mid- and upper-priestly echelons of royal mortuary temples may also have had a connection to the king through the father, which could have further enhanced the positions of his sons. In contrast, officials who benefited due only to an ancestor’s relationship with the king attained extraordinarily high positions within all areas of the government. This relationship, with one exception, was based on the parent being a nurse or tutor to the king as a youth. All of these officials afforded a parent unusual prominence in their

1408

See the discussion in Ch.3. This is also seen in the family of the steward Amenemhat, and among the in-laws and descendants of the vizier Aametu, who were included in Chapter 1. 1409

312

monuments, but only one is designated as a Xrd n kAp (child of the court), while another who is “praised in the kAp” is also called a foster-brother of the king (sn mnay n nswt). Additionally, three of these men report only their highest titles, while a fourth bears an early post that has no link to his subsequent positions. Three officials in this group also carry some level of military distinction, and appear to have eventually formed their own rapport with the king. For those officials whose personal friendship with the king was stressed above anything else, it appears that this association led to increased prestige and status, but did not necessarily result in significant job advancement. In one instance, the son in fact inherited the titles of his father, although this is given a singular lack of attention in comparison to the official’s claim to amity with the king. In addition, although participation on military campaigns was mentioned or implied by all of the king’s “friends,” only one of them clearly had an actual role in military activities. This suggests that mentioning one’s presence in relation to the battlefield was important to demonstrating camaraderie with the king. Among the four priestly families who benefited from familial nepotism, only for the first king’s son Amenhotep is there clear evidence for three generations of clergy. Due to the state of preservation in their tombs, there is no information on the descendants of either the high priest of Mut, Qen, or the weigher of gold and silver, Baki. Thus, we cannot state conclusively that their children would not also have been priests or temple staff. Ra, the high priest in several mortuary temples, was both childless and unmarried. Although it is possible that one of Ra’s brothers had children who could have also been priests, there is no record of this in Ra’s tomb, or that of his father the 2nd priest of Amun, Ahmose. Although all of the officials in this group entered the priesthood through their

313

families, this was effected in slightly different ways. The relatively low rank of Amenhotep’s uncle, Neferhotep, suggests that this may be an example where an official influenced a superior to the benefit of a relative. Ra’s father, however, would probably have wielded enough power from his priestly and court positions that he could place his sons as upper-level priests. Assuming that the restoration of Qen’s father as an overseer of the granaries of Amun is correct, then he too would have had the ability to spread his sons throughout Karnak. Baki provides an interesting case, since it may be that his father Bak(enamun)’s position as “scribe of counting cattle in (the mortuary temple) of Ahmose-Nefertari” bestowed upon the family an increased status and visibility. In the text it was suggested that the first king’s son (high priest) Amenhotep honored his uncle, Neferhotep, because he played a role in Amunhotep’s becoming a priest. However, the highest, and only, recorded position for Neferhotep is 4th priest of Amun. This position is relatively low in the temple hierarchy,1410 which makes it unlikely that Neferhotep could have installed Amunhotep as a wab-priest. A more plausible explanation might be that Neferhotep was able to influence a superior to install his nephew Amenhotep as a wab-priest.1411 Based on his titulary, it appears that Amenhotep moved through the ranks of temple priests, beginning at the lowest level and eventually becoming high priest in the funerary temple of Thutmosis I. However, Amenhotep’s son, Aakheperkaraseneb, seems to have been able to pass over the middle positions of his father, ascending from wab-priest directly to high priest in the mortuary temple of Thutmosis I. This may indicate that Amenhotep, once he became high priest, was able to 1410

Sauneron, Priests, pp.57f.; Doxey, in: Oxford Encyclopedia Vol.2, pp.69, 71ff. However, since it is possible that Amenhotep’s father Djhutsenty was active at Djeser-djeseru, it cannot be entirely ruled out that he also played a role in his Amunhotep’s career path.. He bears the (reconstructed) epithet or title “revered before [Amun] in Djeser-djseru,” the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut at Deir elBahri. 1411

314

use his influence to accelerate his son’s assumption of the highest position. The fact that Aakheperkaraseneb reports the same titles as his father, also suggests that this is another example of direct office inheritance of the type seen in the previous chapter. As mentioned above, Baki’s case is interesting because the status indicated by his titulary seems to be incongruous with tomb-ownership. Baki’s positions are essentially in the low to middle range of temple administration, making it seem unlikely that he would have been able to have a tomb at all. Yet his tomb (TT18), though not large, has a courtyard, is well decorated, and is favorably situated within the necropolis on the Dra Abu el-Naga hillside.1412 An explanation for this might be that Baki’s father’s connection to the mortuary temple of Ahmose-Nefertari may have afforded him a higher level of status than would otherwise be expected for a scribe of counting cattle.1413 If this were the case, then it seems that the father’s status was transferable to his son.. The fact that TT18 has a view towards the joint funerary temple of Amenhotep I and Ahmose-Nefertari seems to support this theory. It also leads to the question of whether Baki himself served in the same mortuary temple. Although the addition of the phrase “of Ahmose-Nefertari” is not found in his tomb, the poor state of its preservation means that we cannot rule out this possibility. Unfortunately, the lack of information concerning Baki’s sons prevents us from assessing the chronological extent of the status engendered by a connection to the mortuary temple administration of a prestigious queen.1414

1412

Kampp, Thebanische ekropole, p.199f., pl.7. Ahmose-Neferetari was extremely prominent and influential during the reigns of her husband Ahmose and son Amenhotep I. See the Introduction to the book, Section II, pp.3ff. 1414 It is possible that the absence of Baki’s sons from the record is itself suggestive that familial-based prestige was not maintainable for more than one generation. 1413

315

The above two examples both demonstrate how a mid-level official could use familial influence could be used to assist a relative’s placement in the same type of office, priestly for Amunhotep and temple administration for Baki. However, Qen’s family demonstrates that when a parent was especially highly placed in the temple domain, his sons can be found functioning as both clergy and temple staff. As an overseer of granaries of Amun, it is likely that two of Qen’s brothers, Djhutymes and Wesy, came under their father’s direct supervision, while Qen and two other brothers were in completely different areas of the temple. Indeed, Qen himself probably had a degree of influence that was similar to his father, though as a priest rather than an administrator. The fact that none of Qen’s preserved titles are lower than “high priest of Mut,” may indicate that his father’s prominence hastened Qen’s rise, and he subsequently chose not to report his lower titles.1415 Ra, who was a high priest in the mortuary temples of Ahmose-Nefertari, Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III, provides an excellent example of the fluidity that can exist between modes of office transmission. In the examination of the monuments belonging to Ra and his father Ahmose, two details are especially notable. The first is that both Ahmose and his wife Iret were elite members of the clergy in Karnak and had a privileged status in the court. The second is that Ra, in addition to holding several high priestships, had a close relationship with his sovereign, Amenhotep II, which allowed Ra to depict the king and the king’s mother Merytre in his tomb. This suggests that Ra’s entry into the upper echelons of the priesthood was due to his father’s status at Karnak, that his initial contact with Amenhotep II came as a result of his parent’s prestige in the

1415

It is also possible that Qen was placed in an extremely high position from the beginning.

316

palace, and that Ra was eventually able to establish his own personal connection to Amenhotep II. Although this may seem similar in some respects to those men who gained positions due to an ancestor’s connection to the palace, I would argue that in Ra’s case the primary reason that he became high priest was due to his father’s positions at Karnak, not his standing in the palace. This should be seen as distinct from the officials who originally benefited due to an ancestor’s association with the king, as well as separate from officials whose positions are due to royal favor brought on by amity with their sovereign. In the preserved decorations and inscriptions of the tomb, Ra does not stress his father’s palace connection; Ahmose is only designated as a high priest of Amun.1416 In contrast, officials like Qenamun, who owed their high office to a parent’s influence with the king, consistently honored this ancestor in their monuments. Ra also does not report any court epithets that would suggest that he owed his position to individual favors bestowed by the king.1417 Rather, Ra depicts himself offering to the Amenhotep II and “king’s mother” Merytre in his guise as “high priest of Amun and of the mortuary temple of Thutmosis III in Henkhet-ankh,” with three additional priests of Amun behind him. This is very different from, for example, Paser who, despite following in the career path of his father, focuses in his tomb solely on his friendship with the king since youth. Without his father’s help, it is not at all clear that Ra would have attained the level of priestly rank that allowed him to build such a large, well-located, tomb and made him visible not only to the ancient Egyptians but to the modern scholar as well.

1416

It must be admitted that this could have occurred in the destroyed portions of the tomb. This seems less likely to be an accident of preservation, since in the brazier offering scene Ra lists only the standard epithets, but almost all his priestly titles. 1417

317

This last statement is likewise true for the second group of officials examined in this chapter, but here it was the parent’s direct influence with the king that led to these officials’ prominent placement in the government of Egypt. There are several remarkable conclusions that can be drawn from examining these men. First, it seems significant that the officials descend almost equally from tutors as from nurses to the kings they later served. Menkheperresoneb (i), Qenamun and Mery were each sons of nurses, Suemniut and Amenemopet-Pairy were sons of tutors, and Sennefer was the nephew and adopted son of Amenemopet-Pairy’s father. In addition, both Sennefer and Usersatet married royal nurses. Usersatet is the only official whose parent was not a royal nurse or tutor, rather, he was the son of a Xkrt nswt who was herself the daughter of a palace official. Turning to the chronology of these men we find that Menkheperresoneb (i) is the only official who dates to the co-regency and early years of Thutmosis III’s sole reign; his mother was a nurse to Thutmosis III. Usersatet and Suemniut clearly served under both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, and Sennefer may have as well. The remaining men were officials solely during the reign of Amenhotep II. Based on the chronology, it seems most likely that the wives of Usersatet and Sennefer would have performed their nursing duties for Amenhotep II. The fact that certain men and women were entrusted with the care of princes and princesses as royal nurses and tutors is prima facie evidence for the closeness of their relationship with the reigning king and father. Tutors,1418 who were also called it mna(y) nswt, “father and tutor”, seemed to have been guardians selected to watch over the young prince or princess. They could also be given the charge of a group of children, as the title

1418

In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.322-7 for her concluding comments on the royal tutors.

318

mna(y) n msw nswt “tutor of the king’s children” indicates.1419 In addition, a tomb scene in TT109 of the royal tutor Min indicates that their duties could involve instructing the male princes in skills such as archery.1420 It is likely that tutors received this position towards the end of their careers, after they had already proven themselves as trustworthy to the reigning king. Although men could be represented as tutors without holding the title, this does not seem to be the case for women who were nurses.1421 Royal nurses1422 probably functioned as wet-nurses for the princes and princesses, as the breast determinative for the title implies and several tomb scenes and epithets indicate.1423 Those that nursed the crown-prince, including the women mentioned above, are distinguished by the titles “chief (wrt) royal nurse” and Sdt (Haw) nTr, “one who nurtured (the flesh of) the god.”1424 As would be expected, it is likely that nurses were appointed early in life, when they would have been able to suckle the royal children. This may indicate that the type of relationships royal nurses formed with their charges from birth might have furthered their ability to influence them as kings.

1419 Hekareshu and Hekarneheh, who were tutors to princes Thutmosis (IV) and Amenhotep (III), respectively, each held this title; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.201f., p.211; Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.55ff., 259 ff. 1420 This scene occurs on the west half of the front (south) wall, approximately in the center of the lower register; cf. PM(5)IV,1. Although Min was clearly an important mayor in the Thinite region during the coregency and early years of Thutmosis III’s sole reign, and became tutor to prince Amenhotep (II) towards the end of his career, he was excluded from this study because at this time there is no information which provides an indication of how Min rose to prominence or what power he was able to wield on behalf of his descendants. 1421 This is determined by representations (statuary and tomb painting or relief) in which the official is depicted holding a royal child or children; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.2. The six tutors in question are Pahery (el-Kab T.3), Minmose (statue), Benermerut (statue), Sobekhotep (TT63, statue), Horemheb (TT78), and Tjenuna (statue). The women are always accorded their title(s). 1422 In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, Royal Tutor, pp.314-21 for her concluding comments on the royal nurses. 1423 The epithets are “sweet of milk”, “one who suckled well”, and “whose breast was united with Horus”; cf. Roehrig, p.320. 1424 Roehrig, Royal urse, discusses this particular title on pp.327-30. The tutors Ahmose-Humay and Hekareshu also held the title, while the tutor Ahmose-Pennekhbet reports a similar one.

319

Roehrig suggested that Thutmosis III created a “group of strong and trusted courtiers” for Amenhotep II in the form of husbands to royal nurses, the children of whom “would have provided a group of future courtiers in the form of foster-brothers and sisters with extremely close ties to their sovereign,”1425 while for royal tutors “the honor shown the tutor does not seem directly to have benefited his family”.1426 The results of the current study do not support these statements. It is not the husbands of the nurses, but the nurses themselves who are prominent figures, even after Amenhotep II becomes king. In addition, it appears that the children of both nurses and tutors became important and influential men in the government of Amenhotep II. However, none of these men were called “foster-brother of the king”1427 except Qenamun, for whom it appears to have been honorary. The husbands of the women who were nurses to Amenhotep II are virtually unknown.1428 Certainly the fathers of Mery and Qenamun are elusive figures at best in the tombs of their sons, and this is also true for Menkheperresoneb (i), whose mother was a nurse of Thutmosis III.1429 Even Menkheperresoneb (ii), who inherited his uncle’s position as high priest of Amun, states that he was born of the “foster-sister of the king, Nebetta” thus stressing his family’s status at the palace, rather than naming his father.1430

1425

Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.336-7. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.331. 1427 The title “foster brother/sister of the lord of the two lands” (sn/snt mna(y) n nb tAwy) could only be held by children of nurses. In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, Royal Tutor, pp.308-14 for her concluding comments on this title. B. Bryan, who suggested the title indicated a brother or sister of a nurse or tutor (SSEA IX, pp.117-23), now agrees with Roehrig on the title’s interpretation (pers. comm.). 1428 The one exception is Amenemheb-Mahu, who is discussed in the next chapter. 1429 Menkheperresoneb (i)’s father was the chariot-warrior Hepu. He appears twice in the tomb, but his wife Taiunet is the figure whose name and person are given distinction. Mery’s father Nebpehtetre, although a high priest of Min at Coptos, is known only through two inscriptions in Mery’s tomb. In contrast, Hunay figures prominently both in her son’s tomb and in TT84, which he usurped. The presence of Qenamun’s father, the “steward of …,” is completely overshawdowed by that of his wife Amenemopet. 1430 The “foster-sister of the king” was Nebetta, sister to Menkheperresoneb (i); cf. Ch.1. 1426

320

In contrast, the mnat nswt themselves appear to be very prominent women in their own right.1431 This is primarily reflected in how they are represented, both pictorially and textually, in the tombs of their sons. Although Menkheperresoneb (i) was unmarried, his mother Taiunet appears or is mentioned not only in banquet scenes, but in the funerary procession and in inscriptions along door-jambs as well. This suggests that she is included in the funerary cult alongside Menkheperresoneb (i), and not simply serving in the role of a wife in her son’s tomb.1432 Despite the fact that he was probably married, Mery is accompanied by his mother, Hunay, both in his own tomb and in TT84, which he usurped,. The prominently placed scene in TT93 in which Amenemopet holds the childsize king Amenhotep II on her lap while he reaches towards her clearly demonstrates that she was accorded special distinction and status both by Qenamun and Amenhotep II. Likewise, Sennefer’s wife Senetnay/nefer seems to have been similarly singled out by Amenhotep II and may have been granted her own burial in the Valley of the Kings, perhaps along with Sennefer. Although it seems likely that tutors, unlike nurses, received their positions at the end of their careers, this does not necessarily mean that their role as a tutor was not an element in the furthering of a son’s career. As was stated above, the very fact of being a tutor implies that the official already had a close relationship with his sovereign that would benefit his own descendants even before becoming a tutor. However, the evidence seems to imply that it was this final promotion and recognition on behalf of the king that allowed its bearer to significantly influence the careers of his children. For example, Suemniut came from a hereditary line of mayors but did not inherit this position himself. 1431

In general see Roehrig, Royal urse, Royal Tutor, pp.314-21 for her concluding comments on the royal nurses. 1432 Cf. Whale, Family, pp.261ff.

321

Rather, it appears that his father Iamnefer’s tutor-based connection to a son of Thutmosis II gained Suemniut sustained attention at the court that enabled him to accompany Thutmosis III on his campaigns as a standard-bearer and later become royal butler. This disconnect between Suemniut’s military and palace administration posts and his father’s priestly and mayoral functions supports the theory that it was Iamnefer’s role as a tutor that resulted in Suemniut’s career path and his subsequent ability to form his own relationship with Amenhotep II. Ahmose-Humay probably became a tutor shortly after Amenhotep II was born, since in addition to this title he was called “ [father and nurse] of the king’s son of his body.”1433 However, his epithet “one who nurtured [the flesh of the god]” also indicates that he lived to see Amenhotep II become king. Thus, despite the stylistically early date of Ahmose-Humay’s tomb he may not have been nearing the end of his career by this time. While Ahmose-Humay may have benefited enormously from his position as an overseer of the estates connected to the GWA, it nonetheless seems that it was his amity with Thutmosis III and connection to the young Amenhotep II, more than his position within the administration of the holdings attached to the “god’s wife” estates, that led to his son Amenemopet becoming vizier under Amenhotep II. Significant for this conclusion is the fact that on his own monuments Amenemopet reports only the title of vizier and its associated titulary. There are no military epithets to indicate that he participated on the campaigns of Thutmosis III or Amenhotep II, nor does he have any titles that might connect him with his father’s positions in the temple or palace.

1433

Roehrig, Royal urse, p.349,

322

Sennefer, however, seems to have benefited from both of his uncle’s main spheres of influence. It appears that here we have an example of different types of nepotism altering a career. As an “overseer of priests” connected to the mortuary temple of the GWA, Sennefer was probably introduced into the temple clergy through the power that his uncle could wield as an overseer of granaries in the same domain. However, the shift from this rank to that of mayor of Thebes and the unparalleled control over the Amun precinct as exemplified by Sennefer’s titles suggests that something more powerful than familial nepotism was behind his rise. I would posit that this “something” was the authority Ahmose-Humay held as a tutor to Amenhotep II. Previous scholarship, while recognizing an association between royal nurses (though not tutors) and men who become prominent officials, has consistently taken the position that because children of nurses would have grown up in the court they developed friendships with the young crown-prince that then led to their positions in the administration.1434 However, it seems more accurate to say that it was the parent’s royal connection that allowed the official to be noticed and promoted. The question thus becomes, how much influence did they have once their charge became king, and to what extent could they bring this to bear on behalf of their children? The evidence presented here suggests that in fact royal nurses and tutors were able to do more than simply ensure that their children grew up around the palace and were therefore part of the court elite. As adults, these men held the most prominent positions of the country. The immediate

1434

A theory first suggested by Helck in Einfluss, pp.35-6, n.1, 66-71 and repeated in his Verwaltung, p.538, it has since been repeated by every scholar to deal with this time period; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.336-7; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.152-69, esp. pp.167ff.; Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.269ff.

323

deputies of the king were Usersatet as viceroy of Kush (Nubia)1435 and Amenemopet as vizier. In the north, Qenamun was the steward of the important naval center and Amenhotep II’s garden estate at Perunefer. Thebes had as its head Amenemopet’s cousin Sennefer, who was both mayor of the city and held a large degree of administrative control within the Amun domain in Thebes. Menkheperresoneb (i) and Mery were both high priests of Amun, although not successively.1436 Attached to the king himself were both Qenamun, in his role as steward of the king, and the royal butler Suemniut, whose function in provisioning the king’s palace was awarded prominence in his tomb. The clear veneration of the royal nurses by their sons, and in some cases by their charges after assuming the throne, was demonstrated in the text and reiterated above. Likewise, Ahmose-Humay was accorded a prominent position in the tombs of his son, the vizier Amenemopet, and his nephew, the mayor of Thebes, Sennefer. Although Suemniut’s father Iamnefer was not particularly distinguished, it seems that this might be due to the fact that Iamnefer’s connection was with Thutmosis II and III, while the king depicted in Suemniut’s tomb is Amenhotep II. Suemniut’s final distinction and own royal connection came under this king, and so Iamnefer’s role in his rise was reduced. This recognition combined with the positions that the sons of these nurses and tutors attained all seem to point towards the conclusion that that the institution of the royal nurse was highly influential during this time period. It also suggests that the influence of the nurse, likely lasted beyond the actual time that they were intimately involved with the king. In

1435

Though not a son of nurse, his family’s long-standing presence in the administration of the royal apartments seems to have had the same effect. 1436 Menkheperresoneb (i)’s nephew Menkheperresoneb (ii) inherited this post only to be replaced during the reign of Amenhotep II by the apparently fairly unknown Amenemhat. See the discussion in Chapter 1.

324

addition, it seems likely that although tutors were already distinguished officials, their ability to shape their sons careers was heightened by this position. The four officials presented in this chapter who cite a personal friendship with the king as the primary reason for their positions have further common elements. They exclude any mention of their family, and they all express a connection with the military and the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. However, their military experiences are all quite different, and may thus reflect not only an actual presence, but also a socially perceived need to relate oneself to the king through battle. The fact that these officials served under both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II suggests that despite Amenhotep II’s lack of military activity after year nine, the burgeoning of the military had a lasting effect on the elite’s self-representation. This is perhaps best demonstrated by comparing the career and life of the overseer of foreign countries Amenmose with that of the royal butler Montuiywy, both of whom were officials during the reign of Thutmosis III, participated on his campaigns, and witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II. The similarity between these two officials ends here. Amenmose is the only official with a demonstrable military career, depicting himself on campaign in Syria receiving gifts from a conquered fortress, and in Egypt presenting foreign tribute and captives before Thutmosis III. The relationship he apparently formed with Thutmosis III on these campaigns allowed him to shift from an upper-level combat position (Hry pDt) to that of a diplomat in Syria-Palestine (imy-r xAswt mHtt) with seemingly no intervening steps. This disparity seems to indicate that it was not simply Amenmose’s ability that caused his rise in rank, though admittedly this may have played a part.

325

Montuiywy, however, was a palace-based official, holding positions related to the king’s apartments when he followed the king across the Euphrates River. Unlike Amenmose, Montuiywy neither refers to nor depicts his own activities on these campaigns. Instead he confines himself to extolling the virtues and abilities of Thutmosis III in battle and repeatedly mentions his place in the “following” of the king. Although he did move from a palace servant to supervisor to the overseer of offices and apartments, the emphasis throughout his autobiography is on his closeness to the king. There is no sense that Montuyiwy earned or had a hereditary right to his positions. Rather, in perhaps the clearest statement of personal gain through connections, Montuiywy states that he “praises god for the favors of the king.”1437 Another interesting dichotomy between these two men is that while Montuiywy was clearly promoted by Amunhotep II, it appears that Amenmose was removed from his post by this king. It was mentioned in the text that this may have occurred shortly after year nine of Amenhotep II, once the campaigns in Syria-Palestine had ended. It thus seems that Amenmose, like several of the highest officials who attained their positions under Thutmosis III, was removed relatively quickly by the new king, though not until after the northern lands were (re-)secured. Although Montuiywy was a royal butler, which was an upper level position, there is no evidence that he was removed from office. The reason for this could be that Montuiywy was old enough that he was not considered a threat by Amunhotep II,1438 or that, as Montuiywy’s tomb seems to indicate, his actual duties were small compared to his titulary.

1437

See above, p.304. Montuiywy was 22 when he first went on campaign, and the first recorded mention is yr.33, so he would be about 42 at the accession of Amunhotep II. 1438

326

Paser provides an example of the fluidity and interplay between methods of obtaining office and demonstrates how royal favor did not necessarily elevate one’s functional position. Paser, like Amenmose, held military titles and epithets suggesting that he campaigned with Amenhotep II. However, he also appears to have inherited his highest title, Hry pDt, from his father, who served in this capacity under Thutmosis III, and claims that he was given “rings of fine gold.” Despite this, it is clear that Paser emphasizes his connection to the court as a youth by awarding prominence to the “titles” that reflect this position, namely Xrd n kAp and “chief of the followers of his Majesty when the king was as a (royal) child.” The inscriptional and pictorial focus of Paser’s tomb suggests that Paser viewed himself as a loyal childhood friend of the king, and wished to present himself as such. The fact the he could depict Amunhotep II in his tomb implies that the king also considered him as a close friend. Rather than increased titular awards, it seems as though Paser’s relationship with the king resulted in material goods in the form of gold and a tomb placed in the upper terraces of the Qurna necropolis, looking out over the funerary temple of his sovereign. This provides further evidence that Paser’s status, and perhaps even the inheritance of his father’s titles, was based not on merit but on his association with the king. Pesukher’s friendship with the king seems to have resulted in an increased level of status for himself and, quite possibly, his wife. Although Pehsukher carried military epithets, like Montuiywy these stress his relationship to the king rather than any actual participation.1439 As it was suggested in the text, Pehsukher’s titles and epithets all seem to point towards a connection with the king, which, although it may have military 1439

E.g., “One relating to the legs of the good god (i.e., the king) who does not turn away from the lord of the two lands upon the battlefield.”

327

undertones, was likely not related to participation on any campaigns. His titles of “fanbearer” and “idnw of the king in the army,” place emphasis on his affiliation to the king, rather than on his military responsibilities; it is as the king’s representative that he records troops, rather than as a military officer. In addition, in his autobiographical stele Pehsukher states that he was promoted (sxn) because of his loyalty, not because he excelled at his position. Whereas Amenmose had clear military responsibilities and even Montuiywy worked in the palace, it appears that Pehsukher was essentially given a position without significant duties attached to it. We must remember that Amenhotep II was no longer campaigning in Syria-Palestine after year 9, and expeditions into Nubia are virtually unattested. Thus, Pehsukher’s posts would have been entirely home-based and perhaps involved little more than routine inspections. Pehsukher’s elite status, as well as his amity with the king, is reflected in his wife Neith’s position as a royal nurse. This is true regardless of whether she became a nurse before or after marrying Pehsukher, although if the latter scenario is correct, then this suggests that Neith benefited from her husband’s relationship with Amenhotep II, which was based on friendship and expressed allegiance, rather than on recognition of his abilities. In summary, the results of this chapter indicate that unlike for men who inherited their offices (presented in Chapter 1), the officials who owed their positions to nepotism as practiced either within the family, between the family and the king, or directly with king, would not have become visible as elite or favored officials without this assistance. We can see that familial influence is an entrenched aspect of the priesthood in Thebes. Although most of our data comes from Thebes, where the Amun priesthood was naturally most prominent, this does not dilute the above statement, but rather confirms it. For an

328

official with some degree of influence with the Amun or royal funerary temple domain, the enormous size of these establishments and their need for personnel may have in fact facilitated an official’s ability to practice nepotism. This seems to be supported by the presence of the upper elite in the temple ranks, such as the descendants of the vizier Aametu, mayor of Thebes Sennefer, and the children of several “personal friends.” In the reign of Amenhotep II it appears that while amity with the king could afford one a greater status and visibility among the elite than would have occurred naturally, this connection did not result in becoming an upper level official within the administration. In addition, it appears that expressing a military association, whether real or fictitious, was important to demonstrating loyalty. This suggests that the campaign activity of Thutmosis III’s sole reign had an effect on how officials chose to represent themselves and the origin of their status at least into the early years of Amenhotep II. The governing of the country at the highest levels was reserved for men whose parentage and already elite status were able to influence the King’s decisions concerning appointments.1440 This implies that Amenhotep II’s nurses, tutors, and even Xkrt nswt could wield significant power on behalf of their children. As a rule, it appears that the officials who attained these positions were not close contemporaries of Amenhotep II, but were quite likely a bit older or younger. Among them, only Usersatet was designated as Xrd n kAp, and Qenamun was called “foster-brother of the king,” but in both cases these distinctions seem to have been awarded as status markers later in life. Thus, while they

1440

Although only Qenamun records an appointment text, the lack of a tomb for Usersatet and the damaged nature of Amenemopet’s tomb do not preclude them from also stating that they were appointed by the king. The work of Tefnin and his team in the tomb of Amenemopet may yet provide us with these texts.

329

may have later become friends with the king, it was the fact of having a parent in an influential position that precipitated their rise.

330

Chapter 3 Meritorious Rise to Office I. Introduction Was it possible for ancient Egyptians to rise in social status through their own abilities? Even assuming it was, would we be able to tell? These are two fundamental questions that surround the issue of meritocracy in ancient Egypt. It seems that the most likely place in which we might find evidence for meritorious rise is in the statements made by the officials themselves. The autobiographies of the 18th Dynasty may be especially fruitful in this regard because it is during this time period that the professional sphere of the individual becomes integrated within the existing framework that had been in development since the late Old Kingdom.1441 According to Gnirs, statements about professional achievements seek to demonstrate not only historical information, but also to represent the deceased as having achieved distinction due to personal qualification and initiative.1442 Thus, the phraseology common to many New Kingdom autobiographies asserts one’s own capabilities and performance, such as “his trustworthiness (iqrw) made his place,”1443 “my lord praised me on account of my excellence,”1444 and “my heart (i.e. intelligence) advanced (sxn) my place and my trustworthiness (iqrw) caused that he (i.e., the king) place me in the council chamber.”1445 Eyre asserts that “the private ‘autobiography’ is a speech of self-justification, addressed by the tomb owner to posterity, and to a lesser extent to his 1441

Gnirs, in: History and Forms, p.228. Gnirs, in: History and Forms, pp.230-1. 1443 Urk. IV, 1522.9: ir.n iqrw.f st.f 1444 Urk. IV, 1533.5: Hswn win b.i Hr mnx.i 1445 Urk. IV, 1533.8: in ib.i sxnt st.i iqrw.i di.n.f wi m sH 1442

331

contemporaries.”1446 As such, it should be kept in mind that when examining the inscriptions of these men we are provided with the image of how they have chosen to be remembered. In order to ascertain whether these statements might have some truth to them, there must be other types of evidence that support such a claim. This evidence might be found in statements where the deceased claims to have been appointed or promoted to a post on account of his actions. There is also the possibility that a very regular route to advancement, with no obvious outside connections that might assist an individual in achieving a position, would indicate that the promotions were based on the person’s abilities. Likewise, a distinct absence of information about family background may suggest that an official did not view his family as an important to his career, and may help us to conclude that the official in question rose through his own recognition. When examining the inscriptional data, the issue of self-presentation must also be kept in mind, and any statements that the official himself makes regarding his career or family must be correlated with the evidence as presented by his monuments, tomb depictions, and actual status and positions. A detailed examination of an official’s career as it compares with his own self-depiction may help to distinguish between truly meritbased advancement and officials whose position and status were primarily made possible by royal favor or friendship.1447

1446

Eyre, in: History and Forms, p.422. It should be remembered that one of the “models” being examined in this study is Helck’s theory that service in the military campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II resulted in a class of elite military men. See Introduction to the book Section II. 1447

332

II. Officials Sennefri (His rise from a Sna in the Delta to overseer of the seal) The overseer of the seal (imy-r xtm) Sennefri, owner of Theban Tomb 991448 and Gebel es-Silsilah shrine no.13,1449 is an official of the Hatshepsut – Thutmosis III coregency who continued into the sole reign of Thutmosis III.1450 This dating makes Sennefri somewhat earlier than the period under consideration (Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II). As will be suggested below, it seems possible that in fact Sennefri’s career started and continued somewhat later than is generally thought. It also appears that his first position, which was connected to production storage in the Delta, may have been what first brought him to the attention of Thutmosis III as he passed through on his way north to Syria-Palestine. Although not a military official, Sennefri’s duties eventually took him to Lebanon, and thus he became one of several men who mention the exploits of Thutmosis III in connection to their own, non-military, careers. In addition to the monuments mentioned, Sennefri was the owner of several funerary cones,1451 two block statues,1452 a pair statue,1453 a broken block statue where he is holding a prince,1454 and a stele from Serabit el-Khadim.1455 He was also depicted with

1448

Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.368-70, type VIa. Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.37-9. 1450 This tomb is currently being prepared for publication by Nigel Strudwick, and I would like to thank him for allowing me to visit and photograph portions of TT99 in 2002. I should also mention that much of my information comes from Strudwick’s website on TT99: www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/index.html. 1451 The funerary cones are Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos.154, 93. 1452 Both statues are in black granite. One is BM48, from Thebes and published in HT VIII, no.48, p.4-5, pl.v and Urk. IV, 544.13-548.3. The second is Kunsthistorisches Museum ÄS 5978, published in: Rogge, CAA Wien 6, pp.221-4. 1453 Also in black granite, it is in the Cairo Museum, CG 1013, Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, p.25-6, pl.160. 1454 Also in black granite, it is in the Cairo Museum, CG 1112, Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, p.64, without plate; Roehrig, Royal urse, pl.11 1455 The stele is published in Gardiner, Peet and Cerny, Inscriptions of Sinai I, pl. LXV (199), II, 161-2 (199). 1449

333

Thutmosis III in a relief at the temple to Hathor at Serabit el-Khadim1456 and mentioned in a papyrus dated to the middle of Thutmosis III’s reign, along with other high officials.1457 The shrine at Gebel es-Silsilah (no.13) would appear to be the earliest monument attested for Sennefri.1458 The shrine is essentially destroyed, and were it not for the remains of the inscription on the outer lintel and left jamb we would be unaware that it belonged to Sennefri. The lower portion of the jamb records the titles of overseer of the seal, brave one, and royal herald.1459 The cartouches on the lintel originally bore the name of Hatshepsut and her prenomen Maatkare, however these were re-carved to read Djhutymes and Menkheperre respectively. Helck suggested that Sennefri served as overseer of the seal only under Thutmosis III and usurped an earlier shrine, but most scholars now agree that Sennefri was the original builder and owner of the monument, and thus held this position during the co-regency.1460 Although Sennefri carries his title “overseer of the seal” on all of his monuments, the Silsilah shrine is the only one that bears the name of Hatshepsut. If Sennefri were already an overseer of the seal during the reign of Hatshepsut, as he would have to be if this were his original shrine, then it does seem unusual that we would have no other evidence for this. 1461 Dziobek contends that the erasure on the shrine is similar to those seen on others at Silsilah dated to Hatshepsut

1456

Urk IV, 548; Gardiner, Peet and Cerny, Inscriptions of Sinai I, pl. LXIII, II, 158-9 (194); photo Petrie, Sinai, pl. 96, p. 80. 1457 Papyrus Louvre E3226, published in M. Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, 17, pl. XI (A recto XI, 3-4); 24, pl. XXVI (A verso XI, 3-4). 1458 Published by Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pp.37-9, pl. 26-7, 30-1. 1459 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.32: imy-r xtmt qn and imy-r [xtm]t wHm nswt 1460 Helck, GM 43, pp.39-41; For the newer date cf. Megally, Papyrus E.3226, pp.279-81, Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.134-5 and Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. However, Redford, Wars, p.175, notes that Helck’s suggestion is “plausible.” 1461 Roehrig also mentions this, and subsequently follows Helck’s reconstruction. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.99-100.

334

and the co-regency.1462 While this is not entirely accurate,1463 the fact that the overseer of the seal was one of the highest positions within the administration of ancient Egypt implies that Sennefri would have started a new monument rather than usurped an existing one. In addition, given the length of his tenure in office,1464 it is quite possible that he would have made several trips to Gebel es-Silsilah himself. When Thutmosis III began his program of defacing Hatshepsut’s monuments late in his reign, Sennefri had his altered as well. Thus, despite the fact that Sennefri was a co-regency official, he had the name and prenomen of Hatshepsut removed from the lintel and replaced with those of Thutmosis III. Sennefri’s tomb, TT99, is one of the largest in the Theban Necropolis.1465 The plan includes the courtyard and “T-shape” common to tombs of the period, but the long passage then opens into a large 2-pillared hall at the rear of the tomb.1466 TT99 is surrounded by others belonging to primarily upper level officials who served during the span of Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II.1467 For example, the vizier Rekhmire has his tomb,

1462

Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.135. The other six co-regency shrines, as well as the two dated to Hatshepsut, all had her name erased or hacked out but never replaced. The co-regency shrines are nos. 6 (Ahmose), 7 (unknown), 14 (overseer of the seal Nehesy), 17 (vizier User), 22 (unknown), and 23 (overseer of the granary Minnakht). Shrines 15 of the high priest of Amun Hepuseneb and 16 of the steward Senenmut are dated to Hatshepsut. Caminos and James, Silsilah I; Helck, GM 43, p.41. 1464 He is overseer of the seal at least until year 32 of Thutmosis III; cf. Megally, Recherches, p.279-81. 1465 The tomb is currently being prepared for publication by N. Strudwick. His website has photos and texts published on it; cf. Strudwick, web: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/index.html 1466 Its orientation is not directly south-north or east-west, but on a southwest-northeast angle. Unfortunately, the tomb is badly damaged and burnt, resulting in significant losses of the lower portions of the walls. 1467 Sennefri’s tomb (TT99) is just above TT100 of the vizier Rekhmire and next to TT97 belonging to the high priest of Amun Amenemhat. TT99 is also surrounded to the west by a cluster of tombs dating to Amenhotep II: TT29 belonging to the vizier Amenemopet, TT96 of the mayor of Thebes Sennefer (Amenemopet’s cousin), TT94 of the first royal herald and fan-bearer on the right of the king Ramose called Aamay, TT95 of the high priest of Amun Mery, TT98 of the 3rd priest of Amun Kaemheribsen, TT93 of the chief steward of the king Qenamun. Tombs located to the east and slightly above Sennefri’s are TT84 belonging to the royal herald Iamunedjeh, TT85of the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu, and TT87 of the overseer of the granaries Minnkaht. Minnakht is attested only during the reign of Thutmosis III, while Amenemheb-Mahu and Iamunedjeh were colleagues during the reign of Thutmosis III who lasted 1463

335

TT100, located directly below Sennefri’s. Rekhmire was primarily in office under Thutmosis III, though he witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II and lasted into the early portion of this king’s reign. Next to and just east of TT99 is TT97, belonging to Amenemhat, the high priest of Amun under Amunhotep II. This may indicate that Sennefri continues later in Thutmosis III’s reign than previously suspected. Indeed, Bryan suggests that Sennefri and Rekhmire may have constructed their tombs contemporaneously.1468 If Sennefri was overseer of the seal further into Thutmosis III’s sole reign, then it becomes likely that he started at a later point in the co-regency as well. Throughout TT99, Sennefri’s most numerous and prestigious title is overseer of the seal, and many of his other titles probably reflect various aspects of his function and responsibilities in this office.1469 The scenes and inscriptions which have the most bearing on our understanding of Sennefri’s career and how he gained each of his positions are concentrated in the transverse-hall, with the addition of the autobiography that appears on a wall in the rear chamber.1470 Sennefri’s autobiography was placed on the left front wall of the rear chamber, adjacent to the entrance into the room.1471 An unknown number of columns at the beginning of the inscription are lost, and as is the case with many of the walls of the

into the early years of Amenhotep II. For the locations, see the plans in PM I.1, map V, Sheikh ‘Abd elQurna North and Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, Plan III, Sh. ‘Abd el-Qurna II. 1468 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. 1469 For example, his titles of overseer of the granaries, chief of mayors, overseer of gold lands of Amun. Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. 1470 Following PM, the scenes are at PM(2)-(5) and PM(9). Strudwick has renumbered the walls of the tomb and in his system the depictions appear at walls 1, 3, 4, 6, and 12; these will be referred to as S1, etc. Two important new scenes that were not identified in PM are on the short walls of the transverse-hall, S2 and S5. 1471 PM(9), S12. Due to the tomb’s orientation, this is at the east end of the southwest wall.

336

tomb, the lower portion of Sennefri’s autobiography is badly damaged.1472 Of the preserved columns of Sennefri’s autobiography, the first eight provide a list of his titles, each starting with the generic court designation iry-pat HAty-a. Following this, Sennefri mentions three different specific offices (iAwt) that he held, and mentions at least some of the duties connected to them. Despite the lack of dates, an internal chronology is suggested by the statements and a career path can be reconstructed. Sennefri tells us: iw ir.n.i iAt tpyt ti wi m r r-Hry m //// “I made the first office when I was as chief mouth in …”.1473 He goes on to say: mH.n.i m tp-rd n Hry-tp.i //// imyw-r Snaw Xr st Hr.i “I filled according to the instructions of my chiefs [of the Sna (?)], the overseers of the storehouses being under my supervision”.1474 The title “chief mouth” (r-Hry) often is used to refer to temples,1475 while the Sna seem to be production centers, with perhaps temporary storage, exclusively associated with temple complexes.1476 In addition, Polz has demonstrated that the title imy-r Sna is usually either qualified by a god’s name, or by reference to the

1472

Urk. IV, 528.11-531.15. A portion (lines 9-18) is published in hieroglyph and roughly translated on Strudwick’s website, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/wall12.html 1473 Column 9. In Urk. IV, 530.1-2 the ‘r’ preposition which is clearly on the wall was left out. 1474 Columns 10-11, Urk. IV, 530.4-6. See also the translation provide by Strudwick at http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/translation.html 1475 The phrase used is almost exactly that seen on a stele from Abydos (BM1199) belonging to the high priest of Osiris Nebwawy (Thutmosis III-Amenhotp II), Urk. IV, 208.8-9: iw ir.n.i iAwt tpt m pr it Wsir di.kwi r r-Hry m r-pr.f /// nw Hwt-nTr and similarly later in this inscription, Urk. IV, 209.12: di.kwi r r-Hry m xai-mnw Dsr pr nw it nsw-bity Nb-pH-ra. Additional comporanda for this phrase can be found on a statue (Berlin 2296) of Hatshepsut’s steward Senemut, Urk. IV, 405.3: ink saH mr nb.f aq Hr bit n nbt tAwy saA.n.f w(i) xnt tAwy rdi.n.f wi r-Hry n pr.f. 1476 Polz, ZÄS 117. The traditional translation of “magazine” or “storehouse” indicates its close relationship to the term for granary, Snwt; cf. WB IV: 507.12-508. Recent exacavations undertaken around the funerary temple complex of Sesostris III at the site of Abydos indicate that this was almost certainly the case, at least for the Middle Kingdom. This is based on sealings mentioning the Sna and officials associated with it that were found near the temple, but not in or near the contemporary town-site. The temple connection continues in the New Kingdom at Abydos, as an inscription on the wall of the Ramesses temple indicates. These excavations were undertaken by V. Smith in 2004, as part of her doctoral dissertation research under the auspices of the UPenn Expedition to South Abydos directed by J.Wegner, and the overall umbrella of the Penn-Yale-IFA Expedition to Abydos, co-directed by D. O’Connor and W.K. Simpson. I thank V. Smith for this information.

337

king.1477 Thus we might suggest that in this sentence Sennefri is informing us that in his first position as the “chief mouth in [a temple complex]” he was responsible for carrying out orders given to him by the “chiefs [of the Sna]” that were attached to the temple’s production center. During this time Sennefri may have been functioning in the northeast of Egypt, perhaps near the area of Watet-Hor, where his father was the “overseer of the st”.1478 Eichler has suggested that the st might have been part of the Sna complex, in which case Sennefri may have been functioning under his father.1479 The exact location of Watet-Hor is unknown,1480 though it may be in the northeast of Egypt. This is based on two roughly contemporary tomb depictions that show wine and other items being brought from a place called Watet-Hor in conjunction with (and contrast to) products from the Oases, it should perhaps be placed in the northeast of Egypt.1481 This is suggestion is supported by the contemporary “overseer of double granaries” Minnakht, who was called both imy-r st and imy-r st n at irp, the latter title appearing in conjunction with a scene of receiving produce from the “Ways of Horus.”1482 Strudwick does not think that Watet-Hor should be equated with the similarly named “Ways of Horus”,1483 which runs from the Delta

1477

Polz, ZÄS 117, p.47. “Verarbeitungsbeitrab” or “Produktionsbetrieb”. See also Helck, Verwaltung, pp.159 f. “Arbeitshaus”. 1478 This comes from Sennefri’s statue, BM48; cf. Edwards, Hieroglyphic Texts VIII, p.4-5, pl.v; Urk. IV, 547.4-5. In columns on either side of the top of the statue’s pedestal Sennefri’s father is imy-r st m WAtt-@r xAy-tp-DHwty mAa-xrw and his mother Xkrt nswt %At-DHwty mAat-xrw xr Wsir 1479 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.66ff., 181ff. See also the discussion of Minnakht in regard to this title and the Ways of Horus, Chapter 1. 1480 WB I, 248.14 defines this as a wine-producing area (Bez. einer Wein produzierenden Landschaft). 1481 In the tomb of the 2nd priest of Amun Puiemre (TT39), jars from Watet-Hor are brought in conjunction with products from the the northern and southern Oases; cf. PM(11), where it is translated as ‘Road of Horus’. According to Strudwick, the other depiction is in the upper tomb of the mayor of Thebes Sennefer, TT96A; cf. Strudwick, website: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/senneferi.html. 1482 Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” no.389; Guksch, Die Gräber, p.18f., 44f. See also the discussion of Miinnabkht in Chapter 1. 1483 Bietak, LdÄ III, cols.62-4.

338

across the Sinai to the north-east, due to differences in the orthography.1484 However, it is at least possible that Watet-Hor was located near this road, perhaps at the southwestern end of it, closer to the Delta and near the northeastern boundary of Egypt proper.1485 Regardless of the exact location in the north of Egypt, it is clear that if Sennefri’s father was functioning in this area, then they were likely not from Thebes, and thus Sennefri also grew up in the north. One might surmise then that his first position would have been held in this area as well. From this we learn that although granted a significant amount of authority, Sennefri was still a second-level official who reported to and carried out the commands of his superiors. According to Polz, Sennefri’s statement of being a supervisor to the overseers of the Sna is unusual.1486 However, it seems possible that it was Sennefri’s abilities in this position that led to his eventually becoming the overseer of the double granaries, a much higher position but one with similar functions.1487 This career path would be similar to overseer of the double granaries Minnakht, who was a colleague of Sennefri’s during the reign of Thutmosis III, and who was also an overseer of the Sno.1488 Sennefri’s exact entry into his second position is lost, but the initial phrase can be reconstructed: //// //[iAt 2-nwt m]// imy-r xtmt ini.kwi r WAst Iwnw Smaw rd.kwi r imy-r Snwty Ssp.n(.i) HH //// bAkwt.sn m SA[y]wt nt niwt.sn m Htr n Tnw //[rnpt]// “[(My) second office was as] overseer of the seal. I was brought to Thebes, the southern Heliopolis, and I was placed as overseer of the double granaries, and (I) received millions of … their

1484

Strudwick, website: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/senneferi.html Bietak, LdÄ III, col.63; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming, also makes this suggestion. 1486 He is the only official in Polz’s list with this position, Polz, ZÄS 117, p.54 A7. 1487 This title will be discussed below. 1488 Polz, ZÄS 117, p.55 A10. A later official with both titles was the overseer of the Sna and overseer of the granaries of Aten User, who served under Akhenaten, cf. Polz, ZÄS 117, p.55 A18. 1485

339

taxes, consisting of the dues of their cities as the tax of every year.”1489 From this inscription two things become evident. First, that Sennefri was brought to Thebes and once there made the overseer of the seal. This suggests that his duties as an overseer of the seal required that he be in the south, and specifically in Thebes. This leads into a second observation, namely, that his function as overseer of the double granaries was connected to his position as overseer of the seal. Bryan also pointed this out, mentioning a scene in TT63 of Sobekhotep, the overseer of the seal under Thutmosis IV, in which his title is that of overseer of the seal, but the activity recorded involves overseeing the filling of the royal granaries.1490 The connection in Sobekhotep’s tomb can be extrapolated to Sennefri’s career, where it implies that Sennefri had proven himself as an official in charge of directing the overseers of the Sna and for this reason was brought south and given the higher position of overseer of the seal. Unfortunately, the remains of the preserved scenes in Sennefri’s tombs do not appear to indicate that a depiction similar to the one in TT63 existed. However, we know from Papyrus Louvre E.3226 that Sennefri was involved in the collection of grain in his capacity as overseer of the seal.1491 On the papyrus, which originated in Thebes, Sennefri’s name appears twice in connection with shipments of grain that were brought from Quft in year 32 of Thutmosis III.1492 He appears to be in charge of the deliveries to the granary officials.1493 These deliveries are referred to as the

1489

Columns 11-13, Urk. IV, 530.11-16. See also the translation provide by Strudwick at http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/translation.html 1490 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. PM(7) Sobekhotep inherited the position from his father Min, cf. Chapter 1 for a discussion of this family and the literature cited therein. 1491 Published by Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, p.17, pl. XI (A recto XI, 3-4); p.24, pl. XXVI (A verso XI, 34). 1492 Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, pp.10, 17, 24; Megally, Recherches, pp.279-81 1493 Megally, Recherches, pp.279-81; Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming.

340

“grain of the chief treasurer Sennefri.”1494 Three other well-known officials are also mentioned on the papyrus: the vizier Rekhmire and the overseers of the granaries Minnakht and Tjenna.1495 Rekhmire is mentioned in year 34 giving grain to the two granary officials from the “great granary”.1496 The two overseers of the granaries appear to be mentioned throughout the document, which covers activities related to grain transport during years 28-35 of Thutmosis III. This has been used to suggest that there were two overseers of the double granaries, one functioning in the south at Thebes and the other in the north, perhaps at Memphis.1497 Based on Sennefri’s mention in year 32 as the overseer of the seal, Bryan has suggested that he no longer functioned in his capacity as overseer of the double granaries at this time, having ceded the office to Tjenna sometime before year 28.1498 It seems quite plausible to suggest that Sennefri was overseer of the seal during the entire time spanned by the papyrus, despite the lack of

1494

This is very similar to the scene in the tomb of Userhat, PM(3), where he is shown receiving aqw for/of the “granary of the herald” (Snwt pA //[wHmw]//) and is assisted by a man called the servant (sDm-aS) of the herald. 1495 Megally, Recherches, pp.274-9. Rekhmire and Minnakhte both owned tombs in the vicinity of Sennefri’s, TTs100 and 87 respectively. Minnakht also built shrines 12 and 23 at Silsilah, and the former is placed near that of Sennefri’s. 1496 Megally, Papyrus E. 3226, A recto XIII, 9-10 and A verso XIII,10-XIV,1; Megally, Recherches, pp.220-5, 278-9 1497 Megally, Recherches, pp.274-8; Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.24. For the opposite view, that there was not a dual system, see Helck, Verwaltung, pp.150-1, 153-7, 384-9 and Bohleke, Double Granaries. In the abstract Bohleke states (p.ii): “The results of the study do not support the contention of a dual system of administration similar to the New Kingdom vizierate. On the contrary, there is no unequivocal evidence that more than one Overseer of Double Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt held office concurrently, though there could be several subordinate granary overseers in the central grain administration or within temple establishments.” Bohleke doubts Megally’s conclusions regarding the double administration, believing instead that the duality existed at the level of the functioning of the grain bureau, but did not include a split at the highest level of control of the administrative structure. He thus sees Minnakht and Tjenna as functioning together in Thebes at an equal level as overseer of the double granaries, subordinate to the authority of the overseer of the double granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, who is unnamed in P.Louvre E3226. See pp.119-124. 1498 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.

341

mention for anything but year 32.1499 In this regard it is perhaps significant that the overseer of the granaries title was granted to Sennefri in connection with becoming overseer of the seal, and not necessarily as a position in its own right. Indeed, in Bohleke’s work on the New Kingdom overseers of the double granaries, Sennefri is not mentioned at all, despite Bohleke’s extensive treatment of the overseers Minnakht and Tjenna, as well as P.Louvre E2336.1500 This would seem to suggest that Bohleke does not consider Sennefri to have truly functioned in this post.1501 It is certainly interesting that the only place that Sennefri’s title as overseer of the double granaries appears seems to be in the autobiography of TT99, perhaps supporting the idea that he was not an overseer of the granary in the sense that Minnakht and Tjenna were. At the west end of the southwest wall of the transverse-hall,1502 there is a representation that matches Sennefri’s statement in his autobiography quite well. The description of the scene as given by Porter and Moss indicated that Sennefri “receives treasure”.1503 In fact, although the scene is almost completely destroyed, the inscription clearly indicates that Sennefri is “Receiving dues [consisting of ? …] all precious and costly stones/metals … all weapons … by … the overseer of the gold lands [of Amun,

1499

This would mean that between years 25 and 28 he became overseer of the seal. The year 25 date is the last confirmation of Ty in this office, based on the stele he had inscribed in the Sinai. Urk. IV, 886-9; Gardiner, Peet and Cerny, Inscriptions of Sinai I, p.196, pl.xliv.

1500

Bohleke, Double Granaries, pp.108-151. He doubts Megally’s conclusions regarding the double administration, believing instead that the duality existed at the level of the functioning of the grain bureau, but did not include a split at the highest level of control of the administrative structure. See pp.119-124. 1501 Although admittedly it seems odd that Sennefri was entirely left out, especially considering that Bohleke does include assistants overseers of the double granaries as well as others connected to these men in their official capacity. 1502 PM(2), S1. 1503 PM I.1 p.205

342

Sennefr]i, … overseer of the horn and hoof, overseer of the seal, Sennefri, … overseer of thousands of all things, overseer of the seal Sennefri, … festival-leader for Atum, overseer of the seal Sennefri, … mayor, overseer of Hm-priests of [all] the gods …”.1504 Bryan also mentions this inscription and scene in connection with Sennefri’s duties as an overseer of the seal and as an overseer of the gold lands of Amun.1505 More obviously connected to Sennefri’s duties as an overseer of the seal are the scenes placed in the most prominent position in the tomb, on both sides of the rear wall of the transverse-hall.1506 On the left side Sennefri stands before the enthroned Thutmosis III who charges him with the task of traveling to Lebanon to bring back cedar trees to be used in the decoration of the Amun temple at Karnak.1507 The depiction of the carrying out and completion of this task and Sennefri’s return to Egypt occupies the opposite side.1508 In the text, Sennefri mentions his arrival in Lebanon (#nt-S) after a storm, presenting offerings to the local (?) goddess on the king’s behalf, traveling to Byblos (KApny) to obtain the cedar, and the return across the sea (wAD-wr) to Egypt.1509 On the wall, all that remains are representations of men carrying axes en route to the forest followed by horses with chariots, and dragging the wood down to the waiting Egyptian ships. The Egyptians are assisted in the latter effort by Syrians. However, a scene on the adjacent wall may elaborate on the details of Sennefri’s expedition. 1504

Ssp SAy[wt m ?] //// aAt nbt Spst //// Xaw nb //// [in] /// imy-r xAst nbw [n Imn %n-nfr]i imy-r ab wHm imyr sDAwt %n-nfri /// imy-r xAw m xt nb imy-r sDAwt %n-nfri /// sSm Hb n Itm imy-r sDAwt %n-nfri /// HAty-a imy-r Hm-nTr nTrw [nbw] ///; cf. Urk. IV, 536.11-537.1. 1505 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. My translation differs slightly from Bryan’s because it is based on a collation of the Urkunden text that I made when I visited TT99 in 2002. 1506 PM(3) and (5), S3-4. 1507 PM(3), S3. Urk IV 532.12-534.3. The phrase “valuable terraced hillsides of cedar” is used: [xtyw] Sps[sw nw aS] Urk. IV, 532.13. 1508 PM(5), S4. 1509 Urk IV 534.4-536.4. Redford, Wars, p.175, suggests that the cedar is perhaps for the Karnak flagstaffs placed at the 7th pylon in years 33-4 and that if the storm actually happened, then the most likely timing of the expedtion would be in winter, following the year 33 campaign.

343

The new scene, unmentioned in PM, is Strudwick’s S5, and although all but the top northeast corner is destroyed it is nonetheless extremely important. It depicts a Syrian fortress, complete with crenellated walls and bastions, atop which men and women are standing with their arms raised in adoration (Fig.35, p.491).1510 Centered above them are two birds facing away from each other with their wings spread and feet placed as if to suggest they are about to land.1511 Is this a representation of Sennefri’s visit to the local town and shrine to ask the goddess for permission to remove the wood? There seem to be traces of an inscription at the left of the scene, but it is too damaged to read anything clearly. Nonetheless, it is an enticing scenario. In the texts that accompany the scene of Sennefri before the king very few of his titles are preserved. Not only are we missing his primary one of overseer of the seal, but another that may well have come into play when Sennefri was in Lebanon, that of royal herald. Sennefri holds the title of royal herald in his shrine at Silsilah, twice on his block statue in the British Museum (BM48),1512 once on his pair statue (CG1013),1513 and once in TT99. In the tomb the title occurs not in a main scene, but on a face of one of the pillars.1514 Sennefri stands below the text, in which he is called the “overseer of the gold lands [of Amun], royal herald, overseer of the seal, Sennefri.” Earlier in the inscription he

1510 The dress of these figures is more elaborate, and slightly different than that worn by the Syrians accompanying the Egyptians on the adjacent wall; cf. Strudwick, web: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99 1511 There is also a rather strange square white object with three rows of three pink dots on it placed in the center of the fortress, between the two birds. I am at a loss to explain what the depiction represents, or its presence in the scene. 1512 Edwards, Hieroglyphis Texts VIII, p.4-5, no.48, pl.v. 1513 Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, no.1013, p.26 1514 PM Pillar Bd, the northeast face.

344

is also designated by the epithet “mouth of the king of Upper Egypt” (r n nswt).1515 This phrase is found a second time in the tomb, on a ceiling inscription.1516 In both cases “mouth of the king” is placed in conjunction with the term “ears of the king of Lower Egypt”,1517 a sequence that is more commonly found as “the two eyes of the king of Upper Egypt, the two ears of the King of Lower Egypt.”1518 However, in the case of Sennefri it seems as though the epithet may have additional meaning attached to it. On both CG1013 and BM48, the title royal herald occurs in the midst of a list of epithets using exactly the same phrases.1519 In fact, a large portion of the two texts are exact replicas of each other, with only a few differences in some of the orthography.1520 It would seem that royal herald may be in some sense interchangeable with the epithet “mouth of the king”. This seems to be a play on the fact that as a royal herald, Sennefri would have spoken with the authority of the king, as well as on the king’s behalf. In addition to being the overseer of the seal and royal herald, Sennefri was called “brave one” on both BM628 and the Silsilah shrine.1521 The titles on the left exterior entrance jamb of the Silsilah shrine are “overseer of the seal, brave one” and “overseer of the seal, royal herald”.1522 The title “brave one” is also unusual. The only other place it occurs is on Sennefri’s broken block statue in Vienna (ÄS 5978): “//// [chief of courtiers] 1515

The full text is: iry-pat HAty-a sdAwt bity smr wa n mr[t] r n nswt anxwy n bity n imy-ib n nTr nfr imy-r xAswt nbw [nt Imn] wHm nswt imy-r sDAwt %n[-nfri mAa-xrw] ir n sAb [%Ay-DHwty mAa-xrw] Urk IV. 540.8-14 (b) 1516 The text comes from the ceiling of the rear chamber, Urk. IV, 540.15-541.2 (c) 1517 iry-pat HAty-a sdAwt bity smr wa r n nswt anxwy n bity imy-ib pw n nb tAwy imy-r xtmt 1518 irty nswt anxwy bity. The phrase occurs amongst the title lists of several 18th Dynasty officials, including elsewhere in Sennefri’s tomb and monuments. 1519 CG1013: Columns 3-4: … shrr pat rxyt wHm nsw sDm sDmwt wa; Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, no.1013, p.26; BM48: Line 8: … shrr pat rxyt wHm nsw sDm sDmwt wa; Edwards, Hieroglyphis Texts VIII, p.4-5, no.48, pl.v. 1520 A fact also noticed by Strudwick on his website: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/senneferi.html 1521 Line 12 on the front of statue BM628: … wHm nsw imy-r xtm qn %n-nfr mAa-xrw 1522 Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.30. imy-r xtmt qn %n-nfri mAa-xrw and imy-r [xtm]t wHm nswt %n-nfri mAa-xrw

345

in the palace, overseer of the seal, brave one of the king, Sennefr(i).”1523 The fact that the title of “brave one” only appears in conjunction with royal herald suggests that the two are related in some way. The most likely scenario in which Sennefri would be designated a royal herald, and would classify himself as a “brave one”, is one in which Sennefri was away from Egypt proper. This would necessitate his being able to speak on behalf of the king, and other officials who are called brave one (of the king) are often those connected to the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II.1524 Thus it seems likely that when Sennefri was sent to Lebanon to bring back cedar trees, Thutmosis III bestowed upon him the title royal herald. Upon his return, Sennefri could claim, as so many others who returned from the Near East, that he was among the brave ones of the king. Returning once more to Sennefri’s autobiography, it continues with Sennefri’s mention of his third office: [iAt].i n 3-nwt m HAty-a imy-r Hmw-nTr n Sbk n In[pw] //// WAst m Hry-tp nw HAtyw-a m imy-r aHwt nt Imn xws.n.i //// n Nbty xnty &A-Smaw n nTrw nbw spAt.Tn “My third office was as mayor, overseer of priests of Sobek and Anubis … Thebes as chief of mayors and as overseer of the fields of Amun. I built … for He-of-Ombos (Seth), foremost of Upper Egypt, and for all the gods of their districts.”1525 These are Sennefri’s third and final set of positions. From other inscriptions in the tomb we learn that his priestly roles also involved the god Atum, for whom he was festival-leader and overseer of priests.1526 On CG1013 Sennefri is called a steward in the house of Amun,1527 while on BM48 he is referred to as the mayor of Akhmim and overseer of priests for Min 1523

//// //[Hry-tp smr]w m aH imy-r xtmt qn n nswt %n-nfr. Kunsthistorisches Museum ÄS 5978: Rogge, CAA Wien 6, pp. 221-4. The restoration is suggested based on central band of ceiling inscriptions in the passage of TT99. 1524 For example, the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu bears this distinction in his tomb, 1525 Columns 14-16, Urk. IV; Strudwick, web: http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/translation.html 1526 PM(2) and a ceiling inscription on the northwest side of the transverse-hall respectively. 1527 Left side of the statue, column 4; cf. Borchardt, Statuen IV, p.25. imy-r pr m pr-Imn

346

of Coptos.1528 Bryan suggests that “(t)he connection with the mayoralties could be related to Sennefri’s role as overseer of the seal and second ranked official in the royal administration”.1529 This mayoral connection may also be a reflection of Sennefri’s duties concerning grain deliveries as overseer of the seal and overseer of the granaries. The royal herald Iamunedjeh was involved with recording the cattle belonging to the rulers of estates as part of his duties as an overseer of the ruyt.1530 As discussed elsewhere,1531 the ruyt was within the sphere of the palace, thus in Iamunedjeh’s case the rulers may have been bringing their cattle to the palace. However, Sennefri’s role as overseer of mayors may have required going to the cities in order to undertake this type of accounting.1532 It would thus seem that the last posts Sennefri records in the autobiography were active ones, rather than “retirement” positions. In summary, Sennefri was first an official in the north of Egypt responsible for overseeing grain distribution from various Sna, probably in a temple setting. Although it is not clear how he was noticed, it may have something to do with Watet-Hor being located in the vicinity of the ‘Ways of Horus’ route to the Near East. As Watet-Hor is mentioned in other contemporary sources, it seems likely that it may have been a stop en route to or from the widely used “Ways of Horus’.1533 Based on his abilities in this capacity, Sennefri was promoted and brought south to Thebes where he was made overseer of the seal and overseer of the double granaries. These two positions are connected to his earlier post, but at a much higher level, and carry responsibilities involving all of (southern) 1528

Front of the statue, row 11; cf. HT VIII, p.5, pl.v. Urk. IV, 546.14-15. HAty-a n Xm and imy-r Hmw-nTr Mnw Gbtyw 1529 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. 1530 Located at PM(2) in his tomb, TT84. 1531 See below, pp.350ff. for the discussion. 1532 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. 1533 E.g., TTs39 and 96 upper, see pp.337f. above.

347

Egypt and not just the temples. Finally, Sennefri was given control over several towns as mayor and chief of mayors, taking on the overseeing of priestly duties at the temples in these towns as well. It is obvious that Sennefri moved in a fairly fluid manner through the different levels of the bureaucracy that were all connected with grain distribution and taxes. As the overseer of the seal, his main position, Sennefri was also charged with leading expeditions to procure gold and precious metals, possibly from the eastern desert, and in this capacity he is called the overseer of the gold lands of Amun.1534 His trip to procure cedar trees from Lebanon was likewise an additional function of his position as overseer of the seal, and one that resulted in the auxiliary titles of royal herald and brave one (of the king). One last title and monument of Sennefri’s indicates that he became an especially trusted official of Thutmosis III. There is a fragmentary statue in the Cairo Museum (CG1112) whose style and inscriptions indicate that Sennefri was a tutor for the otherwise unknown prince Siamun, a son of Thutmosis III.1535 From Roehrig’s description and plate, it becomes clear that it is a block statue with the prince’s head (now lost) sticking out of the “lap” of the statue, in front of Sennefri’s head (also lost).1536 The inscription that covers the majority of the robe includes a number of epithets already known for Sennefri, though the damage at the bottom has resulted in the loss of his main titles.1537 However, on the “lap” of the statue two columns of inscription facing each other read “father and tutor of the [king’s son Siamun], overseer of the seal, Sennefri, 1534

Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. Borchardt, Statuen IV, nos.1-1294, no.1112, p.64, without plate. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.102-3, pl.11 1536 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.102-3, pl.11. She notes that it is in the style of Senemut’s statues with Hatshepsut’s daughter Neferure. 1537 Borchardt, Statuen IV, no.1112, p.64. There are some variations to the epithets, for example Sennefri is called “the two eyes of the king of Upper Egypt in the Upper Egyptian cities, his two ears in the districts of Lower Egypt” ir.ty nswt m niwt Smaw anxwy.f m spAwt &A-mHw 1535

348

justified”.1538 Roehrig suggests that the reason for the title’s lack of appearance on any of Sennefri’s other monuments is that Siamun was “perhaps an older brother of Amenhotep II who died at a young age.”1539 Thus Sennefri was also given a trusted position within the royal court after having proved himself as a reliable official to the king, probably sometime after his trip to Lebanon.1540 Our information on Sennefri’s own children is scanty. His wife, the mistress of the house Taiamu, is only known from TT99, where she is depicted at least once receiving libations and offerings with Sennefri in the rear chamber.1541 She also presents offerings to Sennefri on the south face of Pillar A. Here Sennefri is “Seeing the greetings that are brought (by) his wife, his children, his brothers, and his craftsmen”,1542 while “his wife, his beloved, mistress of the house Taiamu” faces him.1543 Other than this general reference to children, it is not clear from depictions in TT99 that Sennefri and Taiamu actually had children. Indeed, it appears that a brother presents the funeral outfit to Sennefri at the rear of the passage.1544 Fragments from the south wall of the Silsilah shrine however seem to indicate that they had at least one son, called Nebes..., who

1538

Tf mnat [sA-nsw %A-Imn] imy-r Xtmt %n-nfri mAa-xrw. Borchardt indicates the portion in [ ] as being “Shaved” (Rasur). Borchardt, Statuen IV, no.1112, p.64. According to Roehrig (Royal urse, p.102) the inscriptions suffered Atenist defeacement and were subsequently restored. 1539 Roehrig, Royal urse, p.103. 1540 I posit this as the marker because the trip’s depiction in TT99 indicates that it was obviously the highpoint of Sennefri’s career as he viewed it. Sennefri’s career to some degree parallels that of the mayor of Thinis and the Oasis, overseer of priests of Osiris and Onuris, and royal tutor Min, owner of TT109. 1541 PM(15). She is called by the offerer snt.f nrt.f nbt pr &A-//// and in the inscription above her snt.f mrt.f n st ib.f nbt pr &A-iAmw. There was also an offering scene at PM(12) in which it is likely that Taiamu was included. 1542 PM Pillar Aa, Strudwick Pillar A, East face: mAA nD-Hr innt Hmt.f msw.f snw.f Hmwt. See also the translation provided by Strudwick, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/pillarAE.html 1543 PM Pillar Aa, Strudwick Pillar A, East face: msy nD-Hr in Hmt.f mrt.f nbt pr &A-iAmw. See also the translation provided by Strudwick, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/pillarAE.html 1544 PM(8), S9; cf. Strudwick, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/wall9.html

349

presumably presents offerings to his parents.1545 Roehrig suggested that the chantress of Amun Renen who is known from the tomb of her husband Amenhotep (Tomb C3, now lost), was the daughter of this Sennefri.1546 This is based on inscriptions in the tomb that refer to Renen as the daughter of the overseer of the seal Sennefri and her husband Amenhotep as a scribe and the idnw of the overseer of the seal.1547 The granite false-door that once graced this tomb was found re-used as a flooring block in a chapel attached to the north side of the temple of Khonsu at Karnak.1548 Roehrig also equates Sennefri’s daughter with the nurse of the king’s daughter (mnat n sAt nswt) Renen, who is known from a shwabti.1549 Given the apparent rarity of the name Renen,1550 and the fact that many royal nurses also held the title of chantress of Amun,1551 this seems quite likely. Strudwick’s excavations have uncovered new information that supports the relationship between Amenhotep, Renen and Sennefri. Near the bottom of one of TT99’s shafts a headless statue inscribed for the “idnw of the overseer of the seal, Amenhotep” was discovered.1552 This makes it rather certain that Sennefri had a daughter who married a man that was his idnw. The question remains however, was Amenhotep promoted 1545

Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl.31: sA.f mr.f Nb-s///. The reconstruction that this is a son of Sennefri and that Sennefri was depicted on this wall is based on comparison with the other shrines at Silsilah. Shrines 6 and 17 have the deceased couple placed on the south wall, and the owner’s parents on the north wall. The father appears seated with his son on the south wall in Shrines 12 and 15, and on the east wall in Shrine 23, while the owner is depicted with his mother on the opposite wall in these shrines. Only once is an owner depicted with his parents, on the south wall of Shrine 21, and on the north wall he is depicted with his wife. It would thus appear that parents were placed on the north wall unless shown with the owner of the tomb. The owner and his wife could also appear on both walls, as is the case in Shrines 11 and 25. 1546 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.103-4, 110 1547 The ceiling texts were recorded by Piehl, Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques I, p.111, pls. CXLII (X) and CXLIII (Z). Amenhotep’s parents Ahmose and Neh are also mentioned in the inscriptions. 1548 Traunecker, Karnak 6, pp.197-208, pl.LII. Throughout the piece, Amenhotep is called idnw of the overseer of the seal and scribe. 1549 Roehrig, Royal urse, p.109-111. 1550 This is the only example cited in Ranke, Personnenamen 1551 For example Baky, Neith and Mery; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.321. 1552 The body was found near the bottom of Shaft E, and the head and portions of the chair in Shaft A. The conserved statue is now on display in the Cairo Museum; cf. Strudwick, http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/wall9.html

350

because of his marriage, or was the marriage a result of his position as idnw? The only titles that we have for Amenhotep are those of idnw and scribe, and in both the tomb and on the false-door “scribe” is placed closest to his name. This makes it more likely that Amenhotep’s marriage came after he was an idnw for Sennefri. The princess for whom Renen was a nurse is unknown, though Roehrig suggests a daughter of Thutmosis III, perhaps Merytamun whose tutor was the overseer of all works of the king and overseer of the treasury (imy-r pr-HD) Benermerut.1553 Since Sennefri was an official during the later Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency and throughout the sole reign of Thutmosis III, it is possible that she was a nurse to a younger daughter of Thutmosis III, as her father was to an older son of the same king. In this scenario it seems quite likely that Renen was made a royal nurse due to her father’s status in the court. This makes her one of only two female nurses whose fathers were tutors.1554 Whether either of these women “inherited” the title/position is unclear, though as the duties involved were rather different, it seems unlikely that inheritance in the formal sense was at work here.

1553

Roehrig, Royal urse, Appendix I, p.342. For her discussion of Benermerut, pp.104-9. The overseer of works of all temples and royal scribe Minmose was tutor to two princes whose paternity is unclear. They were either older sons of Thutmosis III or of Amenhotep II. His daughter Sharyti was a “royal nurse, one who nurtured the god”, implying that her nursling became king. Roehrig suggests that Minmose princes were older sons of Thutmosis III and Sherti’s nursling was Amenhotep II. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp. 89-95, 179-82. Bryan however places the princes as sons of Amenhotep II, making Sherti a nurse of Thutmosis IV. Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.46-9 and in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. This family is discussed below, pp.400ff. 1554

351

Iamunedjeh (A controller of works abroad and in Egypt) Iamunedjeh and his tomb, TT84,1555 have already been mentioned briefly in connection with the high priest of Amun Mery (TT95) who usurped several of the inscriptions in Iamunedjeh’s tomb.1556 Iamunedjeh held the positions of controller of works, first royal herald, overseer of the ruyt and overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt. Despite the lack of a recent publication of Iamunedjeh’s tomb, the extensive amount of preserved information as well as his participation in the campaigns of Thutmosis III, has led to Iamunedjeh being a relatively well-discussed official.1557 Likewise, the usurpation of TT84 by Mery and the presence of Iamunedjeh in TT56 of Userhat has raised questions about the relationships between these men, with the socalled “family stele” in Marseille playing a central part in the debate.1558 Iamunedjeh’s career has been called “unusual,”1559 and this combined with his unclear relationship to Userhat, warrants a full review of his career and family to determine exactly what part the military played in his rise to overseer of granaries. TT84 is one of the few that are completely decorated in the Theban Necropolis. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most damaged.1560 Nonetheless, a fairly detailed view

1555

Kampp, Die thebanische nekropole, pp.332-6, type Ve. See Chapter 2. 1557 Besides the early work of Virey, Hayes published an article that discussed the basic career of Iamunedjeh, cf. Hayes, ASAE 33 and Helck included him in the prosopography of granary overseers, cf. Helck, Verwaltung, pp.384-6. More recently, Shedid discussed Iamunedjeh’s presence in the tomb of Userhat (TT56) Bryan included a succinct discussion of Iamunedjeh’s career in her chapter of the officials of Thutmosis III; cf. Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. On his role as a royal herald, see also MartinPardey, in: Essays Lipinska. 1558 Polz reviewed the biographies of and relationships between Iamunedjeh, Mery and Userhat, cf. Polz, MDAIK 47. On the connection between Mery and Iamunedjeh, see most recently Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.5861 1559 Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 1560 Not only has a great deal of the decorated plaster fallen off the walls, but Coptic painting has obscured many of the scenes as well. It was originally published by Virey, RT 7; Virey, in: Sept tombeaux, pp. 337361, and is currently being re-published by Grothe, cf. Gnirs, MDAIK 53. 1556

352

of Iamunedjeh’s career from beginning to end can still be gathered. Both of the stelae in his tomb are relatively well preserved,1561 and in addition he was the owner of several other monuments, including funerary cones,1562 a block statue,1563 statuette,1564 stele,1565 and graffito,1566 as well as being depicted in TT56 of the idnw of heralds and royal scribe Userhat.1567 The starting point for the discussion of Iamunedjeh’s career comes from the bottom half of the round-topped stele located on the west wall (Fig.36, p.492). This stele was intact when Champollion visited, but had already been broken through its middle when Virey copied the tomb, and thus only recorded the inscriptions of the lunette.1568 The stele text is today badly damaged, resulting in the need to rely mostly on the copy provided by Sethe in the Urkunden, which restored several damaged portions.1569 My own examination and copy of the text essentially confirms that published in the Urkunden. Although the progression of Iamunedjeh’s career has been reconstructed by several scholars, a fresh summary seems necessary. The entire beginning of the stele is taken up with offering formula, and it is not until the second half that Iamunedjeh begins to speak about his life as an official. According to lines 10-12 of the stele, Iamunedjeh was appointed to act as controller (xrp) for the king beginning in year fifteen down to an unknown year, during which time he

1561

Located on the west and east walls at PM(4) and PM(9) respectively. Daressy, MMAF 8, nos. 43 and 141; Davies and Macadam, Corpus, 34, 281, 283, 548. 1563 Originally CM JE 59190, now Luxor Museum J.3. 1564 Newberry, PSBA 35, p.156 1565 Maspero, RT13, pp.120-1, n.34 1566 de Morgan, Monuments et inscriptions, p.92, no.107 1567 Seeber and Shedid, Userhat. 1568 PM(4). Virey did not copy the text of the stele, see Urk. IV, 937-41. Through this breach Kampp’s tomb –155– can be reached. The date, decoration, and ownership of this tomb was recently discussed by Grothe, cf. Grothe, in: Stationen, pp. 273-279. 1569 Urk. IV, 937-41 1562

353

was involved in a renovation project of the kings.1570 Following this it seems that Iamunedjeh was placed as controller of works (xrp n kAwt) and, as Hayes suggested, witnessed the erection of three sets of obelisks during years 33, 36 and 40 of Thutmosis III.1571 This is an important distinction that was mentioned by Helck, but does not seem to have been picked up on.1572 The monument(s) that was made anew between years fifteen and thirty-three (?) may perhaps have led to Iamunedjeh becoming controller of works. After the erection of the obelisks Iamunedjeh reuses the phrase that introduced this section: ist wi m “Now (when) I was as”. Sethe restored the break after this again as xrp kAwt, controller of works, though it is certainly possible that another title appeared here, perhaps royal scribe, or even royal herald?1573 Unfortunately, the rest of the line is lost until we come to the portion in which Iamunedjeh records his promotion (sxnt) to first royal herald.1574 Following this the text is quite damaged, and thus our ability to reconstruct Iamunedjeh’s activities as first royal herald is diminished.1575 However, two things seem to suggest that even in this position Iamunedjeh was still concerned with building works, both at home and abroad. First is the fact that he advances to first royal herald “as chief of the entire land”, instead of the more common “as chief of the land and the (foreign) hills”, which implies Egypt. The second is that in the next lines after his

1570

Lines 10-12, Urk. IV, 940.3-7: //[Dd.f]// sp tp n rdit m Hr.f r irt xrp n nb tAwy //[SA]//a m rnpt 15 nfryt r rnpt //// //// //[ir.n Hm.f]// m mAwt n //// m st.f mtt 1571 Hayes, ASAE 33, pp.12-14. Followed by Helck and Polz; cf. Helck, Verwaltung, p.385; Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.282-3. The text covers lines 12-14, Urk. IV, 940.8-12: ist wi im m //[xr]//p //[kAwt iw mAA.n(.i) saHa]// //// //[ir.n Hm.f n i.f Imn] iw mAA.n(.i) saha //[txn]//w wrw ir.n Hm.f //[n]// it.f //[Imn]// iw //[mAA saHa]// //// n it//[.f]// Itm nb Iwnw r r bxnt.wy aAt.wy ir.n Hm.f m mAwt. 1572 Helck, Verwaltung, p.385. 1573 He holds the titles of royal scribe and royal herald several places in the tomb. 1574 Lines 14-15, Urk. IV, 940.13-16: ist wi m //[xrp kAwt (?)]// //// //// //[s]//xnt.kwi r wHm nswt tpy m Hrytp n tA r-Dr.f hb.kwi m //[wpwt nbt]// “Now when I was [controller of works ?] … my being promoted to first royal herald as chief of the entire land, I was sent on [all missions] …” 1575 Lines 15-16, Urk. IV, 940.17-941.2 //// m Hr.i ir.n.i m mAa n nb mAat rx.kwi //[Htp.f Hr.s]// //// “… [something placed ?] in my face which I made anew for the lord of maat, knowing that he would be satisfied on account of it.”

354

promotion Iamunedjeh again speaks of making something “anew”, i.e. a restoration project. The fact that he is sent “on all missions” does not seem to be necessarily connected with his participation in the campaigns, as Bryan seems to suggest.1576 Indeed, the stele does not seem to clearly mention any of his military activities until the very end, when Iamunedjeh summarizes them in one line, saying “I followed the good god upon every northern foreign country, I did not turn away from him upon the battlefield.1577 Thus, based on the deeds described in the stele, it would appear that Iamunedjeh reported only about his duties as a civil official in Egypt. Rather, Iamunedjeh utilizes the second stele in the tomb, on the east wall, to record these exploits.1578 Only in the columns of text to either side of the stele are his civil positions mentioned. Here he is called “overseer of the ruyt hearing alone, overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt and controller of all works of the king.”1579 The body of this stele is even more damaged than the first, and again the autobiographical portion is placed in the second half. What is clear is that Iamunedjeh had dealings with the foreigners of Retenu and rebellions taking place in the region. In addition, the “nine bows”, referring to the traditional enemies of ancient Egypt, are mentioned, and in a line previously unpublished a fortress or rampart (sbty) is also referred to.1580 Fortunately we

1576

Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. Line 18, Urk. IV, 941.6-7: iw Sms.n(.i) nTr nfr Hr X#swt nbt mHtt n tS //[.i r.f Hr pri]// 1578 PM(8) 1579 In the left, north side column: wHm tpy nswt imy-r rwyt sDmt wa imy-r Snwty ^maw MHw and in the right, south side column: xrp kAwt nbt nt nswt Hsy n nTr nfr mH-ib aA n nb tAwy //// 1580 Lines 15-16, Urk. IV, 946.10-12: //// n xAstyw n Rtnw bS//[tA]//. s m-HAt.s r pH.s //[r]// SA//[a m]// //// //// pD//[t 9]//; Line 19: ///// m sbty ////. It is possible that this is the same sbty at Qadesh whose impending breach is referred to in the autobiography of Amenemheb-Mahu. The timing of this is uncertain, and could date to year 42 or later; cf. Redford, Wars, p.169ff. 1577

355

know from Iamunedjeh’s statue that he crossed the Euphrates with Thutmosis III in year 33.1581 The statue is dedicated to Iamunedjeh as “one who follows the king upon his marches, one relating to the two legs of the good god who does not turn away from the lord of the two lands upon the battlefield upon all northern foreign lands, who crossed the inverted river (i.e. Euphrates) following after his Majesty in order to make the boundaries (tASw) of Egypt, the first royal herald, overseer of the ruyt, whose counsel pleases the lord of the two lands, the royal herald.”1582 Thus we see that despite the fact that Iamunedjeh was involved in the erection of obelisks as the controller of works at this time, this title is not included in the repertoire. It would appear then that with regard to his autobiographical stelae Iamunedjeh himself separated his duties or accomplishments according to where they took place – Egypt, or abroad in connection with military campaigns. Throughout the rest of the tomb there are probably four scenes that deal with Iamunedjeh’s duties as an official. The two representations that tell us the most about his function as a first royal herald are those on either side of the rear (north) wall of the transverse-hall of the tomb, at PM(5) and (9), and hence in direct line of sight to anyone passing by or a visitor entering into the tomb. The depictions are nearly identical, showing Iamunedjeh on the west (left) leading Nubians and on the east (right) leading Syrians bearing tribute to an enthroned Thutmosis III. What has gone relatively unnoticed, however, is that Iamunedjeh in fact appears twice in each scene – once before

1581

Galán, Victory, p.117 H. The statue is currently housed in Luxor Museum. n kA n Sms nswt r nmtt.f iry-rd.wy nTr nfr tm (t)S r nb tAwy Hr pri Hr xAst nbt mHtt DAi r pXr-wr m-sA Hm.f r irt tASw Kmt wHm tpy nswt imy-r rwyt hrrw nb tAwy Hr sxrw.f wHm nsw IAmw-nDH mAa-xrw Hayes, ASAE 33, p.7; Urk. IV, 1370.9-11. 1582

356

the king, and once following after the registers of foreign tribute-bearers. The figure and inscription of Iamunedjeh before Thutmosis III is destroyed on the northwest wall,1583 and the text that accompanies Iamunedjeh behind the Nubians is extremely damaged, though not as extensively as Virey’s copy implies.1584 It describes what is happening in the representation that precedes it, namely that the people of “vile Kush” are presenting (sar) tribute of all kinds to Thutmosis III, whose name is quite clear. The content of the inscription is quite similar to that placed with the figure of Iamunedjeh as he stands on the opposite, northeast, wall before Thutmosis III with registers of Syrians behind him.1585 Unfortunately the titles of Iamunedjeh are not preserved in either of these two texts. However at the end of this scene, above the second figure of Iamunedjeh, the six columns enumerate a number of his epithets and titles. This inscription is also essentially unpublished, Virey having noted only a few “groups”. One of these comprises the title sAb of the mr district, an area in the Delta. The title could therefore relate to Iamunedjeh’s role in overseeing the bringing of tribute from the north. Although Iamunedjeh’s main titles are not extant, we can still suppose that it was in his function as chief royal herald that he would have been involved with leading and announcing the tribute-bearers before the king.1586 In addition, the prominent place awarded these two scenes suggests that although his titles of overseer of the ruyt and overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt were awarded after that of first royal herald, and were presumably more

1583 PM(5). Iamunedjeh’s placement here is based on traces of the beginning of the inscription adjacent to the kiosk as well as analogy to PM(9). The figure of the king is destroyed, but the top of the kiosk and cartouches are visible through the Coptic painting; the name of Thutmosis is easily reconstructed. 1584 Virey, in: Sept tombeaux, p.347. Virey’s description of this wall (p.347-8) is rather misleading. He starts at the west end with this figure and text of Iamunedjeh, moves to a description of the registers of Nubians, and then comments that the rest of the wall is destroyed. 1585 PM(9). 1586 As also stated by Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming; cf. Martin-Pardey, E., in: Essays Lipinska, pp. 377-397.

357

prestigious, the majority of Iamunedjeh’s career was as a royal herald and thus this was the position in which most of his important deeds were carried out. Iamunedjeh’s duties as an overseer of the ruyt are, as Bryan suggested, likely represented in an essentially destroyed scene on the southwest wall of the transversehall.1587 Here men are leading cattle, some designated as overseers of cattle (imyw-r kAw), to the (destroyed) figure of Iamunedjeh, while the text running above these men mentions the HqA Hwtt, indicating that Iamunedjeh was involved with recording cattle, and presumably other items, that belonged to these “rulers of estates”. In a second depiction Iamunedjeh and his wife Henutnofret are shown inspecting (mAA) and receiving Delta produce. The products are presented by Iamunedjeh’s brother Khaemwaset in the first register, and by two officials, one the overseer of the marshland (sxt), in the second register. Despite being placed on the east wall of the passage, in a combination “daily life”/funerary setting in between scenes of chariot hunting and fishing and fowling, the scene nonetheless informs us about Iamunedjeh’s responsibilities as an overseer of the ruyt and overseer of granaries.1588 The text above Iamunedjeh has been altered several times, though it appears that he was labeled as either a royal scribe or scribe who counts. However, in the inscriptions accompanying the presenters, Iamunedjeh is once called royal scribe and overseer of the ruyt, and in the second register overseer of the ruyt, royal scribe, one who counts cattle and fowl, overseer of the granaries, and one who counts the taxes of Upper and Lower Egypt. The latter text was in fact altered from its original

1587

PM(2). Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. PM(16). The hunting scene is to the south at PM(15), and the fishing and fowling to the north at PM(17). Beyond this to the north is a banquet scene at PM(18). On the opposite wall, PM(13)-(14) records the funerary procession to the Western Goddess, statue and mummy rites, and an offering scene. 1588

358

sketch, in which the title of royal herald and seemingly overseer of foreign lands were included, but that of overseer of the ruyt was left out.1589 The only other location in the tomb in which Iamunedjeh bears the title of overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt is in the offering scene at the rear of the west wall of the passage, where it seems to be his only functional title.1590 Overseer of the ruyt on the other hand appears several more times in the tomb, both as the primary title, i.e. last in the sequence, and as the first of the list.1591 The other title which Iamunedjeh carries in a number of inscriptions in the tomb has already been mentioned twice – royal scribe. This appears not only in the context of his duties as an overseer of the ruyt, but also as the primary title in a ceiling inscription, on four of the jambs of the tomb’s entrance, and possibly in the hunting scene preceding the title of royal herald at PM(15).1592 Helck suggested that Iamunedjeh may have been a royal herald at the time of the crossing, though he was only appointed to the position of first royal herald after the last pair of obelisks was set up in year 40, in the last decade of Thutmosis III’s reign became overseer of the ruyt and in his final years was made overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt.1593 Polz leaves out the intermediary step, understanding Iamunedjeh’s career path to pass from controller of works directly to first royal herald, and then to 1589

The underlying sketch was not recorded by Virey on in the Urkunden. The title imy-r xAswt was probably a scribal error for overseer of granaries (imy-r Snwt), with which it was replaced. 1590 PM(14), upper register: iry-pat HAty-a wa mnx ib n nb tAwy Ddw n.f ntt m ib aq Xr nfrwt r bgr nswt imy-r Snwty Smaw MHw //[IAmw-nDH]// 1591 As the final title imy-r rwyt appears twice on the exterior entrance jambs, in a previously unrecorded brazier offering scene on the southwest wall of the transverse-hall [adjacent to PM(2)], and in a ceiling inscription on the east side of the transverse-hall and on the west side of the rear chamber. It occurs first in the sequence on the east and west walls of the west chapel [PM(10)] and in the offering scene at PM(18). 1592 At PM(15) the title is partly damaged and the remainder of the inscription usurped by Mery. There are also two additional inscriptions which the title of scribe appears, but whether royal scribe, or perhaps scribe of offerings is unclear; cf. PM(16), PM(18). 1593 Helck, Verwaltung, p.385. Helck also seems to imply that Iamunedjeh may have been in a position more akin to that of Userhat, as an assistant (idnw) to the herald.

359

overseer of the ruyt and overseer of the granaries.1594 Based on a reanalysis of the tomb and statue inscriptions, I would posit the following scenario. As Bryan states, Iamunedjeh had a somewhat unusual career path.1595 He began his official life during the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III as a controller (xrp) involved with a renovation project between years fifteen and thirty-three. Around or shortly prior to year 33 he became controller of works and in this capacity, and probably for this reason, Thutmosis III brought Iamunedjeh to Syria. Over the next seventeen years Iamunedjeh undertook the erection of obelisks for Thutmosis III in Egypt, and was involved with projects carried out in Syria as a result of the campaigns. Thutmosis III erected obelisks after the crossing of the Euphrates, and Iamunedjeh is one of the few officials who records being present at this event. It seems likely that Thutmosis III brought Iamunedjeh to Syria in year 33 in his capacity as the controller of works and not as a military officer per se, despite Iamunedjeh’s claim to have been on the battlefield. It seems clear that it was not until after the erection of all the obelisks (after year 40) that Iamunedjeh was promoted to the position of first royal herald. However, given the lacuna between the erection of last pair of obelisks and Iamunedjeh’s advancement it is certainly possible that Iamunedjeh first held the position of herald.1596 While Thutmosis III may have awarded him with this title because the need to be able to speak for the king when erecting the obelisks, it is quite plausible that it was Iamunedjeh’s presence in Syria, were this need would be greater, that resulted in his advancement to royal herald. It is important to remember that Iamunedjeh also claims to have gone to Syria to erect the boundaries of Egypt – quite

1594

Polz, MDAIK 47, p.282, with note 17. Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. 1596 Though I would not agree with Helck that he was an idnw, it does not seem impossible for Iamunedjeh to have moved from royal herald to chief royal herald. 1595

360

possibly in a literal sense by overseeing the installation of stelae, an action associated with making or extending tASw.1597 It is worth pointing out that in the examples cited by Galan that deal with this concept, Iamunedjeh’s inscription seems to be exceptional, the only one to use the verb iri “to make” as opposed to swsx “to extend” when referring to military expeditions connected with the borders of Egypt.1598 The event as described by Iamunedjeh is in accord with what Thutmosis III himself records in his Karnak annals for year 33: “He has established his stele (wD) in Naharin, extending the tASw of Egypt”.1599 Thus I would suggest that Iamunedjeh’s “military career” was by default rather than an actual career in the sense of Amenemheb-Mahu (who also crossed the Euphrates), Dedi and others. Iamunedjeh did not leave a civil/administrative career for the military, but rather was bought into the military by Thutmosis III to serve in his capacity as overseer of building projects. When Iamunedjeh became first royal herald he may not have been actively participating in the campaigns of Thutmosis III, since he was probably around 45 years old.1600 Although this position gave Iamunedjeh the authority to speak on behalf of the king both in Egypt and abroad, it is quite likely that he acted in this capacity mostly on the homefront. Perhaps in connection with his subsequent elevation to overseer of the ruyt, a position that brought him closer into the palace sphere and under the direct supervision of the vizier.1601 The depiction in his tomb of Iamunedjeh as first royal herald leading the foreign tribute bearers to the king likely occurred in Egypt, where 1597

Galán, Victory, p.119, cf. also p.117 H for the passage referring to Iamunedjeh’s actions in year 33. The fact that Galan does not view them as “boundary” stele in the strict sense, but rather as stelae erected to record the victories in the area does not change the interpretation with regard to Iamunedjeh’s involvement; cf. Galan, Victory, pp. 146 ff., esp. 153-4. 1598 See Galan’s sources in Victory, p.117 as compared to p.119. 1599 Urk. IV, 698.17-699.1. See also Galán, Victory, p.119 D. Thutmosis III also mentions this event in his Gebel Barkal and Armat stelae. 1600 This is based on the reconstruction of Polz, who places Iamunedjeh’s birth in c. 1495, and the erection of the three sets of obelisks in 1457, 1454 and 1450. Polz, MDAIK 47, p. 283 Abb.1. 1601 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.

361

Iamunedjeh’s post as overseer of the ruyt may also have played a role. The time frame for Iamunedjeh’s attainment of the post of overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt is unknown, though presumably it happened at the very end of his career. Indeed, it does not appear on any of his funerary cones, which carry only the titles royal herald and overseer of the ruyt (of the king’s house). Thus he probably did follow Tjenna in this post, as suggested by Bryan,1602 and was perhaps the senior official at the time that Menkheper(resoneb) succeeded his father Minnakht as overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, in the last years of Thutmosis III’s reign.1603 The family of Iamunedjeh gives no information on how he attained his first documented position of controller of the lord of the two lands. Exceedingly little is known about his parents, the sAb Sadjhuty and his wife Resy. Iamunedjeh presents himself as having attained his position through his own abilities, and not through familial or royal connections. Based on the evidence from is tomb and other inscriptions, it would indeed seem that this was the case. Although scholars have concluded that Resy was especially important to Iamunedjeh, more so than his wife Henutnofret, this is not in fact the case.1604 Sadjhuty and Resy are named in a ceiling inscription in the transverse hall1605 and appear individually with Iamunedjeh as recipients of offerings on the west and east walls respectively of the west side chapel.1606 This chapel may have been intended for his parents, who were probably of lower elite status.1607 While it is the case

1602

Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. For a discussion of the careers of Minnakht and Menkheper(resoneb), see Chapter 1. 1604 As also noted by Whale, Family, pp.115-6. 1605 The northern band on the east side of the hall is the only place in the tomb where Iamunedjeh gives his lineage: ir n sA b %A-DHwty mAa-xrw ms n nbt pr Rsy /// 1606 PM(10). On the east wall Iamunedjeh is with it.f mr.f %A-DHwty mAa-xrw xr nTr nfr nb tA-Dsr and on the west wall with /// nbt pr Rsy mAa-xrw 1607 Iamunedjeh’s father was only a sAb; cf. Onasch, EAZ, p.287 on the title sAb as a marker of lower social status when it is used alone. 1603

362

that on Iamunedjeh’s block statue he records his lineage only to his mother,1608 on a small statuette both parents are named.1609 In addition, it is not the case that she appears more often than Henutnofret in the tomb, or that Henutnofret’s name was originally not inserted often. 1610 My examination of TT84 in 2002 discovered that Henutnofret’s name was discernable beneath that of the usurper Mery’s mother’s name of Hunay in almost every readable inscription. Henutnofret was clearly depicted and identified in four scenes,1611 while in three others Hunay’s name has obscured the original inscription.1612 Only in one scene could the name of Resy have been placed, but here Hunay’s name has been painted over the original and the beginning of Resy (Rs) seemingly sketched over Hunay.1613 Iamunedjeh also had at least four brothers that were named in the tomb. The lector-priest (Xry-Hb) and wab-priest of Aakheperkare (Thutmosis I) in Henketankh Khaemwaset (called Nebkheti ?) is already well-known since he appears as the presenter of offerings in at least three scenes.1614 Two of the other brothers appear as banquet guests, and the fourth, previously misidentified as a son, stands behind Iamunedjeh

1608 Formerly in the Cairo Museum, JE 59190, and now in the Luxor Museum, J.3. Iamunedjeh calls himself ms n nbt pr Rsy 1609 Newberry, PSBA 35. The location is currently unknown to me. The inscription reads: aA m pr-nswt smi.n.f Xrt tAwy wHm nsw tpy IAmw-nDH ir n sAb %A-DHwty ms n nbt pr Rs 1610 Contra Polz and Shedid; Polz, MDAIK 47, p. 283, Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.109 Anm.719. 1611 PM(1), west thickness; PM(2); PM(14) lower register; PM(16). None of these inscriptions except for PM(16) were recorded by Virey. 1612 PM(7); PM(20); PM(21). Three additional inscriptions are damaged or destroyed, but probably depicted Henutnofret: PM(11), east and west walls; PM(14), top register, Hunay’s name seems to be painted over a female determinative and mAat-xrw 1613 A new, badly damaged offering scene at the east end of the southeast wall, to the east of PM(7). 1614 He presents offerings to Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret at PM(7) and PM(14), and Delta produce at PM(16). In the latter two scenes the end of the inscription is damaged, but it appears that his name is written xA-m-wAst Dd(w n).f Nb-x-ti (?) ///

363

receiving offerings.1615 Iamunedjeh is also depicted seated with an unknown man receiving offerings on the east wall of the passage.1616 Another source of information, and problems, for Iamunedjeh’s family comes not from his tomb, but from a so-called “family stele” in Marseille, and from his presence in TT56 of Userhat.1617 The stele is dedicated to the royal scribe Mery, and contains three registers of double offering scenes in which a number of persons are identified, though their genealogical relationships are unclear (Fig.37, p.493). In the lunette the royal herald Iamunedjeh and his wife (Hmt.f) Henutnofret are on the right offered to by “his son (sA.f), the lector-priest of Amun, Mery”, while on the left “his son (sA.f), the royal scribe Mery” presents offerings to Iamunedjeh and his wife/sister (snt.f) Kha. This pattern is repeated in the first register, where “his son, wab-priest of Amun, Mery” offers to the king’s son (sA nswt) Renna and his wife (Hmt.f) Tanodjmet on the right and libates before the scribe Amunerhatef and his wife/sister (snt.f) Baket on the left. In the second and final register it changes slightly, “his daughter (sA(t).f) Henutnofret” libates before Ahmose and the scribe Amenemheb on the right, and on the left “his son (sA.f), Xrd n kAp Tety” offers to the royal scribe Mery and his wife/sister (snt.f) Ruia. The clearest relationship is that depicted in the second register. Here we have the owner of the stele, the royal scribe Mery, seated with his wife Ruia and offered to by their son Tety while opposite them their daughter Henutnofret offers to two men who are

1615 The name of the brother receiving offerings with Iamunedjeh at PM(3) is extremely difficult to discern, despite his being labeled as Djhuty-mes by Virey (in: Sept tombeaux, p.344). The inscription reads: sn.f mr.f //[wab n ?]// //DHwty// Min(?)-ms mAa-xrw Contra Whale, he is definitely not a son; Whale, Family, p.115-6. Two banquet guests in the second register at PM(7) appear to be the sn.f nb / Hb /// aH-ms and sn.f mr.f NAy 1616 PM(18); the inscription was usurped and is essentially destroyed today. The name might be read Djhutymes, Minmes, or even Sadjhuty. 1617 Musée Borély Nr. 234. Maspero, RT xiii, p.120-1 no.34; Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.108-110, Abb.45 Taf.46. TT56, PM(4).

364

probably brothers, or perhaps colleagues, of Mery. Although Helck, Seeber and Polz equate the owner of the stele with the lector-priest and wab-priest Mery who appears as well, this does not seem likely.1618 Nor is it possible that any of them should be identified with the high priest of Amun Mery, owner of TT95, who usurped Iamunedjeh’s tomb. This is the conclusion reached by Gnirs, as well as by my own research.1619 Returning to the stele, who is Mery and what is his relationship to Iamunedjeh? First, despite being placed in the bottom register, as the owner of the stele the royal scribe Mery should still be understood as the person to whom the majority of the genealogical terms refer back. It is important to remember that the kinship term sA, “son”, can also mean grandson, son-in-law, or descendant in general. In addition, it could possibly refer to the spouse of a child, or even (at least in the late New Kingdom) to someone who performs the role of the son but is not an actual blood relation.1620 Stylistically the stele dates to the early half of Thutmosis III’s reign, and this is supported by Iamunedjeh only bearing the title of royal herald, as opposed to first royal herald. From what we know of the inscriptions and depictions in Iamunedjeh’s tomb, he and Henutnofret did not have any children, nor did Iamunedjeh have a second wife. However, Iamunedjeh did have several brothers, one of whom was deceased and shown at least once receiving offerings with Iamunedjeh.1621 Perhaps then Iamunedjeh adopted his sister-in-law’s son, as we saw happened between Ahmose-Humay and Sennefer, above.1622 This would allow for Mery to be called “his son” in reference to Iamunedjeh, as opposed to sn.f, “his brother”, the 1618

Helck, Verwaltung, p.496.3; Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.289-90; Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.109-110. Whale also mentioned that it was not usual for a royal scribe to carry priestly titles, though she later seems to contradict this. Whale, Family, pp.117-8. 1619 Gnirs, MDAIK 53, pp.58-61; contra Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.287-9. See Chapter 2. 1620 See the genealogical table, Table 1. 1621 This is the ///-mes at PM(3) who is perhaps the same man depicted seated with Iamunedjeh at PM(18). 1622 Sennefer’s “adoption” was probably due to his parents having died; see Chapter 2.

365

usual term used when referring to the son of a sibling. Thus in the lunette Iamunedjeh would be depicted with his wife Henutnofret and sister-in-law Kha. The royal scribe Mery offers to Iamunedjeh as his adopted father seated with his mother, but I would posit that the lector-priest of Amun Mery who offers to Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret is a son of the royal scribe Mery, thus the grandson (by adoption) of Iamunedjeh. By analogy, in the first register we would have Ruia’s parents Amunerhatef and Baket depicted, being offered to by their grandson the wab-priest Mery (who should be equated with the lectorpriest Mery), with the parents of Mery’s mother Kha placed opposite them. Although somewhat unusual, I believe this would also account for the use of the term snt.f on the left and Hmt.f on the right. In the lunette these terms are used to signify different relationships. On the right side of the first and second registers Mery uses snt.f to denote his own wife and his mother-in-law in keeping with the way his own mother is referred to, while on the left side Hmt.f is used to demonstrate a generational difference, in keeping with the way Mery may have viewed his uncle/adopted father Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret. Thus we have the following genealogy:1623 Renna --- Tanodjmet Sadjhuty --- Res sA nswt | | | | | | | Amunerhatef --- Baket Kha --- ///-mes Iamunedjeh --- Henutnofret sS | | _ _ _ _/ | / | | (?) | | / | (?) | (?) Wesy Ruia --- sS nsw Mery Ahmose Amenemheb (TT56) | sS | | | | Mery Henutnofret Tety Xry-Hb n Imn wab n Imn Xrd n kAp 1623

| Ahmose

| Nay

This is quite different from that reconstructed by Seeber in the publication of TT56, the tomb of Userhat; cf. Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.110.

366

Although Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret did not have any children, the above reconstruction allows for the possibility that Iamunedjeh used his influence and position to help the career of his nephew/adopted son Mery, who also bears the title of royal scribe. Wesy’s inclusion in the genealogy stems from his presence in the tomb of Userhat (TT56) where the high priest of [Montu in] Thebes Wesy offers to a man whose name could plausibly be restored as Amuneratef and his wife (snt.f) Byky (Fig.38, p.494).1624 The tomb depiction is placed as the right half of a scene on which the left shows Meryu offering to the first royal herald of the lord of the two lands Iamunedjeh and his wife (snt.f) the Xkrt nswt Henutnofret. The reason(s) for Iamunedjeh’s appearance in the tomb of Userhat will be discussed in the section on Userhat because they relate to his career, as opposed to that of Iamunedjeh’s.

Userhat (From idnw of the royal herald to Xrd n kAp of Amenhotep II) It was mentioned in the preceding section that there was a connection between Iamunedjeh and Userhat. Indeed, in his position as idnw of the royal herald, Userhat was probably an underling of Iamunedjeh. Although Userhat eventually gained distinction from Amenhotep II, it seems possible that his abilities were in fact initially recognized by Iamunedjeh, and only later by the king. Userhat thus provides an excellent opportunity for examining how a mid-level official could rise both through merit and through the recommendation of a superior, a type of ascension that generally seems not to be visible in ancient Egypt.

1624

Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.73-4, 111.

367

In addition to being the idnw of the royal herald, Userhat was also a royal scribe and “scribe who counts bread in Upper and Lower Egypt.” Like Iamunedjeh, Userhat was probably a civil official connected to the military. However, this connection seems to have been more direct. That is, while Iamunedjeh was brought on Thutmosis III’s military campaigns for his skills as an engineer, Userhat was from the beginning probably involved with the military. It may have been the case that Userhat performed more of the duties than Iamunedjeh, who I have suggested was made a royal herald primarily to enhance his ability to erect monuments on behalf of Thutmosis III abroad.1625 Nowhere in Iamunedjeh’s tomb (TT84) are there depictions of the type seen in Userhat’s with respect to duty-related scenes. In fact, the depictions in Userhat’s tomb are in many respects reminiscent of those seen in the tombs of Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85) and Pehsukher (TT88), who were both called idnw of the army, as well of the sS nfrw Horemhab (TT78) and Tjanuny (TT74).1626 Userhat’s tomb, TT56,1627 has been published and his life, career and family reconstructed by Beinlich-Seeber and Shedid.1628 As mentioned above, his relationship to Iamunedjeh has also been reevaluated by Polz, and further, if briefly, discussed by Gnirs et al. The most important, and only, scene in TT56 in which Iamunedjeh is depicted occurs on the east wall of the transverse-hall (Fig.38, p.494). A faux-granite painted false-door with two registers on either side occupies the lower 2/3 of the wall. On the lintel of the false-door Userhat is seated with his wife Mutnofret, and in the side registers Userhat is offered to by male attendants. The representation on the top of the wall is of a

1625

See the discussion of Imaunedjeh, above, pp.350ff. In Userhat’s tomb, the particular scenes are those at PM(3) and (9)-(11), which will be discussed below. 1627 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.265-7, type Vb. 1628 Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat. 1626

368

double offering in which the first royal herald Iamunedjeh and his wife the Xkrt nswt Henutnofret are placed in parallel to Amunerhatef and Byky as recipients of offerings.1629 According to Seeber, the explanation of this scene is that it depicts the parents of Userhat’s wife Mutnofret and Iamunedjeh’s wife Henutnofret respectively.1630 However, as we have seen, it appears that Iamunedjeh and Henutnofret did not have any children, and thus it is highly unlikely that Mutnofret was a daughter of Iamunedjeh.1631 The re-interpretation of the Marseille stele and the tomb scene also affect the relationship between Userhat and Amunerhatef, since now the reconstruction of Amunerhatef and Byky as parents of Henutnofret does not work. As the two couples are placed opposite each other in Userhat’s tomb, they should be linked in some way. The first possibility that suggests itself is one of profession. It was mentioned above that Userhat was probably the idnw for Iamunedjeh as first royal herald, as well as perhaps serving as a counter of bread under Iamunedjeh in his final capacity as overseer of granaries. Both of these points will be discussed further below. If we assume that the man depicted in the tomb is the same Amunerhatef as on the Marseille stele, then we know that he was a scribe. However, Iamunedjeh was only a royal herald on the stele, whereas he is the first royal herald in the tomb. Thus it stands to reason that Amunerhatef could also have become royal scribe by the time of his depiction in TT56. This would make him a possible colleague or mentor to Userhat, in the style of Iamunedjeh. The other possibility is that Amunerhatef and Byky were in fact the parents of Userhat,1632 and were placed in connection with the other main (albeit professional) force in Userhat’s life.

1629

The scene was also briefly described in the discussion of Iamunedjeh, p.367, above. Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.110-11. 1631 Also pointed out by Polz, MDAIK 47, p.289 1632 A possibility also suggested and rejected by Seeber, Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.111. 1630

369

Though admittedly if this were the case, it is unclear why Userhat would not be offering to them, and why they are not mentioned elsewhere in the tomb. I prefer then to see the composition of this scene as one of “commemorative character” in which Userhat honors the two officials who most had an impact on his own career.1633 The fact that Userhat does not offer to either Iamunedjeh or Amunerhatef does not detract from this, rather it supports it. The false-door in the center of the wall places the scene in a funerary context, such that all three men are the recipients. The clear professional connection between Userhat and Iamunedjeh is reinforced by the location of TT56.1634 It is placed at the bottom of the Qurna necropolis, almost on the flat plain, but cut east towards the river such that its entrance in fact faces TT84 of Iamunedjeh, which is quite far up the hill. In addition, some of the scenes in Userhat’s tomb are similar in content and layout to those found in the tomb of Iamunedjeh. In each tomb the deceased is depicted watching the bringing of cattle on the right front wall of the transverse-hall.1635 As discussed above Iamunedjeh presumably does this in his position as an overseer of the ruyt, under the command of the vizier. Userhat is called a scribe who counts bread, though one of the assistants refers to him as the idnw of the herald. The lower register in Iamunedjeh’s tomb is destroyed, but in Userhat’s he is shown receiving the deliveries (aqw) from/of the “granary of the herald”, which are being handed out to soldiers carrying baskets.1636 Here he is referred to as the idnw of the herald and one of his assistants is called the sDm-aS (servant) of the granary of the herald. The layout of the hunting and fishing and fowling scenes is also quite similar in the two 1633

In this I follow Polz’s concept, though not his exact interpretation/reconstruction of the reasons; cf. Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.289-91. 1634 Cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, plans II, E3 and plan III, C4 demonstrate this layout. 1635 PM(2) in Imaunedjeh’s tomb, PM(3) in Userhat’s. 1636 sSp pA aqw n tA Snwt pA //[wHmw]//

370

tombs. Although on opposite walls of the passage and facing opposite directions,1637 both depict the deceased hunting in a chariot and facing a papyrus marsh full of birds. The remainder of this part of the wall in Iamunedjeh’s tomb is destroyed, but could plausibly be restored with the depiction in Userhat’s tomb of the deceased facing a second papyrus marsh, this time spearing fish. The lower register in Userhat’s tomb where he is seated with his wife being offered fowl and the products of the adjacent vintage scene parallels the depiction of Iamunedjeh and his wife receiving the produce of the Delta.1638 The final scene to be discussed reflects both the similarities and differences between the royal herald and his idnw. It appears on the left side of the rear wall of the transverse-hall, in the direct line of sight of a visitor to the tomb, and hence where especially important or status-bearing representations are placed (Figs.39-40, p.495-6). Generally this involves the depiction of the deceased before the king or of the deceased being offered to, with the most important individual(s) consistently placed at the end of the wall closest to the central axis. In Iamunedjeh’s tomb, this is the east half of the north wall where he leads the Syrians bearing tribute before the king seated in a kiosk.1639 The same wall in Userhat’s tomb (west half of the south wall) has two components, separated by painted architectural elements, and arranged from left to right (east to west) in the following order: 1) the registration of soldiers, delivery of bread rations to soldiers, and officials (based on dress) eating bread before storehouses, and 2) Userhat presenting a bouquet to Amenhotep II seated in a kiosk. Amenhotep II is not placed at what is

1637

In TT84 these scenes are PM(15) and (17), which appear on the east wall of the passage with the directionality of the action facing out of the passage, toward the front of the tomb, i.e. facing south. In TT56 PM(14)-(15) are also on the east wall because the tomb’s orientation is reversed, but the action heads towards the niche at the rear of the passage. 1638 This is PM(16) in TT84, which occurs between the depictions of hunting and fishing and fowling. 1639 PM(9), and on the opposite wall he leads the Nubians to the king, PM(5).

371

generally considered the focal point, but instead is at the far end of the wall, and so the registration and provisioning scene takes the more prominent placement. Seeber interpreted this as due to the reversed orientation of the tomb, resulting in the need to place Amenhotep II at the far end of the wall so that Userhat would be moving towards the west as he approached the king and thus Amenhotep II could fulfill his role as a mediator between the deceased and the gods.1640 However, I would point out that several Theban tombs of this period depict kings on both sides of the rear wall,1641 bouquets can be offered to living kings placed on the east as well as the west walls,1642 and when two different kings are depicted in this manner, it is not necessarily the earlier, deceased king that occupies the western position. It seems quite possible then that the scene of Userhat before Amenhotep II was a slightly later addition to the wall. Although the registration scene is lacking inscriptions, it is clear from the dress and larger size of the individual that it is Userhat who is depicted in the top register standing before the troops. Thus his presence is already accounted for, without the kiosk scene. Three factors may support the idea that Userhat was granted permission to represent the king in his tomb after the majority of the wall decoration had already been executed. The first is that according to Shedid’s stylistic analysis, this wall is done in a later style than others in the tomb.1643 Secondly, the rear of the kiosk scene actually continues onto the adjacent wall, where two registers of fan- and accoutrement-

1640

Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.25-6,64-5 For example in Iamunedjeh’s tomb (TT84). 1642 For example in the tombs of Mahu (TT85) and Pehsukher (TT88). 1643 Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, pp.139-41. Hand “A”, which is in a traditionally Thutmosis III style is used in the offering scenes in the transverse-hall [PM(2), (5)-(7)] and on the east wall where the false-door stele and depictions of Iamundjeh is found [PM(4)]. Hand “B” is credited with the duty-related scenes [PM(3), (9)-(11)] in the transverse-hall as well as the entire east wall of the passage, where the “daily-life” scenes are placed [PM(14)-(15)]. These all exhibit characteristics of the reign of Amenhotep II, which are further developed in the funerary scenes on the west wall of the passage [PM(17-18)] that were done in hand “C”. 1641

372

bearers are depicted facing the back of the kiosk. Finally, with the exception of the outer door-jambs of the tomb and passage entrances, this is the only inscription in which Userhat is called an Xrd n kAp.1644 This is also the only occasion on which Xrd n kAp is the most prominent, and hence, prestigious title, appearing right before Userhat’s name. In all other cases in which Xrd n kAp appears, it is followed twice by scribe and twice by royal scribe, whereas here it is preceded by the title scribe who counts bread in Upper and Lower Egypt. Since all of the epithets in this inscription also relate to Userhat’s closeness or access to the king, the scribal title is not only the solitary functional title, but also one that relates to the adjacent scene, which is otherwise inscriptionless.1645 Although TT56 is not a copy of TT84 as was seen for Pehsukher and Mahu, it would appear that Userhat did indeed emulate Iamunedjeh as his superior. It also seems that Userhat, at least at the beginning stages of constructing and decorating his tomb, was able to utilize his connection to the first royal herald Iamunedjeh. In this he brings to mind Amenemhat, the steward of the vizier User during the reign of Thutmosis III and his tomb, TT82. Amenemhat quite clearly utilized his position and relationship to the vizier User to enhance the decorative quality and grandeur of his tomb.1646 However, the fact that Userhat is represented offering to the king he served indicates that at some point he was recognized by Amenhotep II for his own abilities and was thus able to depict scenes that showed his personal access to the king. This may also be part of the

1644 The inscriptions around the shrine and one ceiling inscription in the passage are damaged, but based on the remaining titles in these areas, so it is possible, though unlikely, that the Xrd n kAp title was present. 1645 The inscription accompanying Userhat is: msy rnpyt nbt nfrt n Hm.f in mH-ib n mnx n nb.f Hsy n nTr nfr Dd n.f wpwt nbt n aAt n mnx.f n nswt aq Xr nfrwt r bw Xr nswt pri Hsw m stp-sA anx wDA snb sS Hsp tA m Smaw mHw Xrd n kAp Wsr-HAt maA-xrw “Presenting all beautiful flowers to his Majesty by the excellent favorite of his lord, praised of the good god, to whom one says all messages on account of his excellence for the king, who enters under goodness to the place where the king is, who comes out praised in the palace, l.p.h., the scribe who counts bread in Upper and Lower Egypt, ‘child of the nursery’, Userhat, justified”. 1646 For a more in-depth discussion of this, see Chapter 1.

373

explanation for the scene in which three women are depicted each holding a young child.1647 Seeber interprets this as depicting the three children of Userhat, Nebettawy, an unnamed son and Henutnofret, held by their nurses who are perhaps members of the family. The title Xkrt nswt that both Userhat’s wife Mutnofret and daughter Henutnofret carry are indicators of their elite status, and possibly of a court or royal connection.1648 Although not called a royal nurse, it is at least possible that Mutnofret was involved with the children of the court, or with elite children, and that this is a representation of that position. The question that still remains, however, is how did Userhat achieve a status that brought him out from under the influence of Iamunedjeh and into a direct relationship with the king? For Polz, the career connection between Userhat and Iamunedjeh became problematic when the issue of the dating of TT56 and the role of the high priest of Amun Mery came into play.1649 The high priest Mery can now be discarded from the equation since, as we have seen, he should not be equated with the lower priests of Amun depicted on the Marseille stele and perhaps in Userhat’s tomb. As Polz notes, Seeber seems to date the career of Userhat to the last decade of Thutmosis III and first half of Amunhotep II, though Seeber places the tomb stylistically in the later portion of Amenhotep II’s reign.1650 Polz thus reconstructs two different life-spans for Userhat, one (a) in which he is born during the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III (c.1488 B.C.) and lives into the middle of Amenhotep II’s reign (c.1425 B.C.), and a second (b) in which Userhat lives from c. 1475-1412 B.C. It now seems possible that one is more likely than the other.

1647

PM(7), at the west end of the north (front) wall of the transverse-hall, directly opposite the kiosk scene. On the possible connection of the Xkrt nswt to the court and the king, see Brack, SAK 11. 1649 Polz, MDAIK 47, pp.286, 289-91. 1650 Polz, MDAIK 47, p.286; Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.113 versus 145. 1648

374

The stele that might have contained an autobiographical inscription was never finished, and Seeber’s reconstruction of Userhat’s career path is somewhat contradictory. According to Seeber’s ordering of the titles, from lowest to highest position, Userhat is a scribe, royal scribe, overseer of cattle/nfrwt-cattle of Amun, scribe who counts bread in Upper and Lower Egypt (and its variants) and finally idnw of the herald.1651 However, in the text Seeber suggests that based on the absence of the title idnw of the herald on the funerary cones, Userhat only held this position while Iamunedjeh was a royal herald, probably until Iamunedjeh died. His other titles of royal scribe, scribe who counts bread and overseer of cattle continued to be held by Userhat, despite the fact that they were presumably lesser positions.1652 Seeber also posits that Userhat was concomitantly the idnw and the scribe who counts bread because the bread was coming from the granary of the herald (discussed above), and wonders whether the position of overseer of the cattle of Amun was a type of “pension post”.1653 Polz, who follows Seeber’s in text reconstruction, states that Userhat would have been an idnw beginning around 1450 B.C. and become overseer of cattle after Iamunedjeh’s death and in the first decade of Amenhotep II’s reign, between 1440 and 1430 B.C.1654 However, in his tomb Userhat is only the idnw of the herald and Iamunedjeh likewise is only referred to as the royal herald, not first royal herald. In the re-analysis of Iamunedjeh’s career it was suggested that he was royal herald from approximately years 33-40 of Thutmosis III, and first royal herald only after year 40, c.1450 B.C. The combination of these two factors leads to the possibility that Userhat was idnw for

1651

Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.152. Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p. 104-5. 1653 Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.111with n.730. 1654 Polz, MDAIK 47, p.290. 1652

375

Iamunedjeh prior to his becoming first royal herald, thus beginning c. 1457 B.C. If we assume that Userhat was at least a scribe prior to becoming an idnw, then it seems likely that Polz’s scenario “a” with a birth for Userhat c.1488 B.C. (rather than c.1475) is more accurate. This would make Userhat about 31 when he became idnw, after being a scribe, and perhaps royal scribe, for a number of years. As Iamunedjeh’s idnw during the years in which Iamunedjeh was involved with the campaigns of Thutmosis III, it is likely that Userhat would have accompanied him. Userhat does not mention the Euphrates river in any of his inscriptions, so perhaps he did not go on this campaign, or did not become idnw until after year 33. Userhat does bear the military epithets “one relating to the legs of the lord of the two lands in every place which he traveled” and “one relating to his (i.e. the king’s) legs upon all foreign lands”, both of which are indicators that Userhat was involved with campaigns during the Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II period.1655 I suggested above that Iamunedjeh was made a royal herald to facilitate his function as a civil engineer erecting obelisks and stelae, and quite likely assisting in designing the Egyptian camps and breaking through Syrian defenses while on the Syrian campaigns. Userhat as his idnw may then have taken on the more directly militaristic aspects of the duties assigned to a royal herald, and thus we see him dealing with provisioning troops with bread rations from the granary and butchering of cattle. Although in this capacity Userhat also refers to himself as a scribe who counts,

1655

The first epithet, iry rdwy n nb tAwy m st nbt xnd.n.f, is on a ceiling inscription in the passage and in the offering scene at PM(5). The second, iry rdwy.f Hr xAst nbt, is on the opposite wall in the transverse-hall at PM(2). Iamunedjeh also carried the iry rdwy epithet on his block statue. Guksch suggests that these epithets should be considered as expressions of loyalty to the king; cf. Guksch, Königsdienst, pp.56-73.

376

it is the idnw title that takes precedence in the inscriptions that accompany these scenes.1656 Polz suggests that the career connection between Userhat and Iamunedjeh is also reflected in their respective titles of scribe who counts bread in Upper and Lower Egypt and overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt.1657 This is certainly true, but from the evidence in Userhat’s tomb it would appear that Iamunedjeh’s royal herald and overseer of granaries titles overlapped in function at least to some extent, and that Userhat’s did as well. Iamunedjeh may have used his influence with the king while a controller of works and royal herald to elevate the career and increase the duties of Userhat as his idnw. Once Iamunedjeh was elevated to the position of overseer of the ruyt Userhat’s duties as an idnw would probably have essentially ended, and his role as a scribe who counts and overseer of cattle would have become his primary positions. Iamunedjeh’s closer proximity to the king in the palace sphere may have also resulted in Userhat’s coming into closer contact with Amenhotep II during the co-regency period. Thus while at the beginning of his career Userhat may have benefited greatly from his position as an idnw and his connection to Iamunedjeh, he eventually could boast of his own personal connection to Amenhotep II. The fact that Iamunedjeh was made an overseer of granaries in his last years suggests that even if Userhat was nominally under Iamunedjeh’s authority, the duties were being carried out by Userhat as a function of his own titles.1658 In addition, Userhat’s role as a scribe who counts is quite clearly still connected to the military, though it is obvious that Iamunedjeh had moved out of this

1656

PM(3),discussed above. Polz, MDAIK 47, p.290. 1658 I would also point out here that in Iamunedjeh’s tomb inscriptions the titles overseer of granaries, royal scribe and scribe who counts are all found together in the scene of Delta produce. 1657

377

sphere, with which he was only tangentially ever connected. In this respect Userhat bears some resemblance to Tjanuny, who was an administrative official in the military sphere.1659 It would thus seem that it was Userhat’s on-going connection to the military that brought him into closer contact with Amenhotep II. When Amenhotep II was crownprince, and presumably leading some of his father’s campaigns, Userhat would have been involved with provisioning of the troops. His abilities in this area led to his notice by the king, and subsequent elevation to an Xrd n kAp, denoting his personal connection to Amenhotep II and preferred status within the court. Although Userhat was approximately 50 years old when Amenhotep II became king, and thus quite a bit older than the 18-year old king, it was not uncommon for older officials to be granted the status of a “child of the nursery” late in life.1660 It was a recognition not only of the service to the king(s), but also of the esteem in which the king held these men who seem to have come from nonelite backgrounds, but were equated with nobles from birth in the eyes of the king. Userhat’s preferred status, although granted later in life, was transferred to his daughter Henutnofret. She is called a Xkrt nswt, a court title indicative of a royal connection, in each of her three appearances in the tomb. In one of these Henutnofret accompanies her parents in a brazier offering scene, an indicator of her preferred status within the family.1661 Here she is called “Xkrt nswt beloved of her lord,”1662 and in the other two inscriptions she is referred to as “Xkrt nswt beloved of the good god (i.e. the

1659

See the discussion of Tjanuny below, pp.423. Amenemheb-Mahu underwent the same transformation due to his military service under Thutmosis III, and Amenhotep II also made him idnw of the army. 1661 PM(2), on the east (left) side of the north (front) wall. 1662 The full inscription that accompanies Henutnofret is “his daughter, his beloved of the place of his heart, praised of Hathor mistress of Dendera, Xkrt nswt, beloved of her lord, Henutnofret, justified.” 1660

378

king),”1663 further signs of her relationship with the court and king. Her mother Mutnofret is identified in the same brazier-offering depiction twice: in the inscription above the figures using the generic epithets common to an official’s wife,1664 and in a column before her figure as “his sister (i.e. wife), his beloved, mistress of the house, praised of Hathor, Mutnofret, justified.” According to Seeber, Mutnofret also held the Xkrt nswt title once in the tomb, in the second brazier-offering scene, where there also seem to be two inscriptions associated with her.1665 However, in this instance the inscriptions are both damaged, the name is lost, and only in the text above the figure is her filiation given.1666 In addition, the two inscriptions repeat the phrase “praised of Hathor”, an epithet that both Mutnofret and Henutnofret held. Although Seeber restores Mutnofret’s name in each inscription, it seems also possible that the column before the figure of Mutnofret was meant to identify Henutnofret, whose figure is absent from the scene. If Mutnofret did bear the Xkrt nswt title, she clearly only gained it late in life and as a result of her husband’s status in the court of Amenhotep II. Out of seven depictions and four additional mentions in the TT56, the scene and text just discussed is the only place in which the Xkrt nswt title appears in (possible) connection with Mutnofret, including on the funerary cones.1667

1663

Twice in PM(5), once where Henutnofret offers with her siblings to her parents and once in the banquet portion of this scene, where she is seated with her sister (?) and offered to by her daughter (?). 1664 “his sister (i.e. wife), his beloved, mistress of the house Mutnofret, justified before the great god, lord of Abydos” 1665 PM(6), on the west (right) side of the north (front) wall. 1666 The text above her figure reads “his sister (i.e. wife), his beloved, mistress of the house, praised of Hathor mistress of ////”. Seeber restores “… mistress of Dendera, Mutnofret, justified”, Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.50. The column before Mutnofret reads “Xkrt nswt praised of Hathor ////”, and Seeber restores “… Mutnofret, justified”, Beinlich-Seeber, Userhat, p.49. 1667 Though Userhat’s Xrd n kAp title is also missing from the funerary cones.

379

Amenemheb-Mahu and Baky (A career military man and his royal nurse wife) One of the most well-known military officials from the Thutmosis III – Amenhotep II period is the idnw n mSa Amenemheb called Mahu; for simplicity he will referred to as Mahu in this text. A career military man from a seemingly lower status family, Mahu distinguished himself with his military service to Thutmosis III and was promoted increasingly higher within the ranks of the military. His wife Baky was among the most honored of Amenhotep II’s nurses, and it may be that she played a small role in her husband’s final rise.1668 In the following pages, a careful review of Mahu’s monuments, and of Baky’s presence on them is undertaken in order to determine how this couple became so honored by both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. Mahu was the owner of TT85,1669 which numbers amongst the largest in the Theban Necropolis and is located high on the Qurna hillside near several contemporary tombs of upper level officials.1670 It is composed of a four-pillared 2-pilastered front hall, short passage, transverse-hall, and axial hall with a niche. The decoration was finished prior to Mahu’s burial, and although the bottom half of almost all the walls is nearly completely destroyed a generous amount of information is still preserved. 1671 As with many military officials, we have very little information about Mahu’s parentage. His father is completely unknown to us, while his mother Tetires appears only once in the 1668

It does not seem probable that Mahu’s wife Baky should be equated with the nurse Amenemopet called Baki/Baka known from a Book of the Dead papyrus, or that she was the same chief royal nurse Amunemopet that was mother to Qenamun. Likewise the notion that she and possibly Mahu were Canaanite is extraordinarily unlikely. For these suggestions, cf. Barwik, Essays Lipinska, pp. 331-338. 1669 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.336-8, type VIIa. 1670 For example, Rekhmire (TT100), Suemniut (TT92), Qenamun (TT93) to name a few. 1671 TT85 was recognized early on as one of the more impressive tombs in Qurna and was partially published by Virey in the late 1800s; cf. Virey, in: Sept tombeaux;Virey, Records of the Past. Today the tomb is being researched for re-publication by a German team led by Heike Guksch; cf. Gnirs, MDAIK 53. The tomb is being investigated in conjunction with TT88 of Pehsukher, a younger contemporary of Mahu, who borrowed architectural and decorative elements from TT85 for the construction of his own tomb.

380

tomb.1672 The person who figures most prominently, besides Mahu himself, is his wife Baky, who was a chief royal nurse for Amenhotep II. Indeed, her status in Mahu’s tomb suggests that she may have either shared his tomb equally, or been given her own tomb, an idea that is supported by a number of inscriptions in TT85.1673 Baky will be discussed in greater depth below. Mahu spent the majority of his life and career on the campaigns of Thutmosis III, but he also witnessed the accession of Amenhotep II, and although he may not have survived long into the new king’s reign he was still playing a relatively active role in his advanced years. This makes him part of a small group of co-regency officials, all of whom have depictions of both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II in their tombs.1674 One of the reasons that Mahu has figured prominently in previous discussions about this period is because of his long tomb autobiography. It is placed not on a stele, but rather forms the inscription that accompanies Mahu as he stands before an enthroned Thutmosis III with three registers of prostrate Syrians behind him (Fig.41, p.497).1675 The scene is placed prominently on the rear wall of the front hall, thus just opposite the tomb’s entrance and in the direct line of sight of a visitor to the tomb.1676 The text, which is nearly intact, gives an extraordinary amount of information on his exploits in what is largely, though 1672

In the second register on the east face of the westernmost pillar, PM Pillar Ad, where she offers to her son and his wife Baky and is called mwt.f mrrt.f //[nbt pr ?]// Hsyt nt Imn //[T]//ti-r//[s]// // nb[t] imAx. 1673 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.170-1. 1674 Murnane was the first to propose the idea and compile a list that includes Min (TT109), Dedi (TT200), Neferrenpet (TT43), Amenmose (TT42), and Montuiywy (TT172), see Murnane, Coregencies; Van Siclen added Mahu (TT85), Nebemkemet (TT256), and the unknown owner of Silsilah shrine 30 to the list, see Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, Appendix 2, p.49 D. Most of these are military men, a significant fact that will be discussed in the conlcusions. 1675 Der Manuelian, following Breasted and others, describe the scene as one in which Mahu recites his autobiography before Amenhotep II; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.162. This is not correct; the cartouches though damaged are clearly those of Thutmosis III. Amenhotep II is probably portrayed in the same position on the west side of the same wall, at PM(9), where the bottom of Amenhotep II’s epithet HqA wAs (ruler of Thebes) is discernable. I visited the tomb in 2002. 1676 PM(17), the east side of the north (rear) wall of the pillared transverse-hall. The layout of the scene parallels that seen in TT99 of Sennefri.

381

not entirely, the eighth campaign of Thutmosis III (year 33),1677 chronicles the death of Thutmosis III and accession of Amenhotep II, and documents the end of Mahu’s career. Redford has demonstrated that the text is thematically, as opposed to chronologically ordered, but nonetheless it is possible to reconstruct a career path for Mahu.1678 At the beginning of the inscription Amenemheb-Mahu calls himself simply waw, which Schulman understands as “infantryman” or even (in this case) simply soldier, at the bottom of the combat ranks.1679 This position then is presumably the starting point of Mahu’s career, and the capacity in which he first went to Syria with Thutmosis III. Before the list of specific military activities begins, Mahu states: I am one very true to the sovereign, devoted to the king of Upper Egypt, beneficial of heart to the king of Lower Egypt. I followed my lord on his marches upon the foreign lands of the north and south, so he loves my being as one related to his legs (iry rdwy) while he is upon the battlefield of his victories and his power is making the heart steadfast.1680

During the recitation of the battles in which he participated, Mahu does not list additional titles for himself, though he does relate that he captured Asiatics and mariannu chariot warriors as prisoners and was awarded by the king with silver and gold, including the

1677

Urk. IV, 890-97. The interpretation of the events recorded in the autobiography varies greatly. Breasted originally saw five different campaigns, while Gardiner thought it related only the activities of the 8th campaign; Breasted, AER II, pp.227-234, Gardiner, AEO I, 153*-58*. The most recent treatment is by Redford, Wars, pp.167-72, who has revisited this issue and his reconstruction of events I followed here. 1678 Redford, Wars, pp.170-2. 1679 Schulman, MRTO, pp.36-7, esp. no.82. 1680 Columns 2-4, Urk. IV, 890, 7-13: ink mAa wrt n Ity anx wDA snb pxA HAty n nswt Ax-ib n bity iw Sms.n(.i) nb.i r nmtt.f Hr xAst mHtt rsyt mr.f iw.i m iry rdwy.f ti sw Hr priw nxtw.f pHty.f Hr swmtib. The phrase iryrdwy is translated literally here, but it is generally understood in the sense of “one in attendance on” Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.25, or “one’s fellow”; WB I: 104, 7. Der Manuelian translates it as “companion;” cf. der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.121, while Galan, Victory, p.89B uses “page.” Redford prefers “atr his heels;” cf. Redford, Wars, p.167.

382

highly valued “gold of praise” and golden flies.1681 The same is true for his efforts on the elephant hunt and in slaying a mare sent loose among the Egyptian chariotry horses. In reference to his participation at Qadesh Mahu hints at his position using the epithetic phrases “I was among his followers/in his following” (i.e. personal companions or retinue)1682 and “I was the foremost (i.e. leader) of every brave man”,1683 while at Sendjar and Tikhasy he mentions fighting beside the king.1684 Based on Redford’s reconstruction, it would appear that Mahu became part of the king’s following after he fought at his side at least once, and may have been “leader” during the final campaigns.1685 It is only at the end of the entire campaign account that Mahu says: “I made these captures when a waw of (the ship) Imn-wsr-HAt. I was tying aqAw-ropes in (the ship) Imnwsr-HAt when I was as the first of his companions in rowing (the ship) Amun-Re at the Beautiful Feast of the Opet, all men in rejoicing/festival”.1686 Although the campaigns are not given in chronological order, the first battle to be mentioned involves the crossing of the Euphrates, and thus Mahu was likely already a waw of (the ship) Imn-wsr-HAt.1687 The mention of the Opet festival in these lines indicates that Mahu is now back in Egypt, and 1681 These campaigns took place in the Negeb and Naharin (A), near Aleppo (B), at Carchemish (C), in Sendjar (D), at Qadesh (E), in a place whose name is lost (F), in Tikhasy (G), and again at Qadesh (J). In between Tikhasy and the last Qadesh battle, Mahu recounts a hunt in Niya (H) and a loose mare in the Egyptian calvalry (I). The lettering (A-J) is Redford’s grouping in Wars, pp.167-70. Following Redford’s reconstruction of the chronological sequence (Wars, p.172), A-C and H belong to the 8th campaign, D is the 8th or 13th campaign, F could be the 10th campaign, G likely falls between years 42-49, and E, I, J should be grouped together as the 1st, 6th, or last campaign. The mention of the fort in J suggests a later date, and may be equivalent or later than G, in year 42. 1682 Campaign E. Column 14, Urk. IV, 892, 7: iw.i m Smsw.f. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.267; WB IV: 487, 5-7. 1683 Campaign J. Column 31, Urk. IV, 895, 2: iw.i m H#wty n qn nb 1684 Campaign D. Column 13, Urk. IV, 892, 2 and Column 21, Urk. IV, 893, 8: kfo.n.i (im.f) m-bAH nswt “I made captures (therein it) before the king” 1685 See note 1681 above. 1686 Campaign G. Columns 33-5, Urk. IV, 895, 8-12: ir.n.i nn kfa iw(.i) m waw [n Imn-wsr-HAt] ink Tsw aqAw m I[mn-wsr-HAt] i[w].i m tpy n iryw.f Hr X[nt Imn-ra] m Hb nfr n Ipt tA-tmw m ihAA There are certainly traces on the wall which match the restorations suggested in the Urkunden. Schulman does not deal with this inscription after the first sentence, cf. Schulman, MRTO, p.90, no.23. See below for the phrase tpy iryw.f 1687 Column 10, Urk IV, 891, 10: DAi.n.i pA mw n Nhrn

383

functioning as a ship-soldier during religious festivals. This indicates that it may have been only at the very end, or perhaps after his return, that Mahu gained the greater distinction of being first of the king’s companions (tpy n iryw.f),1688 a position that probably would have placed him in close contact with Thutmosis III. The next seven or eight columns deal with the death of Thutmosis III and accession of Amenhotep II. Following this, Mahu recounts that the new king noticed him while he was “rowing under him in his barque”,1689 and was brought into the palace while or after rowing in the Beautiful Feast of the Opet Festival and to Djeser-akhet.1690 While Mahu is standing before Amenhotep II in the palace, the king grants him his final promotion, saying: ‘(I) knew your character when I was (still) in the nest, when you were among the followers of (my) father. Placed in your face is the office, so that you may act as an idnw n mSa in accordance with what is spoken. May you be watchful of the qnywt of the king. Then the idnw n mSa Mahu was doing all that he said.’1691

The other main (functional) title known for Mahu, which is not included in his autobiography, is that of Hry pDt. In addition, he bears several epithets as well as honorifics indicative of his loyalty and close relationship to the king, i.e., (foremost) companion to the lord of the two lands, chief of those in his (the king’s) following, chief

1688

Literally “first of those relating to him”. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.121 translates this as “chief of his guards”, probably after the Wörterbuch entry, which gives the possible translation of guard (Hüter), WB I: 103, I. Faulkner however lists a meaning “crew of a boat” with this line (Urk. IV, 895, 11) as the source, Faulkner, Concise Dictionary, p.25. This may be the better translation given the context. Schulman does not mention this phrase; Schulman, MRTO. 1689 Columns 43-4, Urk. IV, 897, 1-2: aHa.n mAA.n wi Hm.f Hr Xnt Xr.f m bi[k.f] 1690 Is it possible then that the two events of rowing are connected and perhaps tied into the festivals that occurred around the time of the early co-regency and subsequent accession of Amenhotep II? 1691 Columns 46-47, Urk IV, 897, 11-17: rx.n(.i) qd.k ti wi m sSy m wn.k m Smswt it(.i) di m Hr.k m iAwt idnw.k n mSa mi Ddt srs.k qnwyt nswt wn.in idnw MaHw Hr irt Dd.ti nbw.f

384

of his smr-courtiers, and Xrd n kAp.1692 While the additional titles come from various inscriptions throughout the tomb, there are a few scenes to which they are most relevant and bear discussion. These representations are found primarily clustered on the front and rear walls of the left half of the tomb’s pillared hall.1693 Here we see Mahu involved in the provisioning of troops and inspecting the recording of provisions (which likely come from the agricultural scene in the lower registers) before a storehouse bearing the name of Amenhotep II, and either leading soldiers, etc. to the king or (as is perhaps more likely) supervising and registering the soldiers.1694 The first two scenes occur back-to-back on the same wall and are separated by the storehouse, which Mahu stands in front of. The storehouse seems to be related to both scenes, indicating where the activities depicted are taking place.1695 In the first depiction Mahu is bringing the srw nw mnfAywt and anxw nw mSa to the palace in order to distribute provisions to them.1696 Mahu is identified as the “iry-pat HAty-a, excellent favorite of the lord of the two lands, praised of those who are in the palace, one who fills the ears of Horus with truth, the idnw n [mSa] Xrd n kAp // [destroyed] //.” Although the end of the 1692

(HAty) iry-rdwy n nb tAwy, Hry-tp n imyw-Xt.f, and tpy n smrw.f. The tomb is so enormous that Mahu was able to have it decorated almost thematically. In the pillared front hall we have on the western side duty-related activities and offerings to the deceased, as well as a presentation before Amenhotep II. On the eastern side the front and side walls involve offerings to the deceased, gods and the deceased Thutmosis III, while on the rear wall is the autobiographical text and presentation before Thutmosis III. The west side of the short passage depicts two couples seated before the funeral outfit, which leads into the front and end walls on the west side of the transverse-hall with the funerary procession and offerings to Osiris; the rear wall depicts hippo-spearing. The eastern side of the short passage contains a double-offering scene while the same side of the transverse-hall is decorated with fishing and fowling and additional banqueting scenes. The axial passage contains additional scenes related to the afterlife, with mummy rites and a funeral procession on the west and the deceased couple in a garden setting on the east. The rear (north) wall has a niche with offering scenes on either side and a depiction of Osiris on the west side. 1694 Respectively PM(2), (3), and (8). The interpretation of PM(8) is based on the similar scene in TT88 of Pehsukher and will be discussed below under this official. 1695 PM(2)-(3), the west side of the south (front) wall of the pillared chamber. The lower registers are damaged, but based on comparison with TT88 of Pehsukher, it is probable that Mahu was depicted at the east end observing the agricultural activities which take up most of the lower portion of the wall. 1696 Schulman understands these to be respectively officials of the army and soldiers, Schulman, MRTO, pp. 13-14, 33-4, and 91 no.24. 1693

385

inscription is damaged, the available space is the appropriate size to restore “Imn-m-Hb mAa-xrw”. It is certainly possible that there was another title placed here, e.g. Hry pDt, followed by the abbreviated name Mahu. However, the four inscriptions that unambiguously contain the Hry pDt title all list it as first,1697 and the pattern of destruction suggests that it is in large part due to Atenist defacement. Thus Mahu’s name becomes the more likely restoration. It is also interesting to note that the list of epithets and titles is an almost exact replica of that found in the slightly later tomb of the Hry pDt Paser (TT367) discussed above, who however is not known to have been an idnw.1698 Mahu is assisted in his duties by a man referred to as “the scribe of the document (i.e. secretary) of the idnw Mahu, who is not absent from his two legs in any place, the dignitary/sAb Mes.”1699 Although earlier we saw the expression (iry-)rdwy.f in a military context, to imply service in foreign lands, here it is used to suggest that this scribe accompanied Mahu wherever he provisioned the troops. This inscription replicates almost exactly one used by Mahu in the context of describing his relationship with the king.1700 Its placement here thus implies that this scribe was especially close to Mahu, perhaps being his chief

1697

These are all located in the back of the tomb at PM(24), (29), (30), and in a ceiling inscription in the rear axial passage. 1698 TT367 must have been built and decorated in the second half of Amenhotep II’s reign as it alters the courtyard of TT92, which is a few years newer than TT85 (Pers. Comm., Betsy Bryan). The inscription in TT367 is located at PM(5), where Paser presents offerings before the king. The inscription is quoted in text above, see Chapter 2, but the relevant portion is: … mH-ib aA n nb tAwy Hsy n nTr nfr mH anxwy Hr m mAawt … Hry pDt Xrd n kAp Hry Smsw n Hm.f ti sw m inpw PA-sr mAa-xrw. The similarities between Mahu’s tomb and that of Pehsukher (TT88) have long been known; see most recently Gnirs, MDAIK 53, and the bibliography cited there. As Pehsukher served shortly after Mahu (he was probably contemporary with Paser), I will discuss the similarities in relation to the discussion on Pehsukher’s tomb, unless relevant here when suggesting possible restorations. 1699 Virey did not fully copy this inscription, which accompanies the figure in the first register: sS Sat n idnw n MaHw tm tS r rdwy.f m st nbt saH / sAb Ms (?);cf. Virey, Sept tombeaux, p.229. The inscription is somewhat obscured at the end and the reading of sAb / saH Ms is uncertain, what is clear is that there is a 4-legged animal followed by the ms-sign. In a slightly larger script below this, but still pertaining to the scribe we read nf Sn; I am uncertain how best to translate or interpret this. 1700 The inscription accompanies the scene of Mahu and Baky standing before their garden estate at the south end of PM(30); cf. columns 5-7 (Urk. IV, 901.5-6): Sms nsw iry-rdwy.f tm tS r nswt m st nbt

386

assistant. In the scene adjacent to this Mahu is speaking to the “overseer of the granary of the lord of the two lands, one who reckons the preparation of bread and beer”, whose name is unfortunately not given.1701 Again Mahu is identified by only his idnw n mSa title as he gives instructions to the overseer about dealing with the army provisions. Both of these scenes take place before a storehouse of Amenhotep II, thus it is likely that they primarily refer to Mahu’s duties under this king. The fact that only his highest title (idnw n mSa) is used supports this, since Amenhotep II placed him in this position. In addition, the inscription of Mahu’s scribal assistant and the depiction of the Egyptian overseer of granaries suggest that at this time Mahu’s responsibilities were in Egypt. These depictions also strengthen the idea that the role of the idnw was, as Schulman states, “mostly connected with the provisioning of the army” and “mainly of an administrative nature”.1702 It seems then that we are dealing with the end of Mahu’s career. Schulman however seems to contradict himself, as he also suggests that the position of idnw was not given to an official in retirement but was instead a rather active post.1703 Schulman views the Hry pDt as primarily a combat post in which the official commanded troops and was subordinate only to the imy-r mSa wr, although Schulman does admit that the Hry pDt could play an administrative role as well.1704 According to Schulman’s reconstruction of the military hierarchy, Mahu would have moved from a waw (m Imn-wsr-HAt) to an idnw (n mSa) and at the end attained the higher post of Hry pDt.1705 Schulman’s interpretation, if correct, would affect our understanding of Mahu’s 1701

PM(3); imy-r Snwty n nb tAwy Hsb psw t Hnqt Schulman, MRTO, p.35 1703 Schulman, MRTO, p.34. This is contra Helck, Enfluss, pp.54-7. 1704 Schulman, MRTO, pp.53-6. See also the discussion above on Nebamun and Paser, Chapter 2, p.281, with note 1269 for a brief discussion of the term Hry pDt. 1705 Schulman, MRTO, the lists on pp.82-6. Schulman does not deal with the positions tpy n iryw.f or tpy n smrw.f. 1702

387

life in the military because it implies that Mahu was younger than has been previously thought, or at least that he lived and was militarily active further into the reign of Amenhotep II. Schulman’s scenario also seems to suggest that either Mahu moved from a combat to administrative back into combat position, or that his duties as a Hry pDt were essentially administrative in nature.1706 Chevereau’s interpretation of this title as “commander of a regiment” who was subordinate only to the imy-r mSa seems to essentially agree with that of Schulman.1707 Gnirs however states that Mahu’s position as a Hry pDt might have been essential for the progression of his career, despite it’s lack of mention in the autobiography.1708 A review of the inscriptional and pictorial material from the tomb shows that a reconstruction based on Schulman does not fit with the evidence we have for Mahu. Throughout the tomb Mahu records his idnw titles, and in two inscriptions in the tomb’s rear portion Mahu is referred to as idnw n mSa Xrd n kAp, and once as idnw n nsw m mSa.1709 This latter is a new variation on the title for Mahu and its only occurrence is in the bottom half of a mostly destroyed scene on the southeast wall of the transversehall.1710 In the lower part of the scene, which is almost completely destroyed, Mahu stands at the far left with a scribe recording items that numerous men are carrying.1711

1706

I would point out that in Schulman’s Table 3, which lays out the military hierarchy as he interprets it, he does place both idnw n mSa and Hry pDt in the “combat ranks” field, with the simpler idnw as the “service title or post”, although idnw appears in the combat lists of the earlier tables. Schulman, MRTO, pp.81 ff. 1707 Chevereau, Prosopographie du ouvel Empire, p.64, no.11. 1708 Gnirs, Mititär, p.27 with n.214. 1709 He is idnw n mSa Xrd n kAp on the south side of the fishing and fowling scene at PM(27) and in the banquet scene at PM(28). The inscription on the north side of PM(27) is completely destroyed. 1710 PM(26). The upper portion depicted Mahu at the right with a short inscription above him watching the collection and preparation of fowl and fish; the figure of Mahu and the inscription are completely destroyed. The title is included in the list given by Eisermann, but no mention is made of its location in the tomb. Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.66. 1711 The last column of the inscription is legible, though the name is lost. Pehsukher (TT88) also held the same title, if my restoration of the column of text alongside the stele is accurate. See below for further discussion.

388

This appears to be the only scene in this part of the tomb that may depict Mahu in his official capacity. Mahu’s Hry pDt title, however, is only found in four inscriptions in the rear of the tomb: one in the transverse-hall and three in the axial hall, one of which is on the ceiling. Two or perhaps three times Mahu is called Hry pDt Xrd n kAp idnw, and twice Hry pDt idnw.1712 In the remainder of the tomb, including the pillars, Hry pDt is not used at all.1713 The reason for the title’s appearance in this portion of the tomb may be that by listing all of his main titles, Mahu is able to present a picture of his career despite the lack of scenes demonstrating his responsibilities. The placement of Hry pDt as consistently first in the list of titles suggests that Mahu considered his idnw title to be more important and prestigious than that of Hry-pDt, and also indicates that Mahu was likely a Hry-pDt before becoming an idnw.1714 Thus, from the evidence provided by his tomb, it appears that Mahu started as a low-level soldier, probably due to his own parents’ lower status, though whether he was “drafted” or enlisted is not known. He then distinguished himself in the campaigns of Thutmosis III to such an extent that he was rewarded with gifts and the praise and 1712

Hry pDt Xrd n kAp is used at PM(24), west end of the northwest wall in the transverse-hall, in the scene of Mahu, followed by a woman, spearing a hippopotamus: Hry pDt Xrd n kAp idnw; in the west band of the axial-hall ceiling inscriptions: ////[Hry]// pDt Xrd n kAp ////; and perhaps at PM(25) where Mahu and a woman stand behind (i.e. to the east) and facing the hippo-spearing scene: //// Xrd n kAp idnw. This last is based on the order of the titles, which is only found four other times in the tomb, PM(19)-(20), Pillars Aa and Cc. Hry pDt idnw occurs at the south end of PM(30), east wall of the axial hall, where Mahu and a woman stand overlooking a large garden: Hry pDt idnw and at PM(29), west wall of the axial hall, in the funeral procession to the tomb: Hry pDt idnw ////. In other inscriptions in PM(29) Mahu is also referred to as idnw n mSa; //// idnw; and idnw. 1713 While it is true that some of the inscriptions here are also damaged, the ones which relate to his service as a military official do not contain this title, nor do any of the rest of the preserved inscriptions found in the pillared front room, or short passage. 1714 Several of the inscriptions in the transverse-hall are damaged or destroyed, and thus it is possible that the titles had more occurrences here. No inscriptions are included in the funerary procession to the Western Goddess at PM(22), southwest wall, transverse-hall. At PM(23), on the west wall of the transverse-hall, where Mahu and a woman stand before Osiris in a kiosk, the 24-column accompanying inscription is completely faded and was in Virey’s time as well. Eisermann, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropolen, p.66, stated that the title imy-r mSa aA n nb tAwy was palced in this inscription, but I was not able to find it. The text of Mahu and a woman seated at the north end of PM(30) is completely destroyed, as are any inscriptions on the north wall of the axial passage [PM(31)].

389

recognition of the king. This is most likely how Mahu became an Xrd n kAp. There is no evidence to suggest that he would have obtained this title due to his family’s connection to the royal court. Rather, it appears that the title was awarded as an honorific in recognition of Mahu’s service and loyalty. At some point during his military career Mahu was also granted the position of Hry pDt, though as he does not mention it in the autobiography there is no way to ascertain whether he achieved this position on his own merit, or was presented with it by the king. If we take Gnirs’ interpretation of the importance of his role as a Hry pDt to his later career as an idnw, it would seem to be the former situation. Thutmosis III further rewarded Mahu by making his wife the chief nurse to his son, and later heir, prince Amenhotep (II). The combination of Mahu’s own status in the court and his wife’s position as royal nurse, led to Mahu becoming, as Amenhotep II states, known to him “in the nest”. Thus, once Amenhotep II became king he awarded his father’s trusted official, and the husband of his own nurse, with the position of idnw in which to finish out his career. By the later years of his life Mahu had raised himself significantly above the point at which he seems to have started. Indeed, in the banqueting scene on the southeast wall of the pillared front room the men serving the guests seated at the front are each called wbA n idnw “butler of the idnw”.1715 Van Siclen added Mahu to the list of co-regency officials first established by Murnane, based on the “balanced decoration – Thutmosis III on the right side and Amenhotep II on the left” seen on the rear wall of the first room of the tomb.1716 While this is correct, it should be pointed out that in the scene before Amenhotep II it is Mahu’s wife, Baky, who takes prominence over her husband in her role as Amenhotep II’s chief 1715 1716

PM(11), west end, registers 1-2: wbA n idnw MaHw and wbA n idnw n Imn-m-Hb Van Siclen, Chapel of Sesostris III, p.49D. Murnane, Coregencies, p.53.

390

nurse (Figs.41-2, pp.497-8).1717 Nonetheless, Mahu does fit in with the appellation of a “co-regency official” based on other factors, e.g. his autobiographical inscription (discussed above), and the scene in which Mahu and Baky follow Amenhotep II in an offering scene before Thutmosis III as Osiris (Fig. 43, p.499).1718 It has generally been assumed that Mahu did not live long past the accession of Amenhotep II. This is based on his extended military career under Thutmosis III, as evidenced by the autobiography and the fact that his wife was a wet-nurse for Amenhotep II. In addition, the decorative style and content of Mahu’s tomb has generally been placed stylistically in the latter part of Thutmosis III’s reign and very early years of Amenhotep II.1719 In fact, a re-examination of TT85 has proved significant for this issue. In studying the tomb it appears quite evident that the rear portion (transverse and axial halls) was decorated in a different style that is generally simpler than the front area of the tomb. The fact that the outer rooms (pillared hall and short passage) are more elaborate is not especially surprising as it was common to have so-called “master artisans” spend the most amount of time and use more costly materials in decorating an area that would be seen by visitors or passers-by. Nonetheless, the rear portions of the tomb were important for the funerary cult and thus the significant discrepancy between the two styles seems to suggest that in TT85 there is another explanation.

1717

Her prominence in the tomb and connection to Mahu’s career will be discussed further below. PM(16). According to Virey, Champollion recorded the names of both Amenhotep II and Thutmosis II on the entrance to the tomb, but if this is accurate it was not preserved when Virey recorded the tomb and I could not find any traces of this. The only cartouches which appear “sur la porte” are those of Amenhotep II on the outer face of the lintel for the “doorway” created by the center pillars of the front room. Virey, in: Sept tombeaux, p.224. 1719 For example the scenes of the soldiers and the style of the costumes. It is also remarkably similar in artistic hand to the nearby tomb of Suemniut (TT92), who was a royal butler and high-ranking court official during this time period (Pers. Comm., Betsy Bryan). As was mentioned in Chapter 2, TT92 must pre-date TT367 of Paser, and thus TT85 must as well. 1718

391

As mentioned above, Mahu’s wife Baky held a prominent position in TT85. However, upon examining the scenes and inscriptions it became apparent that in fact this is only true for the front for the tomb. Baky is only identified as the woman who accompanies Mahu in the front hall and short passage. Her status in the outer portions of the tomb is almost on par with that of her husband, and her position as a chief royal nurse is placed in every inscription. In the transverse and axial halls the woman accompanying Mahu is always in a clearly subordinate position, and wears a plainer costume, while Mahu is depicted in essentially the same manner as in the front of the tomb. This woman is only clearly identified once, in the banquet scene on the northeast wall of the transverse-hall, where she is simply referred to as snt.f mrt.f nbt //[pr] //// “his ‘sister’, his beloved, mistress [of the house] ….”1720 This is contained in the last of nine columns placed above the seated couple, and based on the space there is barely room for her name in the damaged portion. Throughout the remainder of the transverse and axial halls the woman depicted seems not to have been identified.1721 This is certainly the case in the representation of a woman standing with Mahu looking at their garden estate (Fig.44, p.500)1722 and is the likely situation in four other areas as well.1723 There are two other texts in the rear part of TT85

1720

PM(28). There is no mention of a female companion at PM(26), which may, however, be a “duty-type” scene for Mahu. Nor does a woman’s name seem to be included in the badly faded ceiling inscriptions. At PM(23) the inscription is too faded to draw a conclusion. 1722 PM(30), south end of the east wall of the axial hall. The 13-column inscription above them records only a list of epithets and titles for Mahu. 1723 These scenes are located at PM(24)-(25), (27) and (30), north end, though it is possible that the inscriptions are now destroyed. PM(24)-(25) are on the north-west wall of the transverse-hall at the west and east ends respectively. PM(24) depicts Mahu spearing a hippo with Baky (?) standing behind him; the lower half of the scene is destroyed. At PM(25) the couple stands facing the spearing scene and the 13column inscription above them seems to contain only or primarily a list of epithets and titles for Mahu. It parallels the inscription found at the south end of PM(30) in which Baky is not identifed. PM(27) is the fishing and fowling scene in which the north (left) side inscriptions is destroyed, though the women do not 1721

392

in which the woman may have been identified, but one is too faded to read, and the other is lost to damage.1724 Also indicative of the difference between the outer and inner portions of the tomb is that while in the short passage Baky is seated with Mahu inspecting the funeral outfit,1725 in the depiction of the funerary procession to the tomb in the axial hall she is not mentioned at all. 1726 On the opposite wall Mahu is seated with a woman (figure destroyed), while offering-bearers present produce from the garden estate.1727 The inscription above Mahu is completely destroyed, and the figure of Mahu is damaged, but enough of his torso is preserved to indicate that he was depicted with rolls of fat. This is in stark contrast to his depiction throughout the rest of the tomb, where he is only shown in the “prime of life.” For the ancient Egyptians, rolls of fat were an indication of status as an upper-level official, wealth, and leisure-time.1728 There are two possible explanations for the clear differences in both the decoration and women depicted in the front and rear of the tomb. One is that Mahu in fact had two wives, the royal nurse Baky and a simple “mistress of the house”. Although Baky could, ostensibly, have been the first wife, it seems more likely that she was the second wife since presumably Mahu would not have married a woman of lesser status late in his career. In addition, based on the scene of Baky offering to Amenhotep II, she would have survived into this king’s reign. This would indicate that his first wife died

appear to be identified, and any text for the standing woman on the south (right) side is also destroyed. The inscription accompanying the seated couple at the north end of PM(30) is lost. 1724 PM(23) Mahu and a woman stand before Osiris, but the inscription was unreadable. At PM(30) the inscription placed above the seated couple, as well as the upper portion of the figures, is destroyed. 1725 PM(20). Their son Iamu and his wife are seated behind them. 1726 The funeral procession to the Western Goddess at PM(22) does not have any inscriptions except for the goddess, while the bringing of objects to the tomb at PM(29) only mentions Mahu as the recipient. 1727 PM(30). Located at the north end of the east wall of the axial passage. 1728 Also commonly seen on scribal statues.

393

relatively young and that Mahu married Baky while still at an early stage of his career. His first wife, of apparently much lower status, would then be the woman represented in the rear portions of the tomb. The second possibility is that Baky was Mahu’s only wife, and that she is depicted differently in the rear of the tomb as a reflection of her subordinate role in Mahu’s funerary cult. As will be demonstrated below, if we understand that Baky is the woman in the rear of the tomb, then it is also possible that her subordinate role is due to the fact that Baky may have had her own tomb, and thus her presence in Mahu’s cult is a formal one. Thus far Baky has only been mentioned briefly, and with reference to Amenemheb-Mahu and his career. Some discussion of her own position vis-à-vis the king and court is now necessary. There are a number of representations of Baky in TT85 that impart information about her preferred status. Perhaps the most important or significant of these depict Baky in the act of suckling the king, who is shown simply as a young child.1729 Two of the suckling scenes occur on the south faces of the central pillars in the first room, thus they are immediately visible from the entrance to the tomb.1730 In each Mahu presents offerings to Baky who is seated with the young prince on her lap to whom she extends her breast while the child grasps her arms.1731 On one pillar she is called “chief nurse of the lord of the two lands, praised of the good god, mistress of the house”, and it is the action which speaks to her duties as a nurse.1732 On the other however, her epithets describe the act itself: “one sweet of breast, who is healthy of

1729

Tis is quite different from the scene in the tomb of Qenamun, discussed elsewhere, in which Qenamun’s mother is seated in a kiosk with Amenhotep II on her lap dressed in kingly regalia. 1730 The top register of PM Pillars Ba and Ca. 1731 In Pillar Ba Mahu is referred to as ns/// Hsy n nTr nfr idnw n mSa Xrd n kAp nb.f //[Imn-m-Hb mAa-xrw]// and at Pillar Ca as iry-pat HAty-a Sms nswt r nmtt.f Hr xAst rsyt mHtt idnw n mSa //[Imn-m-]Hb mAa-xrw 1732 Pillar Ba: mnat wrt nt nb tAwy [Hs]y[t nt] ntr nfr nbt pr BAky mAat-xrw.

394

suckling, chief nurse of the lord of the two lands, whose breast is united with Horus”.1733 The third representation, though there are no texts, is unusual because Baky suckles the young Amenhotep (II) as they stand before a procession of offering-bearers led by a man, probably Mahu, carrying a bouquet (Fig.45, p.501).1734 Once Amenhotep II became king, it is evident that he held his former wet-nurse in high esteem. While Baky was probably awarded with the status of royal nurse due to her husband’s status, it was her own position vis-à-vis Amenhotep II that enabled her to be depicted in TT85 suckling the young prince, and offering to him as king. The latter scene takes place on the west (left) side of the rear wall of the pillared front room (Fig.42, p.498).1735 This placement puts Baky in direct line of sight to a visitor and thus affords her the same importance as the depiction of Mahu before Thutmosis III with his autobiographical text and three registers of northern foreigners, which is in the same position on the opposite wall. 1736 Although scenes in which an official is accompanied by his wife in the presentation before a king are uncommon, the composition in TT85 is a unique testament to Baky’s place among the elite.1737 Here too, in the act of presenting an Amun bouquet, Baky bears her “wet-nurse” epithets.1738 In addition, while Mahu’s butlers attended to the guests in the banquet scene, Baky is accompanied by her own

1733

Pillar Ca, Urk. IV, 920.10-15: nDmt mnD snbt snq mnat wrt n nb tAwy Xnm @r Snbt.s wdt r sp nfr Xkrt nswt BAky mAat-xrw 1734 PM(16), bottom half of the scene, on the north end of the east wall of the front hall. 1735 PM(9). 1736 PM(17). 1737 The same scene occurs in TT88 of Pehsukher, who however “borrowed” many elements from TT85 in the decoration of his own tomb. 1738 PM(9), Urk. IV, 920.3-9 and 923.7-11: //[iit]// Xr anx n //[Imn]// … in //[Smayt nt Imn mn]//at wrt n nb tAwy Hsyt nt nTr nfr Sdt nTr nfr[t sn]q Xnm n Hr Snbt.s nswt Hmt BAk Dd.s … [Coming] carrying [a bouquet of Amun] … by the [chantress of Amun], chief nurse of the lord of the two lands, praised of the good god, one who suckled the god, good of suckling, her breast having been united with Horus, servant of the king, Bak(y). She says …

395

servants in the depiction of her and Mahu offering braziers.1739 Directly behind the figures of Baky and Mahu are two registers of which the upper shows a man and woman who are probably their children, and the second holds two rows of male attendants. In the upper row the first man is a servant of Mahu, the second man’s inscription is destroyed, and the third is the sDm aS n mnat n nswt BAk NAry “servant (literally ‘one who hears/obeys the summon’) of the royal nurse Bak(y), Nary.”1740 Perhaps more significantly however, it appears that Amenhotep II recognized the important role Baky played in his early years by granting her a tomb. In the scene directly above the one in which Baky is depicted standing with the prince at her breast, Thutmosis III as Osiris is seated in a kiosk receiving offerings from the newly crowned Amenhotep II followed by the idnw n mSa Xrd n kAp Amenemheb-Mahu and Baky.1741 Here Baky is not only called the chief nurse of the lord of the two lands, but is also said to be “[praised] of those who are in the palace, one whose two arms embraced the good god, whose breast [was united with Horus], mistress of a burial upon the west for the mistress of the house.”1742 A similar inscription accompanies Baky seated behind Mahu inspecting the funeral outfit on the west wall of the passage:1743 “mistress of a burial among those who are in Thebes as one praised of the good god, [Xkrt nswt, mistress of the house, Baky].”1744 The funeral outfit however is entirely for Mahu, as indicated both by the

1739

PM(10), west end of the southeast wall of the pillared hall, adjacent to PM(11) and facing the entrance to the tomb. 1740 Urk IV, 925.16. The inscription that pertains to the first man is damaged, what remains is: //// MaHw Imn-Htp Dd n //[.f !wy]// “[the servant/butler of the idnw ?] Mahu, Amenhotep, [called Huy]”. The restoration of the beginning suggested in Urk. IV, 925.17 is not tenable, though the end is possible and has been used here. 1741 PM(16), top register. The epithets that precede Mahu’s titles refer to his military service. 1742 The entire inscription for Baky is: snt.f mrt.f nt st ib.f mnot wrt nt nb tAwy //[Hsy ?]// n imy aH Sntt awy.s Hr nTr nfr //[Xnm @r]// Snbt.s nbt qr(s)t Hr imntt n nbt pr BAky mAa-xrw. Urk IV, 920.16-921.4. 1743 PM(20). Their son Iamu and his wife are seated behind them. 1744 Columns 8-9, Urk. IV, 913.7-8: nbt qrst Hr imy WAst m Hsw n nTr nfr //[Xkrt nswt nbt pr BAky]//

396

nature of the items and the beginning of the text of the scribe who presents it: “Excellent favorite of his lord, the scribe Tasha, he says: ‘For your ka …’.”1745 The above discussion demonstrates Baky was the owner of a tomb. However, as Roehrig stated, it is uncertain whether this meant a tomb of her own in one of the royal valleys, as was the case for certain male officials from this time period and perhaps the royal nurse Senetnay, or if rather she was the joint owner of TT85 with Mahu.1746 Based on the evidence presented above concerning Mahu, it seems unlikely to me that she would simply have been awarded joint ownership of her husband’s tomb. The inscription placed on the outer face of the lintel created by the center pillars seems to support this.1747 In the text above the couple Mahu relates that he is giving praises to Osiris and he goes on to say: “I came here in your following in the course of every day together with his wife, his beloved, who was buried in the favor of the king, which was done for her as that which is done for a noble, the royal nurse, who nurtured the god, Baky, justified.”1748 In addition, a new inscription, previously unrecorded by Virey and likewise unknown in the Urkunden, seems to suggest that she was awarded with a tomb in the Valley of the Kings, or perhaps Queens. This inscription falls on the south face of the western pilaster in the front room.1749 The scene depicts Baky seated receiving offerings from a woman who appears to be her sister (Fig.46, p.502).1750 Above Baky the four column inscription reads:

1745

PM(20), north end: mH-ib mnx n nb.f sS &A-SA Dd.f n kA.k … Roehrig, Royal urse, p.171. 1747 PM(18). 1748 iy.ni aA m Smswt.k m Xrt ra nt ra nb Hna snt.f mrt.f qrst m Hswt nswt irw n.s ir rdi n saH mnat nswt Sdt nTr BAky mAa-xrw 1749 PM(5). 1750 The inscription is damged, but the beginning reads snt.s aA (?) nt st-ib.s //// 1746

397

mnat wrt nt nb //[tAwy]// Hsyt nt nTr nfr nbt //[qrst (?) ]// Hr Dsr n WAst mi ir // n nswt-msw nbt BAk // mAa-xrw Great nurse of the lord [of the two lands] praised of the good god, mistress of [a burial (?)] upon the Dsr of Thebes like what is done for all the royal children, Bak(y), justified.

It is now evident that Thutmosis III awarded Mahu with gifts, honorific titles, and the ability to construct and decorate an enormous tomb due to his distinguished and lifelong service under this king. His wife Baky was likewise honored and placed as a nurse to Amenhotep II.1751 When Amenhotep II ascended the throne, he recognized Mahu’s abilities and status, and promoted to his final position as an idnw. Baky’s personal service to Amenhotep II when he was still a child resulted in her being recognized in an equal manner as Mahu in his tomb, and also led Amenhotep II to grant Baky her own tomb. Although I do not think that Baky was responsible for Mahu’s career, it is possible that Baky’s obvious importance to Amenhotep II may have contributed to his final promotion.1752 The status and court connections of both Mahu and Baky extended itself to their children. They had a least one daughter, who is probably depicted though not identified in a number of scenes throughout the tomb.1753 Although the inscription is lost, she may be the woman shown following Baky in the presentation of an Amun bouquet before the enthroned Amenhotep II.1754 The only scene in which a woman who is not Baky is

1751

This assumes that Baky was his only wife, as if Baky was a second wife, then Mahu could have married her either before or after she was a royal nurse; cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.170f. 1752 Roehrig also discussed whether it was Baky’s position that influenced Mahu’s career, or vice-versa. Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.170-1 with note 546. It is worth mentioning that other “co-regency” officials seem to have been summarily replaced, e.g., Rekhmire, Amenmose. 1753 E.g. accompanying her parents with her brother at PM(10) and in the fishing and fowling at PM(27), as one on the guests in the banquet scenes at PM(11), (20), (21), and (28). 1754 PM(9).

398

identified occurs on the north face of the eastern pilaster.1755 It adjoins the presentation before Thutmosis III as Osiris discussed above,1756 and is likely a continuation of this scene. She is called the chantress of Amun, Amunhedu.1757 The fact that Amunhedu is represented at the same scale as Mahu and Baky suggests that she was a relative and thus although no filiation is given, it seems likely that she is indeed a daughter. Their son Iamu has a more prestigious role than his sister in TT85. Like Amunhedu he appears in a number of scenes in which he is not identified,1758 but once he is identified as the figure offering to his parents,1759 and a second time is the recipient of offerings along with his parents and wife.1760 In his role as an offerer, Iamu is called Xrd n kAp and beloved of the lord of the two lands. These epithets imply a close relationship with the king, and may indicate that he grew up in the royal court while Amenhotep II was still a prince.1761 Iamu and presumably his wife sit behind Mahu and Baky on the west wall of the short passage, inspecting the funeral outfit.1762 The text is written in continuous columns, but a clear break occurs after Baky’s name, where the following column (col.10) begins with Htp-di-nsw. Clearly the latter half of the inscription was meant for Iamu and his wife. Although not referred to as a Xrd n kAp, Iamu is designated as “chief of the followers of his Majesty”, again calling attention to his relationship with 1755

PM(15). PM(16). 1757 Smayt nt Imn Imn-hdw. It is worth pointing out that her costume is more elaborate than that worn by Baky in the adjacent scene, though it is identical to the type Baky wears throughout most of the rest of the front rooms of the tomb. 1758 Mostly the same as those cited above: in attendance at PM(10) and PM(27); probably the man offering to his father on Pillar Ca (reg2) and to his parents on Pillars Da (reg1) and Db(reg.3). In the banquet scene at PM(28) Iamu is probably the hacked-out sem-priest, though the inscription is unfinished. At PM(21) he and his wife are probably the couple seated behind Mahu and Baky receiving offerings, in parallel to PM(20). 1759 PM(11). 1760 PM(20). 1761 PM(11), southeast wall of the pillared-hall, Urk. IV, 916.2-6: sA.f mr.f st-ib.f Xrd n kAp mry nb tAwy IAmw Dd.f n kA.k anx [n] Imn Hss.f tw mry.f tw swAH.f t(w) 1762 PM(20). 1756

399

Amenhotep II. Indeed, Iamu all of his epithets/titles reflect his status at court and vis-àvis the king.1763 The fact that Iamu is called only Xrd n kAp rather than “foster-brother” and does not carry a single functioning title suggests that he was probably a younger contemporary of Amenhotep II.1764 Iamu’s place amongst the children at court allowed him a prominent role in his father’s tomb, even though he may not have distinguished himself in a career at the time of Mahu’s death. Although only TT85 has been referred to in the discussion about Mahu there is another monument that may be attributable to him. A stele now in the British Museum was ascribed to Mahu by Schulman, but questioned by Yoyotte on the grounds of style and the wife’s name.1765 On the BM stele Mahu is referred to only as Mahu and bears the titles Hry pDt (n nb tAwy) and idnw. He is accompanied by his wife, the nbt pr Nefretiry,1766 and they are offered to by the ‘chief of the followers of the idnw Mahu, Amuneminet. If this stele does belong to Mahu of TT85, perhaps Nefretiry was his first wife, or an actual sister, thus being the woman represented in the rear chambers of the tomb. Stylistically however, BM 307 appears to be later than Thutmosis III, perhaps from the reign of Thutmosis IV. In this case, we might suggest that it belongs to a descendant of Mahu, possibly a grandson who was named after the famous Mahu and followed in the same career path. If this is correct, than we have also an example of a military career becoming hereditary in nature.

1763

PM(20), cols.15-20; Urk. IV, 914.11-13: //[n kA] n Sms nswt m st.f nb //[pH IA]//wy m Hsw nb tAwy Hry Smsw n Hm.f IAmwmAa-xrw xr Wsir. The remainder of col. 18, as well as cols. 19-20 were either left unfinished or are faded beyond legibility. 1764 I would point out that Iamu being younger than Amenhotep II would support the theory that his mother Baky was younger than Mahu, and may have perhaps been his second wife. 1765 BM 307; cf. Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts VII, p.9 and pl.23; Schulman, MRTO, p.134 no. 310a; Yoyotte, BiOr 26, p.12 “310a”. 1766 She is designated by snt.f mrt.f

400

Minmose (An idnw for the king abroad and overseer of works in Egypt) An official who seems to have come from relatively lower origins, yet rose to high ranks within the administration is the “overseer of works in the temples of all the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt” and royal scribe Minmose.1767 In addition to his position as “controller of works in the temples of all the gods,” Minmose is known for being one of a small group of men who clearly served under both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. In addition, a lengthy statue inscription gives an account of Minmose’s participation during Thutmosis III’s campaigns.1768 The fact that Minmose, like Iamunedjeh, appears to have been primarily a civil official suggests that his presence in the Near East was due to circumstances other than warfare. The following reevaluation of Minmose’s family and career is undertaken in order to determine the extent and nature of Minmose’s service under Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. Minmose is in fact a most unusual case, since despite his apparent prominence, his tomb has yet to be located. The only monuments we have for him are a group statuette possibly from Abydos,1769 a group statue from Nebesheh,1770 a block statue from Medamud,1771 a statue of Minmose holding two princes possibly from Karnak,1772 a stele carved at Tura,1773 and a stele of unknown provenance.1774 Der Manuelian suggested that his tomb might have been in the Delta as opposed to Thebes, a supposition based on the fact that as almost all of his monuments come from the north, he may have originated 1767 I would like to point out here that Minmose was not a royal butler, a title erroneously attributed to him in the Urk. IV, 1441f. and by Helck, Verwaltung, pp.271f. 1768 This has recently been discussed by Redford, Wars, pp.173-4. 1769 BM 2300; de Meulenaere, MDAIK 37, pp. 315-19. 1770 Petrie, Tanis II, pl.10 no.5; Urk. IV, 1445-46. 1771 Drioton, Médamoud II, pp.52-6, no.355; Urk. IV, 1441-45. 1772 CG638; Borchardt, Statuen II, pp. 186-7, pl.117; Urk. IV, 1447. 1773 Daressy, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448. 1774 Berlin 822; Aegyptische Inschriften Berlin II, p. 99.

401

from there.1775 However, Assasif tomb 59, which was usurped in the Ramesside period, has also been put forth as a possibility.1776 In addition, a funerary cone found in Thebes that has been attributed to Minmose might also indicate a tomb or at least chapel in Thebes.1777 Based on the inscription and the orthography of the name, the funerary cone seems to the author a tenuous attribution at best, and should not be used to corroborate a tomb in Thebes.1778 The possibility of a northern tomb for Minmose thus seems quite strong, and all the more likely now that excavations undertaken by Alain Zivie have discovered 18th Dynasty tombs at Saqqara.1779 Minmose’s parents were the sAb Naiy and his wife the mistress of the house Rennefer. They are named on Minmose’s Karnak statue and depicted with him in the group statue from Nebesheh.1780 On the basis of the group statue, Kees surmised that because it was dedicated to his parents and placed in a Lower Egyptian temple the family may have come from this area.1781 Unfortunately, this is all that is known about them. However, a great deal is known about Minmose and his career, despite the lack of a

1775

Der Manuelian, Amenhophis II, p.166. The idea of a northern origin was first suggested by Kees, Priesterum, p.33. 1776 PM I.2, p.628 1777 Mentioned by Roehrig, Royal urse, p.93-4. Published by Daressy, no.197: Wsir in sr n Imn kAt nTr Htpw Mnty-ms mAa-xrw nb imAx Davies’ notes to Daressy’s publication, which I was able to view with the permission of the Griffith Institute in 2003, has the comment “Berlin 87494” placed beside this cone. 1778 Eichler apparently agrees, as she lists the owner of the funerary cones separately from Minmose the architect; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, p.277, nos.249 and 250; Helck, Materialien I, p.48. 1779 The earliest of these is that of Nehesy, the overseer of the seal during the co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III and who was in charge of Hatshepsut’s year 9 expedition to Punt. Zivie published the tomb, cf. Alain Zivie, in: Mélanges Gutbub, pp.245-52. There is then a gap until the (post-)Amarna period; cf. Martin, Hidden Tombs. 1780 For the black granite Karnak statue, see Urk. IV 1447, 14-15 and Borchardt, Statuen, p.187, pl.117, rows 6-7: ir n sAb NA-iy mAa-xrw ms [n] nb[t] R[n-nfr mAa-xrw]. The Nebesheh statue, also of black granite, depicts the three figures seated before two altars on the fronts of which are placed the inscriptions. Minmose’s father has his own altar, while Minmose and his mother share a larger altar. Petrie, ebesheh, no.30, p.30, pl.X no.5. 1781 Kees, Priestertum, p.33. This has since been followed, cf. Roehrig, Royal urse, p.91-2; de Meulenaere, MDAIK 37, p.318; der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.166.

402

tomb.1782 Most of our information comes from the lengthy inscription on his statue from Medamud, which comes from the Montu temple, and is dated to the later reign of Thutmosis III based on the king’s cartouche and the textual content.1783 A second source of important information is Minmose’s Tura inscription, which bears a year four date in the reign of Amenhotep II.1784 The textual content of these two monuments indicate that although most of Minmose’s career came under the reign of Thutmosis III, it continued at least into the early years of Amenhotep II, making him a contemporary of the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu.1785 As in the case of Mahu’s tomb autobiography, Minmose does not list military titles for himself on his Medamud statue. Nonetheless, from the inscription we are able to get a sense of how Minmose’s career progressed and responsibilities increased. This fact indicates that the text can probably be understood as being essentially chronologically ordered.1786 Throughout the Medamud inscription Minmose stresses that he “saw the victorious campaigns” that Thutmosis III led into both Syria and Nubia.1787 We can interpret from this that Minmose witnessed these battles, though any active participation on his part is not clear. He uses a variety of verbs to express his involvement, none of which imply combat activity: he followed (Sms), tread (xnd), and crossed (water) (DAi) after the king. The reference to crossing water implies that Minmose participated on Thutmosis III’s 8th campaign in year 33, while the Nubian exploit can be placed in the 1782

The most recent discussions on Minmose are Der Manuelian, Amenophis, pp.164-6; Redford, Wars, pp.173-4, 241ff. 1783 A partial translation and short discussion can be found in Redford, Wars, pp.173-4 1784 A translation is provided in der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.166. 1785 See above, pp.379ff. 1786 The text is also interpreted chronologically by Redford, Wars, p.174. 1787 mAA.n.(i) rdt a Hm.f occurs in lines 4 and 14, while mAA.n.(i) sxrw.f &A-nHsy is in line 5. See Urk. IV, 1441.16, 1441.18, 1442.16

403

last decade of Thutmosis III’s reign.1788 In the interval between these two events, Minmose had become a “follower of his majesty” indicating that he had become a close companion of the king.1789 Following these battles, Minmose records that he taxed (Htr) the Retenu, “caused that the chiefs of the Retenu know their taxes (bAkw) of every year”, and “taxed the chiefs of the land of Nehesy (Nubia) … in taxes of each year.”1790 Minmose goes on to assert that with regard to all the victories of Thutmosis III, and subsequent tribute, “I knew it, I counted it, having been placed under the charge of the treasury (pr.wy-hD)”.1791 None of the titles that Minmose had bear any connection to the treasury. However, it seems likely that he carried out these duties in his position as royal scribe.1792 Although a seemingly lower-level title, it is in fact the one that Minmose identifies himself as most often. It appears as the most important (last in the list) twice on this statue, once on the Tura stele and the Karnak statue, and on the Nebesheh statue it is twice the only title he uses.1793 Thus it clearly had duties attached to it that Minmose was proud of, such as the taxing of foreign lands and recording of tribute described in the Medamud statue. Minmose next describes Thutmosis III’s battle in the district of Tikhasy, near Qadesh,1794 in which he reports “(I) led the army of brave ones (mSa qnt) of the king when

1788

Urk. IV, 1441.15-21. Cf. Redford, Wars, p.174. Urk. IV, 1442.1; Franke, in: Miscellanea Aegyptologica, pp. 67-87. 1790 Urk. IV, 1442.4-108. 1791 Urk. IV, 1442.15 1792 Also suggested by de Meulenare, MDAIK 37, p.318. 1793 Also noted by Roehrig, Royal urse, p.91 1794 Roehrig (Royal urse, p.91) suggested that this campaign be placed between years 30 and 33, the latter being the eighth campaign in which Thutmosis III crossed the Euphrates. This is contra Gardiner, AEO I, 150-1, who places all three as part of the eighth campaign. Likewise, der Manuelian sees the Tura inscription as pertaining to yr.33, and thus the Takhsy reference must relate to a different series of events (Amenophis II, p.53-4). More recently, Redford (Wars, p.171f., 174) has argued for its placement after year 42 of Thutmosis III, in part based on his reconstruction of Amenemheb-Mahu’s autobiography. There is also a possibility that it refers to the year 3 campaign of Amenhotep II; cf. Redford, Wars, p.174. 1789

404

I was as an idnw of the king as one who does that which is said”.1795 This title, idnw of the king, was also held by Pehsukher called Tjennu, owner of TT88, who served during the co-regency of Thutmosis III-Amenhotep II and through the reign of Amenhotep II.1796 In addition, both Mahu and Pehsukher held the title idnw of the king in the army.1797 In the discussion of Pehsukher, it was stated that an idnw could be either a military office or an administrative one within the military sphere.1798 Both Mahu and Pehsukher seemed to have been involved with the managerial aspects of this title, Mahu because he was an older official when he attained it, Pehsukher because he was essentially an administrator as opposed to a true military man. Minmose appears to have been a bit of both. Clearly he was involved in the campaigns as a royal scribe, but here he seems to equate being an idnw with leading troops. Mahu, when he was appointed as an idnw by Amenhotep II, was told “be watchful of the brave ones (qnywt) of the king”.1799 Was Minmose perhaps not leading them in battle, but rather leading the “brave ones” on behalf of the king after the battle had ended?1800 At this point Minmose is appointed to the position for which he is best known, controller of works in the temples of all the gods. As Minmose himself states: “His majesty placed my face to controller of works in the temples of all the gods”.1801 What follows is an extensive list of precisely the deities whose temples he was in charge of. These range from “Sakhmet, foremost of the desert” and “Montu in Thebes” to “Wadjyt 1795

Urk. IV 1442.19-20. The reading of idnw is somewhat uncertain based on the signs presented in the Urkunden, but nonetheless seems likely: sSm.n(.i) mSa qn n nswt ti.wi m idnw n nswt m irw Ddwt 1796 See Chapter 2. for the discussion. 1797 Mahu bears this title in the transverse-hall, PM(26), while Pehsukher carries it in the column of text alongside the stele, PM(7). 1798 See Chapter 2. 1799 srs.k qnwyt nswt See Urk IV, 897, 14-16 for the entire portion. 1800 This is contra Redford, who views Minmose as the “leader of elite troops” in the battle; cf. Redford, Wars, p.174. 1801 iw rdi.n Hm.f m Hr.i r xrp kAwt m rw-prw nw nTrw nbw

405

(Buto), mistress of Pe and Dep” and “Hathor mistress of Byblos”, thus covering essentially the entire span of Egypt and into the regions of the northeast under Egypt’s control.1802 Thus, although this is a new phase of his career, it seems to be connected to his earlier exploits by the distribution of deities. Minmose proceeds to inform us that not only did he “stretch the cord”1803 in all these places, he provided them as “excellent works of eternity” so that the king could propitiate the gods.1804 In doing this, Minmose demonstrated his skill (SsA) to Thutmosis III, who rewarded (fqA) him with 150 servants, fields, vineyards, and appointed (dhn) him to specific priestly positions in Letopolis, the temple of Bastet, and the temple of Montu in Thebes.1805 In addition, Minmose was given the functions or offices (iAwt) of Hm- and wab-priests in all the temples for which he was made controller of works.1806 The remainder of the inscription contains rather standard formulaic phrases, including the “appeal to the living”. The only further information about Minmose’s career comes from the titles he lists prior to his name. In addition to the ones already mentioned in the autobiography, Minmose calls himself overseer of nfrtcattle of Amun and overseer of works in the temples of the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt.1807 To these can be added overseer of great works in the temples of the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt, overseer of cattle (kAw) of Amun1808 and “true royal scribe who

1802

Urk. IV, 1443 This is a phrase that refers to laying the groundwork for building temples. It is a scene that is often depicted on temple walls. An excellent example of this, and of the other activites involved in building a temple, can be seen in the reliefs at the temple of Edfu. 1804 Urk. IV, 1444.1-3 1805 Urk. IV, 1444.5-13. Minmose is made Hm-priest and opener of the mouth in Letopolis, great one of the papyrus-scepter in the temple of Bastet, and mayor and overseer of priests in the temple of Montu. 1806 Urk. IV, 1444.14: di.w n.i iAwt Hmw-nTr wabw m nn rw-prw xrp.n(.i) kAwt im.sn 1807 Urk. IV, 1444.15: imy-r nfrwt nt Imn and Urk. IV, 1441.14: imy-r k#wt m rw-prw nw nTrw ^maw MHw 1808 A title also found on the Berlin stele, no.822. Aegyptischen Inschriften Berlin II, p. 99. 1803

406

he (the king) loves” from the Nebesheh statue,1809 as well as festival-leader of Amun, festival-leader of Osiris and overseer of the estate of god’s wife from BM3200.1810 Additional information about Minmose’s career as an architect comes from the inscription he left at the Tura quarries. Here we learn that Amenhotep II commanded the quarries to be re-opened so that fine limestone could be cut from them to be used in the construction of his funerary temples.1811 This was the activity that brought Minmose to Tura in year four of Amenhotep II and caused him to inscribe that he had executed the orders of his king: “Done in the charge of the iry-pat HAty-a favorite of the king in restoring his monuments”.1812 However, der Manuelian has shown that the events described by Minmose also date back to the reign of Thutmosis III.1813 The next phrase in the text seems to be the transition point for Minmose’s service under the two kings because it describes his conduct in his capacity as overseer of works in the temples: “who is watchful/vigilant concerning the temples of the gods,” a position he held under both kings.1814 Following this however, Minmose inserts information related to his activities during the reign of Thutmosis III. The reason for this may lie in the connection between the event chronicled and the type of monument (a stele) it is recorded on: “who sets up stelae /// [upon] the foreign land of Naharin [and of Karoy]”.1815 Presumably he erected these stelae while he was following Thutmosis III on his campaigns to Syria and Nubia. It 1809

Petrie, Tanis, pl.X no.5, Urk. IV, 1446.7-8: imy-r kAwt aA m rw-prw nw nTrw ^maw MHw imy-r kAw n Imn sS nsw maA mr.f 1810 BM 3200: sSm Hb n Imn is on the front of Minmose’s dress, while sSm Hb n Wsir imy-r gs-pr n Hmt-nTr is on the back of the statue. de Meulenare, MDAIK 37, pl.50-1. 1811 Daressey, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448.4-10, 15-19. These latter lines represent a vertically inscribed column that accompanies the relief above the lengthier inscription. The scene depicts Amenhotep II before two rows of thirteen deities. The column of text is essentially a restatement of the first two lines of the horizontal inscription. 1812 Daressey, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448.11: ir Xr-a n iry-pat HAty-a mH-ib n nswt m smnx mnw.f 1813 Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.51-6 (esp.53-4), 165-6. 1814 Daressey, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448.12: rs-tpw Hr Hwt nTrw 1815 Daressey, ASAE 11, p.258; Urk. IV, 1448.13: smn wD /// [Hr] xAst Nhrn //[KA-ry]//. Karoy is in Nubia, near Napata (Gebel Barkal).

407

seems likely that he would have worked alongside, or perhaps under, the controller of (all) works (of the king) and royal herald Iamunedjeh in these efforts, especially if he was still a royal scribe at this time.1816 The reason that Minmose was never granted the title of royal herald may be because Iamunedjeh served in this capacity on their joint building projects. Iamunedjeh would have been somewhat older than Minmose, making this scenario quite plausible. If this is the case, then it may be that Minmose was with Thutmosis III on the Euphrates crossing in year 33, that this is the campaign referred to in the lost line on the Medamud statue that begins with DAi “cross (water)”,1817 and the stele Minmose erected in Naharin was put up following this conquest. This would also mean that at least some of the events described on the Medamud statue and the Tura stele occurred during the same campaign, the proposal originally put forward by Gardiner and subsequently rejected by der Manuelian.1818 In the discussion outlined above it becomes clear that Minmose’s so-called “military career” was, like that of Iamunedjeh, carried out in a purely administrative capacity. As a royal scribe Minmose “saw” (i.e. recorded) Thutmosis III’s military victories throughout the Near East and Nubia. His abilities in this regard apparently brought him to Thutmosis III’s attention, and eventually Thutmosis III promoted Minmose to be his idnw. This position gave Minmose the authority to speak on the king’s behalf and thus Thutmosis III placed in Minmose’s charge his own “brave ones”, perhaps elite soldiers connected to the person of the king.1819 Minmose erected stelae in Naharin and Nubia, presumably while he was still a royal scribe, possibly working under the royal

1816

See above, pp.350ff. for the discussion on Iamunedjeh Line 5, Urk. IV, 1441.17. See also above. 1818 Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.53-4. 1819 JEA 39, p. 44. 1817

408

herald and controller of works Iamunedjeh. Finally, Minmose was rewarded for his service with land, servants, and a prestigious position as the controller and overseer of works in the temples of all the gods in Upper and Lower Egypt. Alongside this came a number of upper level priestly positions, including overseer of priests of Montu in Thebes, high priest at Letopolis, overseer of bulls and nfrt-cattle of Amun, and overseer of the estate of the god’s wife.1820 Kees suggested that Minmose’s responsibilities as the architect of the temples required that he have high-level priestly positions, though whether these involved actual duties or were honorific is unclear.1821 Eichler appears to consider the general titles as honorific, though since she is dealing with the officials specifically connected to the temple of Amun this may be an inaccurate assumption.1822 For the Amun temple, Eichler comes to the conclusion that during the reign of Thutmosis III the integration of military personnel into the temple precinct cannot be proven. However, she also views the areas of the treasury, construction and workshops as being the only areas within the domain of the temple that civil officials could enter into later in their careers.1823 Although she does not include Minmose in the study that comes to these conclusions, it would appear that he fits this latter model. The fact that the title Minmose placed above all others was the one that led him to these prestigious positions, royal scribe, seems to support this. 1820

See Eichler, Verwaltung der “Hauses des Amun”, no.249. The position “overseer of the estate of the god’s wife” was also held by Ahmose-Humay and an unknown son. Ahmose-Humay’s other son, Amenemopet, became vizier under Amenhotep II. 1821 Kees, Priestertum, 34-5. der Manuelian, Amenophis II, p.164-5. 1822 Eichler, Verwaltung der “Hauses des Amun”, no.249. She lists here only the following titles: overseer of nfrt-cattle of Amun, overseer of bulls (iHw) of Amun, overseer of (great) works in the temples of the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt, festival-leader of Amun, festival-leader of Osiris, overseer of the estate (gs-pr) of the god’s wife, overseer of Hm-priests of Montu lord of Thebes, royal scribe. Thus I assume these to be the ones she considers to have actual duties attached to them. 1823 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, 203(6)-7. The viziers Useramun and Rekhmire, the overseer of works of Kaarnak Benia, and overseer of works in the house of Amun Peniaty are examples of this.

409

Only one title remains to be discussed for Minmose, royal tutor. In fact, Minmose did not hold this title, but is inferred to have acted as a tutor based on a black granite block statue (CG 683) thought to have originally been placed at Karnak temple.1824 The statue is in the style of the tutor Sennefri’s, with the heads of two princes placed on either side of Minmose’s. The princes are identified as the “king’s son, who he loves, Nedjem” and the “king’s son, who he loves, Webensenu”.1825 The paternity of the princes is uncertain,1826 and the inscription on Minmose’s robe contains interesting factors that warrant a full translation here. An offering that the king gives (Htp-di-nsw), and that Osiris lord of Busiris, great god lord of Abydos (gives). May he place all that which comes forth upon his offering-table in the course of every day and a beautiful burial (qrst) after old age. For the kA of the excellent sole one, praised of his god, who the king made great since his childhood (saA n nsw Dr Xrdw.f), who reached old age without one finding his fault, who did that which his lord said, who built immediately in restoring his (the king’s) monuments of eternity, the overseer of works in this temple (i.e. Karnak), royal scribe, Minmose, justified, born to the sAb Naiy, justified, born [of] the mistress [of the house] Re[nnefer, justified].1827

The two princes, Nedjem and Webensenu, are problematic because they are virtually unattested. Canopic jars and a funerary statuette belonging to Webensenu that were found in Amenhotep II’s tomb (KV35) have generally been used to attribute the princes’ parentage to Amenhotep II. Indeed, Gauthier listed the two princes as sons of Amenhotep II, and Kees followed this, further suggesting that the statue was the last of

1824

Borchardt, Statuen II, pp. 186-7, pl.117 Urk. IV, 1447.18, 20. Borchardt, Statuen II, pp. 186-7, pl.117 1826 See the discussion by Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.46-9. 1827 Urk. IV, 1447.5-15. Borchardt, Statuen II, pp. 186-7, pl.117. 1825

410

Minmose’s monuments, made after the Tura inscription in year 4 of Amenhotep II.1828 In his study on Amenhotep II’s family, der Manuelian retained this attribution, placing them as just older than Thutmosis (IV), while Bryan places their birth within the first five years of Amenhotep II’s reign.1829 Roehrig however pointed out that KV35’s use as a royal mummy cache in the 21st Dynasty means that the canopic jars of Webensenu may not be original to the tomb. In addition, Minmose’s long career under Thutmosis III leads her to the proposal that the princes were sons of Thutmosis III and older brothers of Amenhotep II.1830 Minmose’s service under Thutmosis III is certainly not in dispute, though without any dates it is difficult to suggest an exact chronology. However, it seems that he was an official only during the independent reign of Thutmosis III. Even assuming Minmose participated in Thutmosis III’s first campaign in years 22-23, he would have needed to be at least in his early twenties to be a royal scribe. As the above discussion of Minmose’s career demonstrates, he was a royal scribe for most of this time, probably becoming controller and overseer of works in the temples only when he had reached his late thirties or even forties.1831 I suggested above that Minmose was younger than Iamunedjeh, who was already an official in year fifteen of the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency, and roughly contemporary with Amenemheb-Mahu, whose wife was the royal nurse to Amenhotep II. Amenhotep II’s tutor Min was also probably older than Minmose, since he seems to have died prior to the accession of Amenhotep II.1832 Thus, if Minmose were made the tutor of two sons of Thutmosis III, these would most likely be younger than 1828

Gauthier, Livre de rois, pp.289-90. Kees, Priestertum, p.35, achtrage 35 (p.9) der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.166, 176-7, 180. Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.48-9 1830 Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.94-5 1831 Certainly after the eighth campaign of year 33, and possibly as late as year 42. 1832 In Min’s tomb, TT109, Amenhotep II is only shown as a child and labeled as sA nswt, “king’s son.” 1829

411

Amenhotep II, who was born in year 35. This seems rather unlikely given that tutors and nurses seem only to have been assigned to princes up until a surviving son was made heir or crown-prince.1833 Thus Nedjem and Weben[senu] are most likely older sons of Amenhotep II who were born early in his reign. This also argues for a dating of Minmose’s block statue in the early years of Amenhotep II.1834 In support of placing Minmose’s service slightly further into the reign of Amenhotep II is the phrase “who the king made great since his childhood”.1835 Roehrig interprets the childhood as being that of the king, as opposed to Minmose.1836 However, two factors suggest that in fact it is Minmose’s youth that is referred to here. The first is the use of childhood (Xrdw) in opposition to old age (iAw) in the expression that follows. Clearly the old age referred to is Minmose’s, and thus it follows that it is his youth as well that is spoken of. The second is indicated by comparison with other applications of this term and phraseology. The Cairo stele (CG547) of Menkheperresoneb uses a similar structure to indicate his service during the reigns of two kings.1837 Menkheperresoneb states that he was “one who followed the king during his childhood (Xrdw.f), whose youth (xnw) happened at the place where the god is, one whom the lord of the cult act instructed because he was effective to the heart”.1838 These indicate his service as a young man during the reign of Thutmosis III. However, the phrase “chief of followers of his majesty

1833 This is based on the list provided as Apppendix I in Reohrig, Royal urse, pp.340-4. Obviously for royal daughters the situation could be different. 1834 Bryan already suggested a dating in the co-regency or sole reign of Amenhotep II. Bryan, Thutmose IV, pp.46-9 1835 saA.n nswt Dr Xrdw.f 1836 Roehrig, Royal urse, p.92, n.273. 1837 Urk. IV, 991-4. Menkheperresoneb was chief of the Medjay during the reigns of Thumosis III and Amenhotep II. 1838 Urk. IV, 993.15-17.

412

when he (the king) was as a youth (inpw)”1839 clearly refers to Menkheperresoneb’s s career when Amenhotep II was still at court, but probably crown-prince if not already coregent. The latter interpretation is confirmed in the tomb of Paser (TT367),1840 where Paser stands before an enthroned Amenhotep II and refers to himself as “Xrd n kAp, chief of chief of followers of his majesty when he (the king) was as a youth”.1841 Paser was roughly contemporary with Amenhotep II and thus his and the king’s youths occurred together. The phrase employed by Minmose however suggests that his career is in large part due to the recognition of Thutmosis III from his youth as a royal scribe onwards. The fact that he is made tutor by Amenhotep II is for Minmose the culmination of his career,1842 at a time when he was likely an older man, who had “reached old age without one finding his fault”. Although very little is known about Minmose’s parents, quite a bit more information is available for his wife, children and grandchildren. Most of this information comes from a group statuette (BM2300) and stele (Berlin 822) (Fig.47, p.503). De Meulenaere layed out a convincing argument connecting the owners of these two monuments based on family, and further linking them to the overseer of works Minmose based on similar and shared titles.1843 From them we learn that Minmose was married to the Xkrt nswt Mia and that they had a son Minmose who became high priest of Osiris, a daughter Heriy who was a chantress of Amun, and a second daughter Sharyti who was a royal nurse. A third Minmose, also a first priest of Osiris, was already known to Kees as 1839

Urk. IV, 994.10-11. Hry Smsw n Hm.f ti sw m inpw See Chapter 2. 1841 Urk. IV, 1455-57. 1842 I would point out that Minmose was neither a Xrd n kAp or royal companion in his youth. His association with the royal court and Thutmosis III only came later in life. 1843 De Meulenaere, MDAIK 37, pp.315-19. On BM 2300 Minmose is the festival leader of Amun, festival leader of Osiris and overseer of the estate of the god’s wife. On Berlin 822 he is the overseer of the cattle of Amun. 1840

413

the son of a man named Neferheb from two stelae from Abydos (CG34099 and CG34101).1844 Both of these stelae are dedicated to Neferheb and his wife Heriy by their son Minmose, and show multiple generations of the family.1845 On CG34101 the lunette depicts the high priest of Osiris and god’s father of all the gods Minmose and his sister Mutnofret1846 offering to Neferheb and Heriy,1847 while a daughter named Tanofret1848 kneels below their chair and touches her mother’s leg. In the register below this kneel their sons the scribe Hatiy and Tury, grandson Amun, son Amenemheb, and an unknown son.1849 The three line inscription at the bottom indicates that the stele is for the overseer of the st and overseer of fields (AHwt) of Amun, Neferheb and his wife (snt.f) the chantress [of Amun] Heriy.1850 The lunette of CG34099 depicts the high priest of Osiris Minmose and his brother the wab-priest of Amun Tury1851 offering to Neferheb and Heriy1852 while their daughter Mutnofret1853 kneels behind their chair. Below the seated couple in the first register kneel their daughters Mi, Tany, Taweret,1854 [Tanofret ?],1855 and a young son Paerheny.1856 Facing them is their brother the scribe Hatiy (seated), and

1844

Kees, Priestertum, p.59-60; Lacau, Stèles, p.153-5 (CG34009), pl.xlviii and CG34101, pp.160-1, pl.xlix. 1845 Lacau, Stèles, p.153-5 (CG34009), pl.xlviii and CG34101, pp.160-1, pl.xlix. Based on the style and the way in which certain family members are represented, CG34101 appears to be slightly earlier, perhaps late Thutmosis III. The figure of Minmose on CG34009 wears a cartouche pendant, but the name is unfortunately all but obliterated. The ra symbol remains, and there may be traces of aA, indicating that the stele should be dated to the reign of Amenhotep II, which would be in accord with the stylistic dating. 1846 Minmose is called sA.k mr.k Hm-nTr tay n Wsir it nTr n nTrw nbw Min-ms mAa-xrw m Hswt, and his sister Mutnofret is called sAt.s mrt.s Mwt-nfrt Dd n.s &w-iy 1847 They are designated as the imy-r AHwt [n Imn] Nfr-Hb snt.f nbt pr Hsyt n nTr nfr Smayt n [Imn Hr]-iy mAatxrw m Xrt-nTr 1848 sAt.f &A-nfrt 1849 The inscriptions are: sA.f sS HAt-ti sA.f &w-ry sA.f sA [Imn] sA.f Imn-m-Hb inscription lost 1850 kA n imy-r st imy-r AHwt n [Imn] Nfr-Hb mAa-xrw snt.f mrt.f nbt pr Smayt [n Imn] Hr-iy 1851 sA.f mr.f Hm-nTr tpy n Wsir Min-ms sA.f wab n Imn &w-ry 1852 They are designated as the imy-r AHwt n Imn Nfr-Hb snt.f nbt pr Smayt n Imn Hr-iy 1853 sAt.f Mwt-nfrt 1854 sAt.f Mi maAt-xrw sAt.f &A-ny sAt.f &A-wrt 1855 The name was either uninscribed or is lost, but this is the only daughter not otherwise named who we know existed. 1856 sA.f PA-r-hny. The son is depicted as a boy standing behind his sisters.

414

behind him kneel a grandson of Neferheb named Amun (sA.f sAt), and two more sons, Menkheper and the chariot-warrior (snny) Mahu.1857 The remainder of the stele contains eight rows of text consisting of an offering formula for the “overseer of the fields of Amun Neferheb, born of …”; unfortunately the rest of the inscription was not finished.1858 Clearly the two high priests of Osiris named Minmose are not the same person, but using these two stelae, CG34099 and CG34101, de Meulenaere easily demonstrated that they were uncle and nephew though Heriy. The genealogy can thus be reconstructed as follows:1859

sAb Naiy --- Rennefer | | | Minmose --- Mia imy-r kAt m r-prw nw | Xkrt nswt nTrw ^maw MHw | | | | Sharyti Minmose mnat nswt Sdt [nTr] Hm-nTr tpy n Wsir

? --- ? | | | | | Heriy --- Neferheb Smayt n Imn | imy-r st imy-r AHwt n Imn | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Mutnofert | Mi | Tany Taweret Tanofret | | | | | \ | / | | | | | (Tjuiy)1860 | Minmose Hatiy Tury \ | / Menkheper Mahu Paerheny Amenemheb Hm-nTr tpy sS wab n Imn \ | / snny n Wsir \ | / it nTr n nTrw nbw sA.f sAt Amun (it is unclear who is the mother)1861

1857

sA.f mr.f sS HAt-ti mAa-xrw sA.f sAt Imn sA.f Mn-xpr sA.f snny MaHw n kA n imy-r AHwt n Imn Nfr-Hb mAa-xrw ir n … 1859 De Meulenaere presents a more basic genealogy; cf. MDAIK 37, p.319. 1860 Mutnofret is placed kneeling behind her parents on CG34099, but offering to them with Minmose on CG34101. On the latter stele she is identified as sAt.s mrt.s Mwt-nfrt Dd n.s &wiy 1861 Based on his placement on CG34009, it appears he is older that Menkheper and Mahu, but younger than Hatiy 1858

415

Nothing more is known about Minmose’s wife Mia, thus it is impossible to say exactly how she came by the court honorific Xkrt nswt. However, I would suggest that Minmose’s obvious connection to the royal court, exemplified by his being made a tutor, resulted in his wife also be honored. It seems likely that Minmose’s influence in the temple domain based on his being the chief architect of the temples, including that of Osiris, as well as his own title of festival-leader of Osiris led to his like-named son’s position as high priest of Osiris. Unfortunately we know nothing about the son Minmose’s career, but he may have started at an already advanced position before rising to high priest. Likewise the father Minmose’s presence in Thebes and numerous positions related to the Amun temple probably allowed for his daughter Heriy to become chantress of Amun. Heriy’s husband Neferheb was an overseer of the fields of Amun, a title Eichler places in the “upper range” along with those of overseer of nfrt-cattle and overseer of bulls, both of which Neferheb’s father-in-law Minmose held.1862 Heriy then seems to have married a younger colleague of her father. While their son Tury became a wab-priest in the temple of his father, their son Minmose apparently followed his likenamed uncle’s footsteps exactly. Minmose may in fact have inherited this position from his maternal uncle, though there is nothing concrete to demonstrate this. The two others sons of Heriy and Neferheb for whom titles are known suggests that one was entering into a scribal career (Hatiy), while the other was entering into the military (Mahu). Perhaps this was due to his being one of the youngest children, though I would point out

1862

Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, pp.55-61, 78-90. Neferheb is no.360 in Eichler’s catalog. Minmose bears these titles on his Medamud and Nebesheh statues respectively. However, Eichler notes (p.55 n.222) that Neferheb is the only official to hold the imy-r AHwt title without also holding titles elsewhere in the domain of the Amun temple. His only other known position is that of overseer st, and this it is possible that his marriage to Heriy resulted in his advancement into the upper echelon of administration of the Amun temple.

416

that a position as a chariot-warrior may well have been better off than that of a regular army soldier. Sharyti’s epithet “who nurtured the god” indicates that she was the nurse to a prince who eventually became king. Roehrig’s discussion of Minmose and Sharyti raised the question of who was made a tutor/nurse first, Minmose or his daughter. If Minmose became a tutor relatively early in his career, to sons of Thutmosis III, then Sharyti, through her father’s influence, was made nurse to Amenhotep II. This is the conclusion that Roehrig believes to be more likely, stating: “a younger Minmose, having shown his abilities during various foreign campaigns and building projects, would have been appointed tutor by Thutmosis III, and his daughter might have been chosen as nurse to Amenhotep II later in the reign, partly through the influence of her father.”1863 Roehrig’s assumption is that regardless of when Minmose was awarded the position of tutor, Sharyti was the nurse of Amenhotep II because her father was the tutor to Amenhotep II’s older brothers. However, as we have seen above, it is much more probable that Minmose was the tutor to early sons of Amenhotep II. This makes Sharyti’s nursling prince Thutmosis (IV), whose precise date of birth is unclear, but was presumably born by the middle of Amenhotep II’s reign.1864 Sharyti, like the rest of her family, benefited from her father’s status at the court, and specifically in this case as a tutor. As was mentioned in the case of the royal nurse Renen, daughter of the overseer of the seal and tutor Sennefri, the type of “inheritance” involved was most likely an informal, unstructured one.1865

1863

Roehrig, Royal urse, pp.181f. See the discussion by Bryan, Thutmose IV, Ch.2 and der Manuelian, Amenophis II, Ch.IV, Part I, pp.172-81. 1865 See the discssuion on Sennefri and his family above, pp.332ff. 1864

417

Dedy (From soldier to royal messenger to chief of the Medjay) Dedy’s service under Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, like that of Mahu, was consistently military in nature. He progressed from a low-level soldier to an envoy of the king, and was at the end of his career placed in charge of guarding the area around the royal necropolis. Despite the damaged nature of his tomb, the fragmentary scenes and several funerary cones seem to provide a picture of an official whose merit and ability was recognized by the king, and which resulted in his rise to a much higher status than he originated from.1866 Dedy’s T-shaped tomb, TT200,1867 is extraordinarily badly damaged, with the upper portions of the walls completely, or almost completely, destroyed.1868 In the areas that are still extant, for the most part the inscriptions are lost or so faded as to be indiscernible.1869 Due to the state of preservation in TT200, much of our information about his titular career comes from three different funerary cones, each of which records a variety of his positions (Fig.48, p.504).1870 Two of these cones were recorded as being found in his tomb by Davies,1871 and these were still in situ when I visited the tomb in

1866

The titles from his tomb and funerary cones can be found in Urk. IV, 995-6. On the “royal messenger” in general, see Valloggia, Recherche, p.99, no.39. See most recently Bryan, in: Thutmose III, pp.43-4, 67-9 for a discussion Dedy. Several of the points she raises are repeated here. 1867 Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.485-67, type Vb. 1868 I visited the tomb in 2002. I was unable to confirm the titles recorded by Champollion, otices I, pp.527-8, 848 and reproduced in Urk. IV, 995.9, 11-12. Two of these are either similar to or can be confirmed by titles found on Dedy’s funerary cones (Urk. IV, 995.9, 12). The third however, “chief of the companies (sAw) of pharaoh” is based solely on Champollion’s notes. 1869 The lengthy stele inscription that appears on the east wall of his tomb [PM(6)] is entirely funerary in nature. It is quite similar to that found in the roughly contemporary tombs TTs 88, 79, and 87; cf. Urk. IV, 1515-39, esp. 1515-26, 1535, 1538-9 for Dedi’s inscription. The stele was also published in Hermann, Stelen, 41*-43*, pl.6 (d) where the condition is much the same as today. 1870 Daressy nos. 4, 13, 30; Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 4, 22, 24. 1871 According to the notes he made to Daressy’s publication, which the Griffith Institute kindly allowed me access to in September 2003.

418

2000.1872 On Davies and Macadam, Corpus no.4 Dedy is called “the royal messenger upon every foreign land in as much as he is pleasing to the heart, gold of praises given to him on account of bravery in many deeds, chief of the Medjay”.1873 A combination of lower and upper-level titles are granted to Dedy on Corpus no.22, where he is the “infantryman (waw) of (the ship) ‘Beloved-of-Amun’, standard-bearer of the companies (sAw) of his majesty, overseer of foreign lands west of Thebes, chief of Medjay”.1874 Finally, Corpus no. 24 contains only epithets, including “favorite of the lord of the two lands” and the military distinction “brave one (qny) of the soldiers (mnfyt)”.1875 These titles provide a starting point from which to reconstruct Dedy’s career. Turning again to the tomb, a careful examination of the extant scenes reveals that Dedy was certainly called “overseer of the foreign lands upon the west of the city (i.e. Thebes)” at least twice in his stele inscription.1876 In addition, traces in an offering scene suggest a possible reading of the military epithet “one who followed the king upon his marches.”1877 Another depiction indicates that Dedy was a co-regency official. This is based on a scene in which both Amenhotep II and Thutmosis III were represented seated

1872

I would like to thank the SCA for allowing me to carry out some preliminary dissertation research at this time, as well as Dr. Betsy Bryan and The Johns Hopkins University for supporting the project. 1873 The inscription is divided into five columns: (1) wpwty nswt (2) Hr xAswt nbt n aAt n mnX.f (3) Hr ib dd n.f nbw n Hswt Hr qnt (4) m sp aSA Hry MyDAyw _yd- (5) w mAa-xrw. Urk. IV, 995 (d), Daressy, cônes funéraires, no.13, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.4 1874 Also placed in five columns, the inscription reads: (1) waw (2) n Mry-Imn TAy sryt (3) n sAw n Hm.f imy-r xAst imntt WAst Hry Ma- (4) DAyw _ydw (5) mAa-xrw xr nTr nfr nb tA-Dsr. Urk. IV, 996 (f), Daressy, cônes funéraires, no.4, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.22. 1875 Urk. IV, 995 (e), Daressy, cônes funéraires, no.30, Davies and Macadam, Corpus, no.24. For a discussion of the term mnfAt cf. Schulman, MRTO, pp.13-4, and nos.93, 139, 142 for titles dealing with the mnf#t. See also Gnirs, Militär, pp.12-17. 1876 imy-r xswt Hr imntt niwt. Portions of the title are still preserved in lines 15 and 28, and in both cases it is the only title awarded. Hermann restores the title in line 11. Urk. IV, 995.10, 1535.2 1877 PM(7). At the beginning of the first column: //[Sms]// nsw /// r nmtt.f. For comparisons, cf. TT367 of Paser, PM(5), TT42 of Amenmose, PM(16).

419

in a kiosk reviewing six registers of troops (Fig.49, p.505).1878 Although today the figures of the kings are lost, the size of the kiosk platform, which takes up half of the wall, is a clear indicator that two kings were seated within it. The damage to the wall makes it uncertain whether Dedy was depicted in the scene,1879 but his ability to portray in his tomb both kings under whom he served indicates that he held a favored position within the court. Combining Dedy’s titles and tomb representations we can extrapolate that he participated in the Syrian wars of Thutmosis III and that the king rewarded him for his efforts. Early in his career Dedy was apparently a soldier on the ship Meryamun. This was not a warship, but rather a “state barge … which carried the ruler and his associates on court missions.”1880 This may be where Dedy was first noticed by the king. His next position was probably “standard-bearer of the companies of the king,” and likely represents the transition from his career in Egypt to that abroad. As a standard-bearer, Dedy was a mid-level military official who would have commanded troops, in this case the sAw, which in its entirety could include some 250 men.1881 From Amenemheb-Mahu’s autobiography we know that “gold flies” were given to participants of Thutmosis III’s year 33 battles in Syria.1882 Dedy apparently distinguished himself by his brave deeds and

1878

Radwan, Darstellungen, p.33, Fig.1. I was able to visit the tomb in 2000, at which time the very bottom of the kiosk was still extant. 1879 Representations of recording troops are also known from the slightly earlier tomb of the idnw of the army Amenemheb-Mahu (TT85), as well as the later tombs of the fan-bearer (TAy xw) and idnw Pehsukher (TT88) and overseer of the army Tjanuny (TT74) In all three tombs the scenes are also placed on the left side of the rear wall of the front room. At PM(8)-(9) in TT85, PM(3)-(4) in TT88, and in TT74 on both sides of the rear wall at PM(5)-(6) and (10)-(11). However these depict the deceased standing before the troops at one end of the wall, and before the king at the other. The scene in Dedy’s tomb is almost a contraction of what is found in the others. Perhaps this is part due to the fact that TT200 is significantly smaller than the others, causing only the major components of it to be represented. 1880 Bryan, in: Amenhotep III, p.61. 1881 Schulman, MRTO, pp.26-30, 69-71, 84ff. (table 3). 1882 Breasted, ARE II, pp.232-3. Amenemhab-Mahu records being rewarded with gold in the form of both lions and flies, as well as necklaces and arm rings; cf. Redford, Wars, pp.167-72.

420

was thus given both gold of praises and a further promotion to royal messenger in every foreign country.1883 The “golden fly” was not simply a metaphorical way of indicating that an official was rewarded, Dedy in fact wears a pectoral composed of a golden fly with striding lions in his tomb.1884 His title “royal messenger in every foreign country” indicates that Dedy’s duties in this post concerned the king’s needs abroad.1885 It thus seems likely that Dedy continued to participate in Thutmosis III’s Syrian campaigns, and perhaps in his Nubian wars as well, although there is no direct evidence for this.1886 As Thutmosis III traversed the various regions of the Near East an official who could be trusted to carry messages back and forth between the king and his troops, which were often spread out, would have been both useful and important.1887 In addition, he may have been involved with expeditions that were sent to the Near East to obtain various commodities, such as the one commanded by the overseer of the seal Sennefri to obtain cedar from Lebanon.1888 While there is nothing to either substantiate or refute the theory that Dedy would have functioned in his capacity of royal messenger within Egypt as well,1889 I would posit

1883

On this see also Valloggia, Recherche, p.242. Since I was unable to confirm the title “chief of the companies of pharaoh” (Hry n pA sAw n pr-aA), I am leaving it out of the list. However, if Dedy did hold this position, it seems logical that he would have moved into it after being a standard-bearer, but before becoming royal messenger. 1884 Dedy likely wore this distinguishing pendant throughout his tomb, though today the area around Dedy’s chest is defaced in all but one scene, the bottom register in PM(1). See also Bryan, in: Amarna Diplomacy, pp.74-5. 1885 Valloggia, Recherche, p.245f. 1886 The Nubian wars seem to start in the later years of Thutmosis III’s reign; cf. Breasted, ARE II, pp.257ff.; Morris, Imperialism, pp.180ff. 1887 Valloggia, Recherche, pp.244-9, 275-7, 279-81. 1888 Valloggia, Recherche, pp.244-9, 275-7, 279-81. Sennefri was the owner of TT99, in which the historic event is commemorated on several walls in his tomb, see above, pp.332ff. Similar trips are known for other royal messengers, such as the unnamed one who lead the Punt expedition depicted at Deir el-Bahri on behalf of the overseer of the seal Nehesy. Urk. IV, 323-6, 889. 1889 As implied by Van den Boorn who views the position “messenger of the royal house” as the same with regard to function as that of “royal messenger”; cf. Duties, p.203-4. See also, Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming.

421

that it is not until Dedy was promoted to overseer of the western desert and chief of the Medjay (police) that his responsibilities are focused on Egypt proper. Both of these positions carried duties involving the Theban necropolis and its western environs, as well as access to them from the west. As Bryan suggests,1890 Dedy’s military achievements probably figured in this promotion as well, and since Dedy’s position as chief of the Medjay occurs last on both Corpus nos. 4 and 22, it was probably the last post he held. Dedy’s tenure in any of the positions he held is unknown. Stylistic features such as his crinkled shawl,1891 the division of the banquet guests along gender lines,1892 straight or slightly curved (but not drooping) lotuses, a white pet dog,1893 and the use of Hmt “wife” all suggest a stylistic date of early to mid-Thutmosis III.1894 However, according to Radwan, in the kiosk scene Amenhotep II is seated before Thutmosis III (Fig.50, p.506).1895 This would seem to imply that not only did Dedy serve during the coregency, but that he was likely decorating his tomb during this time, or shortly thereafter. One solution to this apparent discrepancy is the scene was one of the last painted. This is suggested by the fact that it is the only one in the tomb that relates any information about Dedy’s career.1896 Unfortunately, none of the inscriptions are preserved, so there is nothing to indicate whether these were part of Dedy’s Medjay, or military troops. Based on the different costumes, it would seem that various types of troops are represented,

1890

Bryan, in: Thutmose III, forthcoming. He wears this in the banquet scene at PM(5), it is a pink-red garment with wavy white lines. 1892 Lower registers of PM(5) 1893 Placed under the chair of Dedy and his wife in PM(7). 1894 Cf. Dziobek, Eine ikonographische Datierungsmethode, pp.15, 39f. 1895 Radwan, Darstellung, p.33 fig.1. The sketch of the cartouches comes from Wilkinson MSS XVII. H 19 verso. 1896 The remainder of the walls in the transverse-hall contain offering-scenes, representations of fishing, fowling and the preparation of the catch, and two stelae. The passage is completely destroyed except for the bottoms of each wall, where there are fragments of a funerary procession on the west and part of an agricultural cycle on the east. 1891

422

suggesting this may be a militarily-related scene. In this case, the troops they are inspecting are ones that Dedy was involved with as standard-bearer of the companies of his majesty. If this is correct, then this depiction may provide support for Dedy as a “chief of the companies of pharaoh”, the title ascribed to him by Champollion’s artists, but no longer extant in his tomb. However, if this scene was one of the last finished, then the troops may in fact be those Dedy was in charge of as chief of police. 1897 Despite the seeming emphasis on banquet and offering scenes, which make up the remainder of the tomb’s decoration, comparatively little is known about Dedy’s family. This is of course due in part to the damaged state of TT200. Multiple family members were certainly depicted on the east (right) side of the rear wall of the hall,1898 but the question remains as to who they were and what their relationship to Dedy was. According to Porter and Moss, Dedy’s wife was the mistress of the house Tuy, but her name is no longer preserved in the tomb.1899 An inscription for her was included in the long funerary stele on the east wall, indicating that she was also a recipient of the offerings and offering formula recorded on the stele.1900 Whether or not they had any sons is unclear, but their daughter Meryptah presents offerings to them in at least one scene, a position normally reserved for a son.1901 Their second daughter, Henutwa, is twice represented kneeling

1897

Though perhaps unlikely, it is possible that the composition is meant to represent more than one of Dedy’s functions. I am unaware of any comporanda that would support this theory, since the other scenes of “reviewing troops” in tombs of this period all clearly depict military troops (i.e. TTs85, 88, 74, 56). 1898 PM(7). In the top register Dedy and his wife are at the east (far right) end of the wall, while opposite them were probably two registers of guests of which only a portion of the first couple in the lower register is preserved. In the bottom register the remains indicate that figures were offered to at both ends of the wall. 1899 PM I.1, p.303. 1900 PM(6), Urk. IV, 1539.20. This is line 28 of the stele where following Dedy’s name is inscribed Hmt.f //// 1901 PM(5), where she is called “his daughter, Meryptah”.

423

below the chair of parents.1902 Neither daughter appears to have held any titles, and thus nothing can be said about how his favored status at the court affected subsequent generations. Likewise, it must be said that if his autobiographical stele was better preserved, then we would have a clearer picture of Dedy’s activities on the campaigns of Thutmosis III, and perhaps a better idea of how he moved from being a soldier on to a post in Thebes.

Tjanuny (From army scribe to overseer of the army of the king) Tjanuny’s career provides an interesting look at the path of advancement within the administrative section of the military. Despite being a part of the military, Tjanuny’s career in many ways resembles those of other civil officials whose training was required on the campaigns of Thutmosis III.1903 The fact that he served under three kings whose reigns were progressively less militaristic,1904 and yet continued to rise through the ranks suggests that an administrative career was indeed quite different from that of a soldier. The military career of Tjanuny, owner of TT74,1905 began in the sole reign of Thutmosis III and did not end until after Thutmosis III’s grandson Thutmosis IV was on the throne. There is some debate over the nature of the positions Tjanuny held during this seventy-year span, as well as their chronological order. According to the Bracks, who published the tomb, Tjanuny began as a royal scribe (sS nswt) but then moved into the 1902 PM(1), where she is identified by the inscription “Henutwa”, and probably again in PM(5), although the inscription here is lost. 1903 E.g., Iamunedjeh and Minmose, see above. 1904 As typified by the adminstration of Thutmosis IV versus that of Thutmosis III; cf. Bryan, in: Oxford History, pp.269ff.; Bryan, in: Amenhotep III, pp.58ff. 1905 Published by Brack, Tjanuni; cf. Kampp, Die thebanische ekropole, pp.307-10, type Va. TT74 is a Tshaped with a rear chamber that has four roughly hewn statues along the rear wall. The passage was only plastered in preparation for painting, but the transverse-hall was completely decorated, though today it is badly damaged.

424

military sphere as an army scribe (sS mSa), later becoming a sS nfrw and finally attaining the rank of overseer of the army of the king (imy-r mSa n nswt).1906 Bryan however, following Helck, views the title of army scribe as “a lower echelon rank from which many important men commenced their careers.”1907 Further, she suggests that the royal scribes were more highly placed than army scribes, stating that in the reign of Thutmosis IV the “route to advancement was now from either Army scribe or Child of the Nursery to Royal scribe and scribe of the elite troops (nfrw), and then on to higher positions.”1908 This seems indeed to be case for officials who served only under Thutmosis IV, or from the latter years of Amenhotep II on. However, Tjanuny was involved with the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, as his autobiography clearly states. Although Tjanuny bears the title of sS nswt more often than that of sS mSa in the tomb, when they appear in a list together, royal scribe invariably precedes that of scribe of the army. Thus for Tjanuny the “route to advancement” seems more likely to have been that recreated by the Bracks. Another important issue with regard to Tjanuny’s career centers on how to best translate and interpret the term nfrw. Helck originally defined the nfrw as recruits of the army, in part based on the determinative used – the figure of a child or youth.1909 Schulman however felt that the sources indicated rather a type of “elite troops”, who while perhaps young were not newly enlisted.1910 The Bracks, following Yoyotte and Lopez, returned to Helck’s reading because the connotation of an elite troop in modern 1906

Brack, Tjanuni, pp.85 ff. Bryan, Thutmose IV, p.279. Though I would point out that for Helck the “normal military career” was to start off as a royal scribe, and from there move into the ranks of the military. Helck, Einfluss, p.14. 1908 Bryan, Thutmose IV, p.279, with note 287. I would point out however that in her contribution to Thutmose III Bryan agrees with the Bracks in their translation of sS nfrw as scribe of recruits, pp.64-5. 1909 Helck, Einfluss, pp.15 ff. 1910 Schulman, MRTO, pp.20-1. 1907

425

terms is akin to military “special forces”, and there is no indication that the nfrw were part of a special military unit.1911 Gnirs likewise disagrees with Schulman, but also feels that Helck’s classification is too narrow, suggesting instead a reading of “inspectionscribe”, perhaps partly in the sense of mustering troops.1912 With regard to the case of Tjanuny it seems possible that Gnirs’ explanation is closest to what is meant. As will be seen below, Tjanuny was in charge of recording, registering and inspecting many things on behalf of the king besides simply troops. To avoid confusion however, I will simply render the term in ancient Egyptian.1913 The scribal-based titles of Tjanuny are extensive.1914 The autobiographical stele along the north wall of the hall is badly damaged, but enough remains that a general picture of the progression of Tjanuny’s career can be gleaned.1915 The relevant lines fall in the latter half of the stele, which was better preserved when Champollion first had his artists copy it. Following the lengthy offering formula the first titles used by Tjanuny include scribe of the army.1916 Then begins the autobiography proper, with Tjanuny relating how he followed Thutmosis III every year, and told of his victories in all foreign countries, which included bringing back the princes of Djahi as captives.1917 Tjanuny’s

1911

Yoyotte, BiOr 26, p.5. Brack, Tjanuni, p.86. Chevereau also translates the term with scribe of recruits; cf. Chevereau, Prosopographie du ouvel Empire, p.216 no.31. 1912 Gnirs, Militär, p.10 with note 71. “Musterungs- bzw./oder Inspektionsschreiber” 1913 I should also note that Tjanuny does bear one title, known only from jars found in his burial chamber, that may indicate he was in charge of a special unit: sS nswt sS nfrw n tA pDt pr-aA “royal scribe, scribe of recruits of the palace troop”. The Bracks place this title as a step up from sS nfrw, but still below that of general. Brack, Tjanuni, pp. 63-4, 85-6. 1914 See Brack, Tjanuni, for the full list. 1915 PM(9). For a discussion of Tjanuny’s career and position see Brack, Tjanuni, pp.82-7. For the inscription see Brack, Tjanuni, pp.46-7 and Urk. IV, 1003-5. 1916 Line 10. 1917 Lines 10-14. According to the Bracks, Tjanuni, p.90, this likely refers to the campaign in year 30, rather than the later one in year 42.

426

role on these campaigns was to record the victories “in writing”, presumably as an army scribe, or even already as the overseer of army scribes.1918 After his service to Thutmosis III Tjanuny continued under Amenhotep II, whom he followed as the “favorite of his majesty” (mH-ib n Hm.f). The text here is damaged, and thus we have no indication that Tjanuny was promoted to a higher military position by Amenhotep II, though given the length of this king’s reign, it seems likely that some progress would have occurred in Tjanuny’s career.1919 As an official under Thutmosis IV, Tjanuny recorded the troops, suggesting that at this time his primary role was as the more prestigious sS nfrw.1920 No mention is made of any further promotions, and Tjanuny closes his autobiography by stating that he was beloved above all others by the king, who as a result gave Tjanuny funerary goods and a tomb in Thebes.1921 The information provided in Tjanuny’s autobiography is supplemented by the inscriptions and scenes on either side of the hall’s rear wall (Figs.51-2, pp.507-8). On the south side of the rear wall the south end is taken up by a double depiction of Tjanuny recording various troops of the army. In the lower register Tjanuny stands before two registers of troops, and although the inscription is lost, we can infer his activities from the inscription in the upper register where Tjanuny sits before two registers of troops “enrolling the army before his majesty” in his capacity as the “true royal scribe who he (the king) loves” and “army scribe”.1922 Adjacent to this Tjanuny presents an Amun

1918

Lines 14-15. ink smnt pA nxtw irt.n.f Hr xAst nbt irw[m sSw mi irywt] Lines 15-17. [iw Sms.n.i nTr nfr nswt-bity (aA]-xprw-ra)| isT wi m mH-ib. n Hm.f Hswt.i mn.ti ra nb ///// nn srx.i Htp m aH.f ir.n.i //// 1920 Lines 17-18. iw Sms.n.i nTr nfr nb tAwy (Mn-xprw-ra)| di anx mi Ra Dt [sS.n.i n.f mSa aSAw] 1921 Lines 18-20. 1922 PM(5). The full inscription is: sS mSa m-[bAH Hm.f] snhy DAm[w n] nfrw rdit rx s nb irwt.f m mSa r-Dr.f in sS nswt mAa mr.f sS mSa *A-nw-n mAa-xrw “Enrolling the army before his majesty, registering the young men of recruits (militärischen Nachwuchses), causing that every man know his office in the entire army by the true royal scribe who he loves, scribe of the army, Tjanuny, justified”. See also Brack, Tjanuni, pp.40-1. 1919

427

bouquet to a king, presumably Thutmosis IV, seated in a kiosk. In the accompanying inscription Tjanuny also bears the titles of scribe of recruits and overseer of scribes. A complementary scene on the opposite side of the wall (i.e. north side, north end) depicts Tjanuny inspecting troops, cattle and horses as the “army scribe beloved of his lord”.1923 The scene next to this depicts Tjanuny as an overseer of the army, and scribe of recruits offering a Syrian vase before an enthroned king, again most likely Thutmosis IV. The enlarged list of titles used in the kiosk scenes reflects both Tjanuny’s status by the reign of Thutmosis IV and perhaps indicates that the additional titles are related to the nearby “duty” scenes. Holding the Syrian vase, Tjanuny is described as leading the foreign chiefs who are “presenting the tribute of Retenu, taxes of the northern foreign countries, silver, gold, lapis-lazuli, turquoise, and every precious stone of ‘God’s Land’ (vA-wr)”.1924 The troops Tjanuny inspects helped to procure the tribute and taxes, while the animals, especially the horses, are easily understood as part of the taxes and tribute sent, along with the more precious items. Although the Amun bouquet does not at first glance seem to be connected to the troop recoding, from the text we learn that Tjanuny is asking that Amun-Re grant to the king valour, victory, and control over the foreign lands.1925 The ability to dominate the countries into which the king campaigns is of course in part dependant upon the troops that Tjanuny is in charge of recording and placing within the army.

1923

PM(10). The full inscription is: snhy tA r-Dr.f m-bAH Hm.f irt mAAw m irt nbt rx mSa wabw nswt Hmw Hmwt nbt nt tA mi qd[.f kAw Apdw awt] nbt in sS [mSa mryw] nb.f *A-nw-n mAa-xrw Dd.f km.n.n “Recording the entire land before his majesty, making an inspection of every man, knowing the army, wab-priests, royal servants, all craftsmen of the entire land, all bulls, birds and small cattle, by the scribe of the army whom his lord loves, Tjanuny, justified. He says: we completed (it)”. See also Brack, Tjanuni, pp.43-4. 1924 PM(11) 1925 PM(6)

428

Tjanuny’s final promotion was certainly to the position of mr mSa (n nswt). This title, like that of sS nfrw, has also been variously interpreted. Helck was the first to suggest that the overseers of army scribes (imy-r sS mSa), sS nfrw, and overseer of the army/general (imy-r mSa) were all upper level administrative offices within the military.1926 Schulman similarly viewed these titles as non-combative, though he lists sS nfrw (scribe of elite troops) as a scribal rank and officer (imy-r) of army scribes as a service title/post.1927 In his discussion of the imy-r mSa, Schulman concludes that “‘military officer’ was not a distinct rank, but rather was a title which indicated that its bearer held a military command.”1928 He reserved the denotation of general, a combatoriented post, for the imy-r mSa wr, although the wr was not always written.1929 Once again, the Bracks, Chevereau and Gnirs have all returned to the original translation of general for imy-r mSa, and Gnirs further suggests that the title imy-r mnfAt “army commander” is synonymous to it.1930 The Bracks however appear to follow Helck in the assumption that the position of general was an administrative one, and which drew from the scribal ranks as opposed to field officers.1931 On the other hand, the Bracks also ascribe to Tjanuny the duties, if not position, of a field officer while he was a sS nfrw. This is based in large part on the fact that the “standard-bearer of the ship’s contingent of training” (TAy sryt n tA Xnyt [nt] sxpr) Senimose is depicted as a subordinate of Tjanuny’s in the scene of recording troops.1932 From this they conclude that he was in a position similar to that of the Hry pDt in terms of 1926

Helck, Einfluss, p.14 ff. Schulman, MRTO, Table 3. 1928 Schulman, MRTO, p.42-3. 1929 Schulman, MRTO, p.43-4. 1930 Gnirs, Militär, pp.3 ff and Excursus 1. 1931 Brack, Tjanuni, pp.86 f. 1932 PM(5), the lower register. 1927

429

status and that the sS nfrw was also a high-ranking field officer.1933 Certainly it makes Tjanuny a higher ranking official than the standard-bearer, as Schulman noted.1934 However, it does not necessarily follow that he was a field officer. It seems more likely that Tjanuny was recording the troops being led by the standard-bearer in his capacity as a scribe of the army and scribe of recruits. Whether these men were new recruits being placed on the ship, or old hands simply being recorded as part a regular count is of course unknown. And indeed, as Bryan points out, the fact that the title of general was received late in life, and the lack of mention of actual campaigning, or leading of troops in Tjanuny’s autobiography supports a purely administrative career within the military.1935 Thus, Tjanuny’s position as an imy-r mSa becomes one of status, not function. The origins of Tjanuny are unclear, and we know more about his wife, children and possible in-laws then we do of Tjanuny’s own parents.1936 This suggests that they were perhaps of a rather low status, especially compared to the family of his wife Mutiry who herself was a Xkrt nswt and a chantress of Thoth and of Nehemtaway, both deities of Hermopolis.1937 Two ceramic jars found in the second burial chamber below Tjanuny’s tomb were inscribed for the “great of scribes (wr sSw), Amunhotep of Hermopolis”.1938 Although the inscription does not link Amunhotep directly to either Tjanuny or Mutiry, it seems likely that given Mutiry’s own connection to Hermopolis, Amunhotep was a relative of hers. As it is generally parents of wives that are mentioned or depicted in

1933

Brack, Tjanuni, p.86. Schulman, MRTO, p.64 no.159. 1935 Bryan, in: Thutmose III, p.65. 1936 For a discussion of Tjanuny’s family see Brack, Tjanuni, pp.87-9. 1937 Mutiry’s fullest complement of titles, found at PM(3), is Xkrt nswt iqrt Smayt n +Hwty nb #mnw n NHmt-awy Hrt-ib #nmw 1938 Brack, Tjanuni, pp.68-9, pl.65. The inscription runs around the body of the jars: //// imAxy xr Wsir nb /// wr Ss Imn-Htp n #nmw Brack, p.88 suggests the reading “great one/chief of scribes of Hermopolis, Amenhotep”. 1934

430

tombs of this period, it follows that Amunhotep could be Mutiry’s father. If this is the case, then Tjanuny married into a fairly prestigious Hermopolite family. How or when Tjanuny married Mutiry is unclear, and depends in part on when Mutiry became a Xkrt nswt. Brack views the marriage as occurring after Mutiry came to the court and she was installed in the palace as a Xkrt nswt.1939 He seems to imply that it was her own family that led to her status at the court, not Tjanuny’s. While at the court Mutiry would have developed a personal relationship with Amenhotep II that resulted in her receiving grave goods bearing his stamp.1940 If this is correct, then it is likely that Tjanuny married Mutiry after he had already become an overseer of army scribes,1941 and quite possibly after he had become a “favorite” of Amenhotep II. Brack does not explain why Mutiry would have been sent to the court, and it seems equally likely that her status was due to her husband’s position, and not that of her father. The fact that Tjanuny is probably not promoted to the rank of sS nfrw or overseer of the army until the reign of Thutmosis IV implies that his wife’s status had little to do with the progression of his career. At least one of Tjanuny and Mutiry’s sons entered into the scribal ranks,1942 while Tjanuny’s brother A’amun was also a scribe.1943 Unfortunately we have no further information about Tjanuny’s descendants, thus making it impossible to say whether or not they too became military scribes and officials. For Tjanuny, the fact of being in the military plays a subordinate role to his position as a scribe. Although he does not record being promoted or advanced under any 1939

Brack, SAK 11, p.185. Brack, SAK 11, p.185-6. 1941 This was his first upper-level title, which he seems to have already held during the reign of Thutmosis III; cf. Brack, Tjanuni, p. 87, based on the autobiographical stele inscription at PM(9). 1942 This is the scribe Hattiy, who offers to his parents on a stele now in Turin (Nr.1644); he may also be the son whose figure and name are lost in the offering scene at PM(3) in TT74. Their son Nebwaiu is depicted at the bottom of the left outer door-jamb, now in Turin (Nr.1645); no titles are known for him. 1943 aA-Imn is mentioned on two ostraca found in the courtyard of TT74. 1940

431

of the kings he served, it nonetheless seems as though Tjanuny’s path through the military was fluid and natural. Indeed, in his tomb, the picture presented is that it was Tjanuny’s abilities as a “true scribe” enabled him to continually move through the scribal administration of the army until achieving the post of general as a marker of his status. The ability to depict Thutmosis IV in his tomb, as well the statement that this king provided for him in old age, indicates that Tjanuny’s status and position vis-à-vis his king was incredibly elevated.

III. Conclusions “The scribe who is skilled in his office, He is found worthy to be a courtier.”1944 So ends the Ramesside text Instruction of Amenemope, an inscription composed of thirty chapters designed to educate Amenemope’s son on how to be an “ideal man.” The individuals discussed in the preceding pages certainly present themselves as having attained their positions through their own abilities, rather than through heredity or nepotism. In general, these officials paid very little attention to their origins, suggesting that their families played little or no role in their rise to prominence.1945 Although we must keep in mind the issue of self-presentation, it certainly seems that the “favor” these men were shown by the king came as a result of excelling in their respective duties. With the exception of Dedy, they covered their monuments with records of their activities and responsibilities, implying that the rewards and promotions given to these officials were

1944

From the Ramesside Instruction of Amenemope, Chapter 30, XXVII, l.16-17. For a translation, see Lichtheim, AEL II, pp.146-63, cf. p.162. 1945 Dedy’s tomb is too poorly preserved to state with certainty that his family was not detailed, especially as there is one wall, which is suggestive of having a “family tableaux” in the style of Amenemehat (TT82) or Rekhmire (TT100). Likewise, the lack of a tomb for Minmose prevents us from knowing how he might have depicted his family in this setting.

432

based on merit. In addition, the movement of these men through their positions seems fairly fluid. This situation is quite different from the officials seen in the preceding chapter whose prestige was unnaturally heightened by a personal friendship with the king, and who focused on describing this relationship and largely omitted any record of their duties. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that only Mahu was a Xrd n kAp, and he, like the viceroy Usersatet, appears to have received this as an honorary distinction late in life.1946 Also noteworthy is that from the five preserved autobiographies, three of them recorded that an office was “placed in the face” of the official,1947 while Sennefri seems to suggest that he was transferred from the Delta to Thebes. Mahu received instructions from the king regarding his new position, and it appears that the abilities of Userhat were in fact initially recognized by Iamunedjeh, and only later by the king. Additionally, Sennefri and Minmose became tutors, and their daughter’s became royal nurses, while Mahu’s wife Baky was one of the most prestigious of Amenhotep II’s nurses. Finally, it must be mentioned that although all of these men played a part in the Near Eastern activities of Thutmosis III, only three were in fact military officials,1948 while the other four were civil officials brought into the military sphere due to their expertise.1949 Nonetheless, except for Sennefri, who was involved purely with trade rather than campaigns, all of these men stress the activities that took them into the field of battle. The majority of them served mainly under Thutmosis III, and thus were likely functioning only at the beginning of Amenhotep II’s reign. A king is represented in each

1946

For Usersatet, see Chapter 2. Minmose, Iamunedjeh and Mahu. 1948 Mahu, Dedy and Tjanuny. 1949 Sennefri, Minmose, Iamunedjeh and Userhat. 1947

433

of their tombs,1950 twice it is Thutmosis III and twice both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II are depicted, while Amenhotep II and Thutmosis IV each appear in one tomb. When the officials presented here are viewed together with the above points in mind, it appears that the slight differences they exhibit in the path of meritorious rise cannot entirely be attributed to chronological factors. The “overseer of the seal” Sennefri is one of two officials who served during the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency and well into the later years of Thutmosis III’s sole reign. Despite the fact that Sennefri was in office at least until year 32 of Thutmosis III,1951 he is the only official in the group who does not bear any military epithets, or make mention of accompanying the king on any of his exploits. His single trip to the Near East involved an expedition to obtain Lebanese cedar, as opposed to a military excursion. It was for the purposes of this trip that Sennefri was granted the tile of royal herald (wHm nswt), though he was already overseer of the seal. While Sennefri’s trip may have occurred shortly after the 8th campaign in year 33,1952 there is nothing in his account to suggest that his mission was anything other than peaceful. Finally, in contrast to the other officials, Sennefri appears to have originated from an elite background, since according to his statue his father was the “overseer of the st in Watet-Hor” and his mother was a Xkrt nswt. As demonstrated above,1953 Sennefri was quite possibly an official under his father’s jurisdiction in the north of Egypt when he was made overseer of the seal. It also appears that Sennefri’s son-in-law served under him as an idnw, though whether before or after his marriage to his daughter Renen is uncertain. In addition Sennefri was placed as a tutor to a son of Thutmosis III, and Renen

1950

With the exception of Minmose, whose tomb has not been found. From P.Louvre E3226, see above, pp.339ff. 1952 Cf. Redford, Wars, p.175. 1953 See pp.337ff. 1951

434

was also a royal nurse, perhaps to a younger daughter of Thutmosis III. It appears that Sennefri, although he came from an established family, rose based on his own abilities to a level of prominence and influence that resulted in his position as tutor and allowed him to place his daughter as a nurse. Iamunedjeh, who served for approximately the same time-span as Sennefri,1954 presents a picture at once similar and different from that of Sennefri. Based on the review of Iamunedjeh’s career presented in the text, it can now be suggested that Iamunedjeh was essentially a civil official who, like Sennefri, played a role in the Near East. For Iamunedjeh, however, this involved his presence on the campaigns of Thutmosis III due to his abilities as an engineer, literally “controller of works” (Xrp n kAwt). Again like Sennefri, Iamunedjeh was promoted (sxn) to royal herald in order to facilitate his “missions,” which included setting up Thutmosis III’s stele in Naharin and perhaps assisting in rampart demolition. His presence on these campaigns, although in a civil role, is the primary reason that Iamunedjeh reports military epithets alongside his civil titles.1955 Following these activities, Iamunedjeh returned to Egypt, where he functioned as overseer of the ruyt and overseer of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, overseeing the recording and bringing of produce from throughout Egypt to the palace. The main difference between Iamunedjeh and Sennefri is that there is no evidence to suggest that Iamunedjeh was descended from a distinguished family. Indeed, the fact that one of the chapels in his tomb seems to be dedicated towards their reception of the funerary cult could suggest that Iamunedjeh was providing for them post-mortem. 1954

His is a functioning official in year 15, crossed the Euphrates in year 33, witnessed Thutmosis III’s erection of a third pair of obelisks in year 40, and was promoted to first royal herald sometime thereafter; cf. pp.350ff. above. 1955 E.g. “I followed the good god upon every northern foreign country, I do not turn away from him upon the battlefield.”

435

Although Iamunedjeh and his wife, the Xkrt nswt Henutnofret, did not have any children, it appears that he may have fostered the careers of both his nephew Mery1956 and his idnw Userhat. Iamunedjeh’s role in Userhat’s tomb and career has already been discussed at length, and does not need to be reiterated here. However it is worth mentioning that Userhat presents us with an example of how both merit and nepotism could interact in the furthering of an official’s career. The fact that Userhat chose not to represent his own parents, but instead honored his superiors suggests that he benefited from their attention. It does not appear that Userhat was in any way related to these men, and thus it seems most likely that he was noticed for his abilities as a scribe and idnw. While Userhat would not have had influence with the king, Iamunedjeh, as royal herald, certainly did, and he may have used it to bring Userhat to the attention of Thutmosis III or perhaps his crown prince Amenhotep II. The depiction of army barracks in Userhat’s tomb seems to favor that his connection was made with Amenhotep II, who was raised in a military setting near Memphis.1957 It seems that both his ability to depict Amenhotep II in his tomb and his appellation as a Xrd n kAp,1958 came at a later stage in his career, after the majority of the tomb was already decorated, and at a point when a functional advancement was probably not needed.1959 In addition, Userhat’s daughter Henutnofret, and possibly his wife Mutnofret, were given distinction as Xkrt nswt. These factors all make Userhat’s rise a rare example of how ability combined with an influential superior

1956

Based on my reconstruction of the Marseille stela, see above p.365. Based to a large extent on Amenhotep II’s sphinx stele; cf. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.181ff. 1958 I do not believe that he grew up in the court, but rather take the view that this title was given to Userhat as an indication of his status vis-à-vis the king. 1959 That Userhat’s tomb was near completion when the scene with Amenhotep II was added suggests that Userhat would have been nearing the end of his own career and advanced in years. 1957

436

could lead to a mid-level official’s rise in prestige late in life. It is useful to stress that although Userhat formed a friendship with Amenhotep II, the depictions in his tomb clearly indicate that Userhat had a number of responsibilities that probably would have resulted in his having a tomb without the connection to the king. Thus, although he was granted prestige, as were the “personal friends” discussed in the previous chapter, he was also a capable official who rose meritoriously. Both Dedy and Amenemheb-Mahu belong to the group of so-called “co-regency officials” who witnessed the transition from Thutmosis III to Amenhotep II and depicted each of these kings in their tombs.1960 Despite the lack of a tomb, Minmose could perhaps be grouped with them, as his Medamud statue bears the cartouche of Thutmosis III and his Tura inscription preserves a date in year 4 of Amunhotep II. Tjanuny’s career began in the later decades of Thutmosis III’s sole reign and lasted into that of his grandson Thutmosis IV, the king depicted in the tomb. Although these official’s chronologies overlap, their careers exhibit interesting differences. Minmose’s path of advancement, which greatly parallels those of Sennefri and Iamunedjeh’s, is the not at all like those of the other three officials, who were essentially military men throughout their lives. However, while Tjanuny was consistently connected to the administrative branches of the army, Dedy and Mahu began as soldiers and eventually attained directorial positions within the military sphere. It appears that Minmose’s function in following Thutmosis III on his campaigns was to tax the subjugated areas and ensure that the revenues were placed in the

1960

A list of these officials was compiled by Murnane, Coregencies, p.53 f, and added to by Van Siclen, Uronarti, pp.48-51.

437

treasury.1961 Although previously his Medamud inscription has been understood as chronologically ordered, it was argued above that it seems more likely that, as in the case of Mahu,1962 it is to some degree a thematic account. In this reconstruction, Thutmosis III made the royal scribe Minmose his deputy (idnw) so that he could carry out the taxation of Retenu and Nubia on the king’s behalf, just as Sennefri and Iamunedjeh were made royal heralds to facilitate their responsibilities in the Near East. Although Minmose’s duties as overseer of works were primarily centered in the temples of Egypt, the fact that he records setting up stelae in Naharin and Karoy, perhaps under the supervision of Iamunedjeh,1963 implies that he may have been placed as controller of works due to his skill in this regard. It is also possible that this position, especially with the attendant priestly titles that Minmose was given, should be viewed more as an example of a “pension post.” Towards the end of his career Minmose was made a tutor to two sons of Amenhotep II, and Minmose’s daughter Sharyti later became a royal nurse for some of Amenhotep II’s other offspring. This is also similar to Sennefri and his daughter Renen. Minmose and wife, the Xkrt nswt Mia, had two other children as well. His namesake became high priest of Osiris, while their daughter Heriy was a chantress of Amun, and subsequent generations continued to be involved in the priesthoods of Osiris and Amun.1964 It thus appears that Minmose’s rise to prominence had a substantial and lasting affect on the fortunes of his descendants. Minmose’s career has such overall similarity to those of Sennefri and Iamunedjeh, we can surmise that if a tomb for

1961

Medamud statue; cf. Urk. IV 1441-2 and the discussion above, pp.403ff. On this interpretation for Mahu’s autobiographical tomb inscription, see Redford, Wars, pp.167 ff. 1963 See above, pp.07ff. 1964 Based on the information from a series of stelae and a statue, see above, pp.413 ff. 1962

438

Minmose is located, it would depict his various activities and duties in much the same manner as is seen in the tombs of these men. Dedy and Mahu seem to have followed somewhat similar career paths.1965 Each started as a soldier connected to a ship, and in Mahu’s case this is supported by his first (recorded) campaign, which involved crossing the Euphrates in year 33. Dedy’s participation on this campaign is demonstrated by the “gold of praise” and gold fly pectorals that he wears in his tomb. Sometime during his early career, Dedy was distinguished as a “brave one (qny) of the soldiers (mnfyt).”1966 Following their exploits as low-level soldiers, it appears that Dedy became a standard-bearer of the companies (i.e., of the army), and then perhaps chief of the companies,1967 while Mahu’s next position seems to be as a Hry pDt. Perhaps it is during this phase that Mahu is called a “leader of the brave ones (qnn).”1968 However, at this point their careers diverge. Dedy becomes a “royal messenger (wpwtyw) in every foreign country” for Thutmosis III, while Mahu returns to Egypt as “first of his companions” and takes his place among the military escort accompanying royal and cult barques during festival processions. Following Dedy’s service as royal messenger, he too returned to Egypt, becoming overseer of the western desert and chief of the Medjay, making him responsible for the cemeteries and western desert of Thebes.

1965

I would remind the reader that Dedy may have been older than Mahu since in his tomb (TT200) Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II are seated together inspecting troops, while in Mahu’s tomb (TT85) the inscriptional and pictorial evidence demonstrates that Thutmosis III has died and Amenhotep II is now king. 1966 On one of his funerary cones, cf. above, pp.418ff. 1967 Assuming Champollion to be correct, see above, pp.418ff. with note 1868. 1968 Following the reconstruction of Redord, Wars, pp.167-72, this probably occurred at the end of Mahu’s career on the campaigns.

439

Dedy thus appears to have moved from a soldier to a trusted messenger, to a police position, albeit one that involved guarding the royal necropolis.1969 This is rather different from Mahu, who was appointed1970 as “idnw of the (king in the) army” by Amenhotep II and was also granted the appellation Xrd n kAp. In addition, Mahu’s wife Baky was one of Amenhotep II’s most prestigious nurses, on par with Qenamun’s mother Amenemipet and Sennefer’s wife Senetnay/nefer. Baky was honored by both husband and king, as witnessed by the extraordinary depictions in Mahu’s tomb,1971 and it is a distinct possibility that she was granted her own tomb as well, perhaps in the Valley of the Kings.1972 Although relatives of Sennefri, Minmose and Iamunedjeh apparently gained positions due to the status of these three men, Mahu’s son Iamu does not seem to have moved out of the palace sphere. Despite being married, Iamu’s designation as a Xrd n kAp and purely status-related epithets seem to indicate that he did not hold a functioning position of any type. As mentioned above, Tjanuny’s career followed an administrative route, from royal scribe to army scribe, scribe of recruits, scribe of recruits of the palace troops, and finally overseer of the army of the king.1973 From Tjanuny’s record of his activities on the campaigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II it becomes clear that while he was part of the military, his duties were purely administrative, akin to those of a civil official. As such, his military participation resembles more closely that of Iamunedjeh or Minmose, than Dedy and Mahu. The contrast is particularly evident when one compares the 1969

There is no information preserved on Dedy’s family, so it is unclear how his career and status may have benefited later generations. 1970 Literally, “placed in your face is the office so that you may act as idnw of the army.” 1971 E.g., she suckles the young Amenhotep II, accompanies Mahu and Amenhotep II in presenting offerings to Osiris, and offers before the enthroned Amenhotep II with her daughter. 1972 See above, pp.395ff. for this argument. 1973 There are several other variations, including overseer of royal scribes, overseer of army scribes, and great army scribe of the king.

440

autobiographical statements of Minmose, Mahu and Tjanuny that describe their presence on the battlefield.1974 For example, Minmose, as royal scribe and idnw, “saw” (mAA) Thutmosis III overthrow Nubia and plunder Takhsy as he was following after his king. Mahu, however, was an active soldier and consistently uses the phrase “I made a capture.” Even when describing that victories or prowess of Thutmosis III that he witnessed, Mahu follows this with “I made a capture.” Tjanuny’s role accords with his function as an army scribe, he was to record “in writing” (m sSw) the triumphs of Thutmosis III that he observed as he followed him throughout Syria-Palestine. Although his activities under Amenhotep II are lost, for Thutmosis IV the scribe of recruits Tjanuny recorded (sS) the numerous troops, now probably within Egypt itself. This clearly indicates that Tjanuny’s career, although entrenched within the military sphere, more closely follows the lines of other civil officials whose abilities were required abroad during the reigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. His role in Egypt was extended beyond that of the military to recording “the entire land,” inspecting “every man,” from the army through to artisans, as well as the fauna of Egypt. Tjanuny reports his final position, as overseer of the army, when he leads a contingent of foreign chiefs presenting tax and tribute before Thutmosis IV. Tjanuny’s abilities as a “true scribe” enabled him to continually move through the scribal administration of the army until achieving the post of general. At the end of his autobiography, Tjanuny states that the king (Thutmosis IV) gave him a good old age and made for him a tomb. This clearly demonstrates that Tjanuny’s status and position vis-àvis his king was incredibly elevated, not unlike that of Mahu. The kings Tjanuny served

1974

For convenient translations of the relevant passages in Mahu’s and Minmose’s autobiographies, see Redford, Wars, pp.167-70, 173f.

441

under also honored his wife, Mutiry, who was a Xkrt nswt and whose grave goods bear the stamp of Amenhotep II. The above examination demonstrates that slightly over half of these men were not military officials, but men whose abilities made them useful for the various activities Thutmosis III and his successors undertook in Syria-Palestine. Thus, they bridge the transitions of the Hatshepsut-Thutmosis III co-regency into the reign of Thutmosis IV. These officials are not part of a “new class” of military men, and indeed seem to return to positions within Egypt that mirror those they conducted abroad, though often at a higher level of responsibility.1975 Only Mahu and Dedy are truly military men whose abilities advanced their careers, and although they started at the same rank, the end of their respective careers is quite different. Dedy was given police authority over the west bank of Thebes, the religious center of Egypt, while Mahu was placed as an idnw of the king in the army. In this position, Mahu, along with his wife as royal nurse, gained enormous prestige within the court and palace. It also becomes clear that not only was a meritorious rise possible in ancient Egypt, but it was a marker of elite status and a relationship with the king that rivaled those held by the “personal friends” and established families. Although one could argue that the lack of information on the origins of most of these men precludes a conclusion that they did not come from important lineages, their inscriptional evidence suggests that they were recognized for their abilities. Indeed, even for Sennefri, who family was established, the emphasis is on his own responsibilities rather than on his genealogy. While admittedly the aspect of an official’s desired “self-presentation” cannot be ruled 1975

Sennefri is perhaps the exception, as he was already overseer of the seal when he was sent to Lebanon. Although part of the military administration, I would suggest that in many respects Tjanuny is part of this group as well.

442

out, the fact is that these men, unlike those whose rank was due to a personal friendship, rarely report epithets or titles that stress a connection to the king. Rather, they universally focus on their own achievements in a very fact-oriented, terse manner, and make reference to being appointed, promoted, or otherwise installed in their positions.1976 This seems to indicate that the officials were demonstrating their meritorious rise by describing their abilities and stressing that they were chosen for their positions.

1976

The two exceptions to this Userhat and Dedy, neither of whom has an extant autobiography. Tjanuny’s autobiography has several lacunae, and it is possible that he may have utilized similar wording that is now lost.

443

Conclusions Changing Continuity in the Movement of Office

In the Introduction to this dissertation, three questions were asked about the movement of office during the transition from Thutmosis III to Amenhotep II, c.14501400 B.C.; 1) What were the means by which an ancient Egyptian could attain office?; 2) What does this tell us about the underlying structure of the government during this time period?; 3) What do these patterns (or lack thereof) indicate about an official’s or family’s influence vis-à-vis the king in achieving and retaining a position? Issues relating to how and why these officials became visible were also considered. It was felt that the traditional title- and function-based studies that had been done previously were not able to answer these types of questions because they neglected to investigate the officials themselves. Likewise, prosopographical studies often concentrate on determining pedigrees without connecting the families to the larger socio-historical context. Therefore, the methodology employed here combined these types of research, reintegrating the titular, genealogical and biographical information that was available for the officials with the historical context in which they functioned. This will make it possible to more clearly define the means by which officials obtained office, to answer questions concerning the composition of the government, and to gain a more complete understanding of the culture of officialdom in ancient Egypt during the mid-18th Dynasty. The extensive discussions and the conclusions drawn in the preceding chapters demonstrate that this approach has had the desired outcome. The results of the current work indicate that the administrative structure described by Helck in Zur Verwaltung and

444

in Der Einfluss der Militärführer, and essentially followed since, must now be reevaluated. Helck’s homines novi were not a group of uneducated lower-level men who owed their positions to the king, but rather stemmed from families whose influence is demonstrated by the many positions that connect them to the palace and childhood of the king. Thus, Amenhotep II’s so-called “new court” in fact came out of a group of established families.1977 The establishment of a “military elite” seems to be a misnomer, as many of the men who participated on campaigns were performing the civil functions they already held, albeit in a military setting.1978 These men also form the core group who advanced through merit and who report being placed, appointed or promoted during their careers.1979 Inheritance of positions at the highest levels of government seems to have essentially ceased with the reign of Amenhotep II, while nepotism within the priesthood seems to decline.1980 Yet, the ability to obtain elite status and recognition through a friendship with the king is more common. During the reigns of both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II it also appears as though the Amun domain was not an administration from which men were promoted, but rather served as a readily accessible location into which officials at all levels could place their sons, thereby increasing the overall wealth of the family.1981 When the above conclusions are considered in light of the historical context, it becomes apparent that the present study alters many earlier assumptions concerning the

1977

E.g., Qenamun, Usersatet, Amenemopet, Sennefer, Mery, Suemniut. E.g., Sennefri, Minmose, Iamunedjeh, Userhat, and even Tjanuny, since he was never a soldier, but always an administrative official. 1979 This is the case for Sennefri, Minmose, and Iamunedjeh. Userhat does not have an autobiographical inscription, and Tjanuny’s as preserved does not specifically mention his promotion through the ranks. 1980 An exception to both of these statements is the mayor of Thebes Sennefer, who held several administrative positions connected to the Amun precinct. His immediate family were all Amun priestesses and his son-in-law succeeded him as mayor. 1981 Cf. Kees, Priestertum, p.13 1978

445

nature of the government during the transition from Thutmosis III to Amenhotep II. Van den Boorn has argued that the establishment of a vizierate “dynasty” during the early to mid-18th Dynasty was a conscious choice on the part of King Ahmose, evolving out of his desire to re-centralize the government, with the king taking a more direct role.1982 By the reign of Hatshepsut officials were drawn from a wide variety of areas; from the provinces as well as Thebes; out of the established families and those of lower status, the latter becoming part of Hatshepsut’s “loyal group” of officials.1983 Dziobek has demonstrated that many of these men continued to serve under Thutmosis III and suggested that they were integral to the smooth transition from the regency of Thutmosis III to the co-regency with Hatshepsut and back again to his sole reign.1984 In addition, there is a general consensus that military figures drawn from Thutmosis III’s extensive campaigning also became part of the administrative elite.1985 This does not reflect a change in policy, but rather a change in the political climate of Thutmosis III’s reign as compared to Hatshepsut’s.1986 However, when one examines the officials that these statements are based on, it becomes evident that a number of Thutmosis III’s new officials were in fact not military men, but rather officials whose abilities had been required in the military sphere. Fifteen of the officials examined mention some level of military participation in relationship to their careers, and of these only Mahu, Usersatet and Amenmose are clearly involved with actual engagements, while for three others this can be surmised from the evidence.1987 All 1982

Van den Boorn, Duties, pp.349ff., 368ff. Redford, History and Chronology, p.77; cf. Bryan, in: Oxford History, p.269 1984 Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, pp.132 ff.; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.131ff. 1985 Cf. Bryan, in: Thutmosis III, forthcoming. 1986 Cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,”pp.218ff. 1987 Mahu and Usersatet mention their military engagements, while Amenmose depicts a subjugated Syrian fortress in his tomb. Dedy’s titles are indicative of a military career and he, like Suemniut, was given “gold 1983

446

but one of these men served under both Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, though it is likely that their military activities took place primarily under the earlier king.1988 Although these officials appear in the military record as participants on Thutmosis III’s campaigns, they were not military men per se, nor did they move from a civil into a military sphere. Rather, it has been shown that they were performing the civil functions they already held in a military setting, and that they were specifically brought to SyriaPalestine for this purpose.1989 The overall significance of the campaigns during the mid18th Dynasty is what led these officials to focus on their participation in them. The fact that they were promoted to new positions and authority in recognition of the expertise they demonstrated while in Syria-Palestine probably also made mentioning wartime involvement important to these men.1990 Eichler’s study of the Amun temple administration during the 18th Dynasty implies that, in Hathsepsut’s reign, temple officials frequently came from among the lower status families,1991 while established priestly, provincial, and Theban families were less common, and significant managerial power in the Amun domain was placed in the

of praise” and gold fly pectorals. Paser’s father Nebamun is included by extension, since his titles also suggest a military career. 1988 Usersatet may have served only in the very last years of Thutmosis III, and participated on the year 3 (co-regency ?) campaign of Amenhotep II. In addition, Paser’s father Nebamun probably served only under Thutmosis III. 1989 I.e., Sennefri, Minmose, Iamunedjeh, Userhat, and even Tjanuny, since he was never a soldier, but always an administrative official. Suemniut may also fall into this category, as the exact nature of his military activity is difficult to ascertain. Although not included in this study, it appears that this may well be the case for the royal herald Intef and royal barber Sibastet; cf. Bryan, in Thutmosis III, forthcoming; Redford, Wars, pp.164f., 176ff., esp. p.180f. 1990 E.g., Minmose and Iamunedjeh. Sennefri’s promotion to overseer of the seal is outside the context of the military sphere, but he is awarded an additional position when sent to Lebanon for cedar. 1991 Eichler (Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.218) bases this on the status of the father as a sAb, but at least one of her examples, the second priest of Amun Puiemre, was the son of the sAb and scribe Puia and the chief nurse (mnat wrt) Neferiah; cf. Davies, Puyemrê, pl.ix; Roehrig, Royal .urse, pp.28-31. He was also married to the dwAt-nTr Smayt nt Imn %n-snb “divine adoratrice, chantress of Amun, Senseneb,” who was the daughter of Hathsepsut’s high priest of Amun, Hapuseneb; cf. Whale, Family, p.52; Bryan, Thutmosis III, forthcoming. She appears in Shrine 15 of her father at Silsilah; cf. Caminos and James, Silsilah, pp.42-52.

447

hands of non-priestly officials such as Senenmut.1992 In contrast, she suggests that during Thutmosis III’s reign the same positions were mostly held either by members of established families who were already part of the temple ranks, or by relatives of the vizieral family of Aametu that had spread throughout the temple clergy and staff. Additionally, figures like Senenmut were replaced by a burgeoning mid-level hierarchy, while the most important temple administrative titles were held by Menkheperresoneb (ii) in his role as high priest of Amun.1993 There is no doubt that Aametu and his descendants were spread throughout the Amun domain; this has been clearly demonstrated. However, Eichler has failed to realize that this occurred only by virtue of Aametu’s marriage into the established and influential family of Ineni, who, like Senenmut, held considerable power in Thebes and over the temple precinct.1994 Thus, Aametu’s position as vizier did not contribute to the prevalence of his descendants in the temple staff and clergy. In addition, the presence of these two families in the Amun domain had already begun during the reign of Thutmosis I, under whom both Aametu and Ineni served. Although Eichler recognizes that multiple generations of this family permeated “in an astonishing mass” throughout the temple administration, she essentially neglects the role that User, and especially Rekhmire, played in the Amun domain.1995 This is significant because through the current study it becomes apparent that when the responsibilities of the high priests are centered primarily on their priestly

1992

Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” pp.215ff. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” pp.218ff. 1994 This is in part due to the nature of Eichler’s study, which focuses on the titles that pertain to the Amun temple administration as opposed to the men that held these positions. 1995 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.222 with note 921, and p.221, note 914 in reference to Rekhmire in particular. 1993

448

activities, the power of the concurrent vizier over the administrative portions of the Amun temple increases.1996 Hapuseneb, the high priest under Hatshepsut,1997 held numerous priestly and temple administrative titles, while the viziers during his tenure, the aging Aametu and User as co-vizier, held considerably fewer. User’s titles after becoming vizier indicate that he claimed supervisory positions connected to the record-keeping aspects of the Amun precinct, while Hapuseneb’s successor, Menkheperresoneb (i) was singularly devoid of any but priestly designations. The next high priest, Menkheperresoneb (ii), probably would have served alongside User,1998 and while he does carry several “overseer” positions, these are all connected to the production areas of the temple domain. Although Menkheperresoneb (ii)’s hereditary position may have allowed him to expand his authority, the level of responsibility he reports is vastly dwarfed by that of Rekhmire, User’s successor as vizier.1999 Indeed, based on Rekhmire’s tomb depictions, it is evident that he had a considerable amount of direct control over the Amun precinct, in the style perhaps of Senenmut, that the earlier viziers of his family likely did not.2000 Yet it is to Mery, the (second) high priest under Amunhotep II, that Eichler awards this comparison, suggesting that this is in part due to the development of a temple treasury.2001 This will be returned to below when developments during the reign of Amenhotep II are considered.

1996

This was already discussed at length in the conclusions to Chapter 1, and also Chapter 2. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.306, no.433 ; cf. Dziobek, in: Thebanische Beamtennekropole, pp.133; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pp.137f. Hapuseneb’s possible role as vizier is unclear, as it comes only from one monument; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.138; Helck, Verwaltung, p.288. 1998 Cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, p.139. 1999 I would point out that Eichler refers to Rekhmire’s titles only in a footnote to her discussion; cf. Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.221 with n.914. 2000 Rekhmire is the last of his line as vizier, and his family’s traceable descendants remain at low to midlevel positions with the temple. 2001 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” p.224, 233. 1997

449

Turning now to the men who were part of the administration during the transition from Thutmosis III and into the sole reign of Amenhotep II, it is important to reiterate that Helck’s suggestion, that Amenhotep II broke from the precedents of his father and aunt in order to surround himself and his administration with childhood friends and military men, represents a dramatic shift in policy.2002 While the “court youth” appeared in various positions, Helck argued that those who had seen military service were only placed in palace or mid-level administrative posts, and that both were essentially dependant upon the king for their positions.2003 Helck went on to suggest that the exmilitary officials, recognizing that influence and distinction lay in being civil officials as opposed to military men, hid their military origins once they had achieved places within the administration.2004 Although der Manuelian tempered Helck’s statements somewhat, noting that Amenhotep II did retain some of the men who had served under Thutmosis III, he too agreed that the majority of Amenhotep II’s administrative officials represented a core of “new men,” unconnected to the elite families that were prevalent in the officialdom of Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III.2005 However, the preceding pages have demonstrated that if we examine the lineage of Amenhotep II’s “new men” we discover that, in fact, they were also predominantly from established elite families.2006 While it is clear that they represent a different group than those who held upper level positions during Thutmosis III’s reign, nonetheless they had elite status and in fact were born to officials that served under Thutmosis III. Indeed, as sons of nurses, tutors, and in the case

2002

Helck, Einfluss, pp.33ff., 41ff., 69ff.; Helck, Verwaltung, pp.537-8. Helck, Einfluss, pp.33ff., 41ff., 69ff. 2004 Helck, Einfluss, pp.71f. He cites both Qenamun and Senenmut as examples of this. 2005 der Manuelian, Amenophis II, pp.167ff. 2006 An exception is his first high priest Amenemhat, who was from a mid-level priestly family and was promoted up through the temple ranks after serving as a “staff of old age” for his father. 2003

450

of Usersatet a “palace family,” their parents were specifically chosen by Thutmosis III to suckle, watch over and train his young son. The direct contact these women and men would have had with the young Amenhotep II allowed them to develop close relationships that afforded them influence over his actions. The prominent status, and in some cases veneration, of these nurses and tutors is intertwined with the subsequent rise of their offspring, suggesting that the institution of the royal nurse/tutor was highly influential. Amenhotep II did not choose these men because they were linked from youth, but rather because their parents were able to promote their sons above other officials. Indeed, most of these “childhood friends” were older than Amenhotep II and had probably already functioned in some capacity during the reign of Thutmosis III,2007 while Qenamun and Mery were quite likely younger than Amenhotep II. These were not the close companions that Helck described them as, but a group of men made powerful by their parents. In addition, several of these officials are remarkable for their lack of military involvement, especially given the importance Amenhotep II attached to battle prowess and military skill.2008 Qenamun did not “hide” his military career, as Helck suggested. Rather, it seems that he was barely involved, if at all, in military exploits. Certainly the lack of attention he gives his “military” titles seems to suggest that these were not important to his career,2009 and the same can be said for Amenemopet, Sennefer, and Mery, none of whom have any militarily oriented titles or epithets at all. This is made all the more evident by the examples of Usersatet and Suemniut, who are also a part of 2007

E.g., Amenemopet, Sennefer, Suemniut. Usersatet may also have been older than Amenhotep II, but perhaps less so than the other officials. 2008 As witnessed on his Giza sphinx stele; cf. der Manuelian, pp.181-213. 2009 The titles appear only in a few ceiling inscriptions, and the epithets are at the beginning of the damaged stele inscription.

451

this group, but who distinguish themselves in part through their military involvement. Mahu might even be tangentially placed here. It is worth pointing out that his final promotion, to idnw of the army, came under Amenhotep II, and thus after his wife Baky’s service as a wet-nurse had ended. Baky was, like a few other nurses,2010 especially favored by Amenhotep II, and Amenhotep II’s statement that he “knew” Mahu when he was yet a prince in the court may indicate that she played some of role in her husband’s ultimate position. It has already been mentioned that those officials who were part of Amenhotep II’s upper administration that were not from the elite were all drawn from Thutmosis III’s reign and had meritoriously risen in their positions, both civil and military. Although all of these men performed within the military setting at some point, their participation was due to the fact that they served under Thutmosis III, at a time when campaigning took place regularly, making it more likely that officials of all types would end up in service to the king in Syria-Palestine. In addition, most of these men received their highest distinctions under the earlier king,2011 only Mahu and Userhat clearly benefited during the reign Amenhotep II; Mahu gained his highest post of idnw,2012 while Userhat was granted elite status.2013 The idea that wartime activity would be hidden by military-turned civil officials is further disproven by the fact that during the reign of Amenhotep II this became a vehicle for asserting one’s personal connection to the king. Although men such as Pehsukher and

2010

I.e., Qenamun’s mother Amenemopet and Sennefer’s wife Senetnay/Senetnefer. Sennefri, Iamunedjeh, Minmose and probably Dedy. 2012 Perhaps granted at the behest of his wife Baky, who was also a favored nurse of Amenhotep II? 2013 Tjanuny became scribe of recruits and overseer of the army under Thutmosis IV, although he was “in the following” of Amenhotep II, there is no indication of a functional promotion under this king. In this respect he is somewhat similar to Userhat, who becomes a Xrd n kAp and whose daughter is a Xkrt nswt. 2011

452

Paser expressed their loyalty to their sovereigns through militarily oriented epithets, there is very little to suggest that they actually participated in any way on the military campaigns of either Thutmosis III or Amenhotep II.2014 Even Montuiywy, who was in Syria-Palestine and mentions crossing the Euphrates, seems to simply have followed Thutmosis III without participating in any of the victorious campaigns he purports to have witnessed.2015 This is quite in contrast to officials such as Mahu and Minmose who explicitly recount their involvement. In general these officials did not hold positions of authority that would account for their visibility,2016 and it is the depiction of the king(s) in their tombs and their claim to a relationship with the king that testifies to their elevated status. Eichler argued that, during the reign of Amenhotep II, a shift occurs in the Amun temple administration that is similar to what previous scholars have suggested for his civil administration. This has proven incorrect. According to Eichler, the tradition of influential Theban families staffing the temple disappears and officials under Amenhotep II belong to a combination of temple and “old guard” families, as well as group of new men who have either military or palace connections, the latter as sons of nurses, tutors and Xkrt nswt.2017 In addition, she suggests that an increased focus on the internal aspects of the temple leads to administrative responsibilities being concentrated in the position of the high priest, now Mery, while the concomitant centralization and appearance of civil

2014

It is worth noting that even Qenamun bears these epithets. Montuiywy’s “appointment” seems to be little more than an attempt to justify his positions in view of his autobiographical content, which does nothing to indicate that he did anything other than follow Thutmosis III on his campaigns, no individual activities, either military or civil, are ever referred to. 2016 The anomaly is perhaps Amenmose, depending on the responsibilities one attaches to his position as overseer of the northern countries. Cf. Murnane, in: Essays te Velde, pp.251-8; Redford, Wars, pp.255-7 2017 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” pp.225ff. Eichler bases this on a survey of the officials’ mothers, noting that where traceable, under Thutmosis III only three of twelve mothers held titles that connected them to the palace; cf. p.225. 2015

453

institutions in the temple context (i.e., the Amun treasury) results in several positions being placed under the authority of a few individuals.2018 When we examine the priesthood during this period, it is interesting that Qenamun, Mery and Sennefer all seem to have been connected to the Amun precinct and shared some titles. Although Eichler has interpreted this as evidence for the inclusion of Amenhotep II’s “new men” in the temple domain,2019 it seems that this is not entirely accurate. While it is true that all of these men were related to nurses or tutors, only Mery, as high priest, was truly part of the Amun precinct. I would argue that Sennefer’s role, while significant, is strongly connected to his function as mayor of Thebes, and indeed, his Amun-titles generally are those related to the management of the temple holdings. In addition, it must be remembered that Mery was the second high priest that Amenhotep II installed. The man who replaced Menkheperresoneb (ii) was Amenemhat, a purely priestly official who was promoted from within the temple ranks and who came from a priestly background. Contemporaneously, Amenhotep II removed Rekhmire, who had held significant control over the Amun domain, from his post as vizier and installed Amenemopet in his place. These two actions on the part of Amenhotep II not only halted the hereditary development that had taken place within these offices, but also left the Amun domain without its main administrators; both Amenemhat and Amenemopet report only titles connected to their chief posts as, high priest of Amun and vizier, respectively. The institution of Sennefer as mayor of Thebes and steward of the Amun temple solved the problem of a lack of an upper level administrator for the Amun precinct by combining

2018

Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” pp.222ff. Eichler specifically emntions Sennefer in this regard. 2019 Eichler, Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun,” pp.224ff.

454

in one official responsibility and jurisdiction over those portions of the temple domain that overlapped the most with Sennefer’s function as mayor. The transmission of office during the transition between Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II is marked by both continuity and change. There is little evidence for the “clean break” Helck suggested. Although changes to the administration occurred between the reigns of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II, the shift that took place did not involve dropping or supplementing the “old guard” in favor of newly formed childhood or military loyalties. Rather, a new elite was established as a consequence of policies introduced by Thutmosis III regarding the rearing of his son. The expanding influence of the royal nurses and tutors is demonstrated by the positions their sons’ were able to obtain, and it appears that they enjoyed much greater sway over the new king in with respect to their own children’s careers than has previously been thought. Under Thutmosis III, the role of the military in the fortunes of men of non-elite status is not as strong as had been assumed. It now appears that several of the so-called “military men” held few duties we would recognize as specifically military. These men were brought on campaigns because their civil or administrative skills were useful to the king; they were primarily not military officers but civil officials who would have been recognized even without their military involvement. In contrast, during the reign of Amenhotep II, claiming to be “in the following” of the king, especially in a military sense, was important to the self-identification of officials as having friendships with the king. These relationships may well not have been formed in battle, but as these men could not present a real reason for their elite, though generally non-functional, status, an

455

epithet such as “one relating to the legs of the king” served to imply that their loyalties arose out of war. Thus, although the nature of the elite had changed, the practice of the highest positions being filled by these men had not. I would argue that the most significant change that Amenhotep II was able to institute was that of removing Rekhmire from office. It seems that Amenhotep II recognized the influence that the third generation vizier had, and to prevent power from becoming concentrated in a hereditary vizierate, he not only installed a new official, but also separated the administrative Amun offices from the vizierate and placed them under the supervision of the mayor of Thebes. Even here, however, Amunhotep II was influenced by his upbringing, for the two men he installed were not only cousins, but related to a tutor as well. The aim of this study has been to re-evaluate the culture of officialdom during the transition between Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II. It now appears that officials were able to obtain their positions in a variety of ways throughout this period. Direct inheritance and familial nepotism were more prevalent during the reign of Thutmosis III, while familial influence with the king became an important force behind the upper level officials during the reign of Amenhotep II. Meritorious rise was also a possibility and did not require external circumstances, such as wartime activity, to instigate it. Despite the waxing and waning visibility of different methods, they were all present to some degree throughout this period. While the particular men who made up the highest levels of the administration changed, the elite status of their families did not. This indicates that the underlying structure of the government was extremely fluid and that while at the surface the alterations may appear dramatic, in fact they were not. The most significant change is

456

that during the reign of Amenhotep II the families of nurses and tutors became especially prominent and influential due to the close relationship formed between the young prince and his caretakers. This suggests that the model proposed by Cruz-Uribe,2020 in which ancient Egypt’s political structure is viewed as a series of interacting spheres of influence that changes over time, deserves further investigation over a broader portion of the New Kingdom.

2020

Cruz-Uribe, in: For his Ka, pp.45-53.

457

Figure 1 presents a compilation of previous research on ancient Egyptian kinship terms and their meanings. The abbreviations used in the table follow the standard denoting of kinship terms: H = husband; W = wife; M = mother; F = father; B = brother; Z = sister; D = daughter; S = son; P = parents; Sb = sibling; Ch = children; and possession belongs to the first element(s) in a group of terms, e.g. FF = father’s father; PSbCh = parents’ siblings’ children, etc. The Egyptological abbreviations used denote time periods: MK = Middle Kingdom; SIP = Second Intermediate Period; NK = New Kingdom; postNK = post New Kingdom time period; LP = Late Period; with the exception of LE = Late Egyptian stage of the language.

Egyptian Term

Clère, 1953 (general)

Černý , 1957 (general)

Robins, 1979 (MK [and NK])

hAy

H (man)

H

H

Hmt

W (woman)

W

W (woman)

F

F, ascendant

F

it mwt

M

M

M, MM, ascendant

sA

S

S

S, DS (?), descendant

S = LE

Sri sAt

D

S = post-NK D

D = LE

Srit

D (SD, descendant) D = post-NK

B

B, MB, BS, ZS, ZH (? NK); H = NK (sn it = FB, FMB)

Z

Z, FZ, MZ (?), BD, ZD, MZD (?); W = NK (snt mwt = MZ)

SAm

in-laws =MK/SIP

WF

Smt

in-laws =MK/SIP

WM

sn

snt

B

Z; W = NK

Figure 1 Ancient Egyptian Kinship Terminology 458

Egyptian Term

Willems, 1980 (MK)

Franke, 1983 (MK)

Franke, 1986 (general / MK)

hAy

H

H

H

Hmt

W

W

W

it

F, ascendant (WF = Late NK) => male lineal ego & spouse

F, FF, MF, (F-in-law = NK)

F, FF, MF, F-in-law; FP, FPP, etc.

mwt

M, MM, ascendant => female lineal ego & spouse

M, MM, M-in-law

M, MM, M-in-law (?); MP, MPP, etc.

sA

Bierbrier, 1980 (Late NK)

F, F-in-law; ancestor; short for it n it.f = FF (it n Hmt.f = WF)

S, DS, descendant, ChSp (=Late NK ?) => male lineal Ch & spouses

S, SS, SSS; (DS, S-in-law = NK)

S, SS, SSS, DS, S-in-law; ChCh, etc.

S, S-in-law; poss. grandson/descendant; quasi-parental – no blood ties; not son but blood relation unclear

D, SD, descendant, ChSp (=Late NK ?) => female lineal Ch & spouses

D, DD, SD, D-in-law

D, DD, SD, D-in-law (?); ChCh, etc.

D, D-in-law B, B-in-law, (sn n it.f = FB); same gen. – no blood ties; same and different gen. – i.e. nephew, cousin, uncle – blood or marriage

Sri

sAt Srit

sn

B, MB, ZS; BS = Early NK; ZH, FB = Late NK; H = NK; MZS ?? => nephew, uncle, male cousin

B, MB, FB, FBS, MZS, BS, ZS, WB; ZH (? NK)

B, MB, FB, FBS, MZS, BS, ZS, B-in-law; SbCh, PSb, PSbCh, WSb, SbH,

snt

Z, MZ, ZD, BD = Early NK; FZ = NK; W = NK; MZD (?) => niece, aunt, female cousin

Z, MZ, FZ, MZD, ZD, WZ; ZH (? NK); BD = NK

Z, MZ, FZ, MZD, ZD, BD, Z-in-law; SbCh, PSb, PSbCh, WSb, SbW

same and different gen. – i.e. niece, cousin – blood or marriage

SAm

WF = Late NK

F-in-law; poss. S-in-law

F-in-law; poss. S-in-law

infrequent from OKLP and Coptic Period; not used at D. elMedina

Smt

WM = Late NK

M-in-law; poss. D-in-law

M-in-law; poss. D-in-law

As above

Figure 1 Ancient Egyptian Kinship Terminology 459

Genealogy of Aametu The Vizierate Line

? --- Ahhotep Initef/Ineni --- Satdjhuty | sAb | Xkrt nswt | | | | | | | | | Ahmose-Aametu --- Taametu 12 brothers 2 sisters Ineni --- Iahhotep TAty (TT83) | imy-r Snwty n Imn | (TT81) | | | | Amenemhat User(amun) --- Tjuiu Neferweben --- Betau imy-r xnrt imy-r niwt TAty | wab n Imn | Xkrt nswt (TTs131, 61) | | | | | | | | | 5 sons 7 daughters Meryt --- Rekhmire 5 sons 3 daughters Xkrt nswt | imy-r niwt Taty | (TT 100) | | | 5 sons 4 daughters

460 Figure 2

461 Figure 3 Gebel es-Silsilah Shrine 11

463 Figure 5 TT 131

464 Figure 6 TT 100 Top of Wall

465 Figure 7 TT100 Bottom of Wall

466 Figure 8

? --- Ahhotep Initef/Ineni --- Satdjhuty | sAb | Xkrt nswt | | | | | | | | | | | | Ahmose-Aametu --- Taametu Pahery Qen Userhat 9 brothers 2 sisters Ineni --- Iahhotep TAty (TT83) | imy-r pr n Hm-nTr n Mwt wab n Imn imy-r Snwty n Imn | Hm-nTr n Imn (TT81) | | | | | | | | | Amenemhat | Amenmes Neferhotep Aakheperkare | Nakht(amun) Hor imy-r xnrt | sS pr-HD n Imn imy-r Sna n Im Hm-nTr n MnTw | wab n Mwt Xry-Hb n | (TT228) (TT122) | (aA-xpr-kA-ra)| User(amun) --- Tjuiu Neferweben --- Betau imy-r niwt TAty | wab n Imn | Xkrt nswt sS xtmt nTr nt Imn | | | (TTs 131, 61) | | | | | | | | | Samnekhet Merimaat Amunemhat Mery Baket 5 sons 3 daughters Rekhmire --- Meryt wab n Imn Hm-nTr n Imn wab n Imn sS xtmt nTr Smayt nt Imn imy-r niwt Taty | Xkrt nswt sS xtmt nTr (TT122) imy-r Sna n Imn | (TT 100) | | | | | | Menkheperresoneb Amunhotep Mery Takhat SS ntr Htpw (tp) n Imn sS xtmt nTr nt Imn imy-r Sna n Imn Smayt nt Imn

Aametu’s family and the Amun priesthood

468 Figure 10 TT 82

470 Figure 12 TT 79

Offering to uncle

TT345

478 Figure 20

Offering to parents

480 Figure 22 Usersatet Semna stele

481 Figure 23 Usersatet Ras Sehel graffito

482 Figure 24 a-b Gebel es-Silsilah Shrine 11

483 Figure 25 a-b Gebel es-Silsilah Shrine 11

488 Figure 30 TT 93

490 Figure 32 TT 42 – Amenmose Syrian Fortress

493 Figure 35 TT99 – Sennefri in Lebanon

495 Figure 37 Marseille stele

496 Figure 38 TT 56

497 Figure 39 TT 56

498 Figure 40 TT 56

505 Figure 47 Minmose statue BM2300

508 Figure 50 Radwan sketch of kings in TT200

Works Cited

Aegyptische Inschriften aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin, 5 vols., Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913-1924. Allam, S., “Zur Adoption im pharaonischen Ägypten,” Das Altertum 19 (1973): 3-17. _________

, “Adoption,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,

cols.66-67. _________

, “Familie, soziale Funktion,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ II, Wiesbaden:

Harrasowitz, 1977, cols.101-03. _________ “

, Les obligations et la famille dans la societé égyptienne ancienne,” OA 16

(1977): 89-97. _________

, “Some Remarks on the Trial of Mose,” JEA 75 (1989): 103-112.

_________

, “Legal Aspects in the ‘Contendings of Horus and Seth’,” in: A.B. Lloyd (ed.),

Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths (Occasional Publications 8), London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992, pp.137-145. _________

, “Papyrus Turin 2021: Another Adoption Extraordinary,” in: C. Cannuyer, J.-M.

Kruchten (eds.), Individu, société et spiritualité. Mélanges Théodoridès, Ath, Bruxelles, Mons: Illustra, 1993, pp.23-28. _________

, “Inheritance,” in: D. Redford (ed.) Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol.

3, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.158-161. Allen, J.P., “Some Theban Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom,” in: P. der Manuelian (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, vol. 2, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1996, pp.1-26. _________

, “The High Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom,” in: N. Strudwick, and J.

Taylor (eds.), The Theban 0ecropolis: Past, Present and Future, London: British Museum Press, 2003, pp.14-29.

511

Archäologische Veröffentlichungen, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo, Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern. Assmann, J., Egyptian Solar Religion in the 0ew Kingdom. Re, Amun and the Crisis of Polytheism (Studies in Egyptology), Translated from the German by A. Alcock, London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1995. Assmann, J., and E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F. Kampp (eds.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. 0eue Perspektiven archäologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993 (SAGA 12), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995. Awadalla, A., “Une stèle d’Amenemhat,” BIFAO 89 (1989):25-42. Baer, K., Rank and Title in the Old Kingdom: The Structure of the Egyptian Administration in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Baines, J., “Society, Morality, and Religious Practice,” in: B. Shafer (ed.), Religion in Ancient Egypt. Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice, London: Routledge, 1991, pp.123200. Baines, J. and C. Eyre, “Four notes on literacy,” GM 61, pp.65-96. Barwik, M. “Amenemheb and Amenemopet. New Light on a Papyrus from the National Museum in Warsaw,” in: Essays in honour of Prof. Jadwiga Lipinska (Warsaw Egyptological Studies 1), Warsaw: National Museum in Warsaw, 1997, pp. 331-338. Beinlich, H. “Djefaihapi,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975, cols.1105-7. Beinlich-Seeber, C., and A.G. Shedid, Das Grab des Userhat (TT 56) (AV 50), Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern, 1987. Bennet, J., “The Restoration Inscription of Tutankhamun,” JEA 25 (1939): 8-15. Berlev, O., “The Methods of Expressing Filiation in the Texts of the Middle Kingdom,” Palestinskii Sbornik (Moscow-Leningrad) 9/72 (1962): 13-42 (English summary).

512

Bierbrier, M.L., The Late 0ew Kingdom in Egypt (c. 1300-664 B.C.): a genealogical and chronological investigation, Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1975. _________

, “A review of G. Vittmann, Priester und Beamte im Theben der Spätzeit. Wien,

1978 (Beiträge zur Ägyptologie 1), Afro-Pub, No.3,” BiOr 36 (1979): 306-9. _________

, “Terms of Relationship at Deir el-Medîna,” JEA 66 (1980): 100-107.

_________

, “Genealogy and Chronology: Theory and Practice,” in: R.J. Demarée and A.

Egberts (eds.), Village Voices: Proceedings of the Symposium "Texts from Deir elMedîna and Their Interpretation", Leiden, May 31-June 1, 1991 (CNWS 13), Leiden: Centre of Non-Western Studies, 1992, pp.1-7. Bietak, M., “Horuswege,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ III, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980, cols.62-64. _________

, Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dabca, London:

Published by British Museum Press for the Trustees of the British Museum, 1996. Blackman, A.M., “The Nugent and Haggard Collections of Egyptian Antiquities,” JEA 4 (1917): 39-46. Blumenthal, E., “Ptahhotep und der ‘Stab des Alters’,” in: J. Osing and D. Günter (eds.), Form und Mass. Festschrift für Gerhard Fecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 6. Februar 1987 (ÄAT 12), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987, pp.84-97. Boeser, P.A.A., Beschreibung der Ägyptischen Sammlung des 0iederländischen Reichsmuseums der Altertümer in Leiden II-III. Die Denkmäler der Zeit zwischen dem Alten und Mittleren Reich und des Mittleren Reiches, 1.-2. Abteilung, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1909-1910. _________

, Beschreibung der aegyptischen Sammlung des 0iederländischen Reichsmuseums

der Altertümer in Leiden VI. Die Denkmäler des 0euen Reiches, 3. Abteilung: Stelen, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1913. Bohleke, B., The Overseers of the Double Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt in the Egyptian 0ew Kingdom, 1570-1085 B.C. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), New Haven: Yale University, 1991.

513

Bonhême, M.-A., “Kingship,” in: D. Redford, (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 2, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.238-245. van den Boorn, G.P.F., Duties of the Vizier. Civil Administration in the Early 0ew Kingdom, London, New York: Paul Kagan International, 1988. Borchardt, L., Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten, 5 vols., Berlin, 1911-36. Bouriant, U., "Petits monuments et petits textes recueillis en Égypte," RT 9 (1887): 9599. _________

, “Notes de voyage. §15: Stèle du tombeau d’Amenemhat,” RT 14 (1893), pp. 67-

74. Bourriau, J., “The Second Intermediate Period (c.1650-1550 BC),” in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.184-217. Brack, A., Das Grab des Haremhab, Theben 0r. 78 (AV 35), Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern, 1980. _________

, “Diskussionsbeitrag zu dem Titel Xkrt njswt,” SAK 11 (1984): 183-186.

Brack, A., and A. Brack, Das Grab des Tjanuni; Theben 0r. 74 (AV 19), Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1977. Breasted, J.H., Ancient Records of Egypt: Historical Records from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest, 5 vols., London: Histories & Mysteries of Man Ltd., 1988. Brovarski, E., “Ahanakht of Bersheh and the Hare Nome in the First Intermediate Period,” in: W.K. Simpson and W.M. Davis (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan. Essays in Honor of Dows Dunham, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1981, pp.14-30. Brunner, H., “Stab des Alters,” in: W. Helck and O. Westendorf (eds.), LdÄ V, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984, col. 1224. Bryan, B.M., “The Title ‘Foster Brother of the King’,” JSSEA 9 (1979): 117-123.

514

_________

, “The administration of the Fayum in the mid-18th Dynasty,” Paper Presented at

the ARCE Annual Meeting, Boston, 1981. _________

, “Evidence for Female Literacy from Theban Tombs of the New Kingdom,” BES

6 (1985): 17-32. _________

, “The Tombowner and His Family (IV Exkurse),” in: E. Dziobek, Das Grab

Sobekhotep Theben 0r. 63 (AV 71), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990, pp.81-88. _________

, The reign of Thutmose IV. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,

1991. _________

, “In women good and bad fortune are on earth: Status and roles of women in

Egyptian culture,” in: A.K. Capel and G.E. Markoe (eds.), Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt, New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1996, pp.25-46. _________

, “The Eighteenth Dynasty before the Amarna Period (c.1550-1352 BC),” in: I.

Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.218-271. _________

, “The Egyptian Perspective on Mitanni,” in: R. Westbrook and R.Cohen (eds.),

Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginning of International Relations, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000, pp.71-84. _________

, “Administration in the Reign of Thutmose III,” in: O'Connor, D., and E.H. Cline

(eds.), Thutmosis III: Perspectives on His Reign. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Forthcoming. Callender, G., “The Middle Kingdom Renaissance (c.2055-1650 BC),” in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.218271. Caminos, R.A., The Shrines and Rock-Inscriptions of Ibrim (ASE 32), London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1968.

515

Caminos, R.A., and T.G.H. James, Gebel es-Silsilah, I. The Shrines (ASE 31), London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1963. Capart, J., “Une Statue de Sebekhotep, Precepteur Royal,” BMRAH 4 (1938): 83-85. _________

, “La statue du Vizir Neferouben,” BMRAH 5 (1938): 114-116.

Černý, J., “The Will of Naunakhte and the Related Documents,” JEA 31 (1945): 29-53. _________

, “Consanguineous Marriages in Pharaonic Egypt,” JEA 40 (1954): 23-29.

_________

, “A Note on the Ancient Egyptian Family,” in: Studi in onore di Aristide

Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, Milano: Casa Editrice Ceschina, 1956-57, pp.51-55. Černý, J., and T.E. Peet, “A Marriage Settlement of the Twentieth Dynasty: An Unpublished Document from Turin,” JEA 13 (1927): 30-39. Champollion, J.F., Monuments de l'Égypte et de la 0ubie - 0otices Déscriptives, 2 vols., 1844-79. Chassinat, É., “Petits monuments et petites remarques,” BIFAO 10 (1912), pp. 161-164. Chevereau, P.-M., Prosopographie des cadres militaires égyptiens du 0ouvel Empire, Anthony, France: Published by the author, 1994. Clère, J.J., "Les noms de parenté en ancien égyptien," Comptes rendus du groupe linguistique d'études chamito-sémitiques 6 (1953): 35-36. Cruz-Uribe, E., “The Fall of the Middle Kingdom,” VA 3 (1987): 107-112. _________

, “A New Look at the Adoption Papyrus,” JEA 74 (1988), pp. 220-223.

_________

, “A Model for the Political Structure of Ancient Egypt,” in: D.P. Silverman (ed.),

For his Ka: essays offered in memory of Klaus Baer (SAOC 55), Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994, pp.45-53. Daressy, G., “Recueil des cônes funéraires,” in: MMAF 8, Part 2, Paris: Leroux, 1893-94, pp.269-352. _________

, “Inscriptions des carrières de Touah et Mâsarah,” ASAE 11 (1911): 257-268.

_________

, “Les statuettes funéraires trouvées à Zawiet Abou Mesallam,” ASAE 19 (1920):

149-152. 516

Davies, B.G., Who’s Who in at Deir el-Medina: a Prosopographic Study of the Workmen’s Community (Egyptologische Uitgaven 13), Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1999. Davies, N., and A.H. Gardiner, The Tomb of Amenemhet (0o. 82) (TTS 1), London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1915. Davies, N., and N. de G. Davies, The Tombs of Menkheperrasonb, Amenmose and Another (0os. 86, 112, 42, 226) (TTS 5), London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1933. Davies, N. de G., The rock tombs of El Amarna (ASE 13-18), 6 vols., London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903-1908. _________

, Five Theban Tombs (being those of Mentuherkhepeshef, User, Daga,

0ehemawäy and Tati), (ASE 21), London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1913. _________

, The Tomb of Puyemrê at Thebes (RPTMS 2-3), 2 vols., New York: Metroplitan

Museum of Art, 1922-23. _________

, The Tomb of Ken-Amun at Thebes (PMMA 5), 2 vols., New York: Metroplitan

Museum of Art, 1930. _________

, “Tehuti: Owner of Tomb 110 at Thebes,” in: Studies Presented to F.Ll. Griffith,

London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1932, pp.279-290. _________

, “The Work of the Graphic Branch of the Expedition," BMMA 31 (1935), pp. 46-

57. _________

, The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re' at Thebes (PMMA 11), 2 vols., New York: The

Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1943. _________

, Seven Private Tombs at Kurnah (ASE Memoir 36), A.H. Gardiner (ed.), London:

Egypt Exploration Society, 1948. _________

, Annotated with additional notes of Daressy, G., “Recueil des cônes funéraires,”

in: MMAF 8, Part 2, Paris: Leroux, 1893-94, pp.269-352, Griffith Institute Archives, unpubl. MSS. Davies, N. de G., and M.F. Laming Macadam, Corpus of Inscribed Egyptian Funerary Cones, Part I: Plates, Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957.

517

Dewachter, M., “Une nouvelle statue du vice-roi de Nubie Ousersatet à Khartoum,” Archéologia 72 (1974): 54-58. _________

, “Le vice-roi Nehy et l’an 52 de Thoutmosis III,” RdE 28 (1976): 66-73.

_________

, “Un nouveau ‘fils royal’ de la XVIIIe dynastie: Qenamon,” RdE 32 (1980): 69-

73. _________

, “Le roi Sahathor – Compléments,” RdE 35 (1984): 195-199.

Dorman, P., The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in Historical Methodology, London, New York, Kegan Paul International, 1988. _________

, “Two Tombs and One Owner,” in: J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F.

Kampp (eds.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. 0eue Perspektiven archäologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993, (SAGA 12), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995, pp.141-154. Doxey, D.M., Egyptian 0on-Royal Epithets in the Middle Kingdom. A Social and Historical Analysis (PdÄ 12), Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999. _________

, “Priesthood,” in: D. Redford (ed.) Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol.

2, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.68-73. Drioton, E., Rapport sur les fouilles de Médamoud (1925-1926) (FIFAO 3-4), 2 vols., Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1926-1927. Dunham, D., “Three Inscribed Statues in Boston,” JEA 15 (1929), pp. 164-166. Dunham, D. and J.M.A., Janssen, Second Cataract Forts, Volume I, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1960 Dziobek, E., “The Architectural Development of Theban Tombs in the Early Eighteenth Dynasty,” in: J. Assmann, G. Burkard, and V. Davies (eds.), Problems and Priorities in Egyptian Archaeology (Studies in Egyptology), London, New York: Kegan Paul International, 1987, pp. 69-79. _________

, “Eine Grabpyramide des frühen NR in Theben,” MDAIK 45 (1989): 109-132.

518

_________

, Das Grab des Ineni Theben 0r. 81 (AV 68), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp

von Zabern, 1992. _________

, “Some Kings’ Sons Revisited,” GM 132 (1993): 29-32.

_________

, Die Gräber des Vezirs User-Amun Theben 0r. 61 und 131 (AV 84), Mainz am

Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1994. _________

, “Theban Tombs as a Source for Historical and Biographical Evaluation: The

Case of User-Amun,” in: J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F. Kampp (eds.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. 0eue Perspektiven archäologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993 (SAGA 12), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995, pp.129-140. _________

, Denkmäler des Vezirs User-Amun (SAGA 18), Heidelberg: Heidelberger

Orientverlag, 1998. Dziobek, E., and M. Abdel Raziq, Das Grab Sobekhotep Theben 0r. 63 (AV 71), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990. Dziobek, E., T. Schneyer, and N. Semmelbauer, Eine ikonographische Datierungsmethode für thebanische Wandmalereien der 18. Dynastie (SAGA 3), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1992. Eaton-Krauss, M. “The coffins of Queen Ahhotep, consort of Seqeni-en-Re and the mother of Ahmose”, CdE 65, fasc.130 (1990): 195-205. Edgerton, W.F., “The Government and the Governed in the Egyptian Empire,” J0ES 6 (1947): 152-160. Edwards, I.E.S., Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Musuem. Part VIII, London: British Museum, 1939. Egberts, A., “The kinship tern sn n mwt,” JSSEA 14 (1984): 57-59, Eichler, S., Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun” in der 18. Dynastie (SAK Beihefte 7), Hamburg: Buske, 2000. Eisermann, S. “Die Gräber des Imenemheb und des Pesucher - Vorbild und Kopie?” in: J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, and F. Kampp (eds.), Thebanische

519

Beamtennekropolen. 0eue Perspektiven archäologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993 (SAGA 12), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995, pp.65-80. el-Sabbahy, A.-F., “King’s Son of Kush under Hatshepsut,” GM 129 (1992): 99-102. Englebach, R., “Names and Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom From Tell Edfu,” ASAE 22 (1922): 124-138. Englemann, H., and J. Hallof, “Zur medizinischen Nothilfe und Unfallversorgung auf staatlichen Arbeitsplätzen im alten Ägypten,” ZÄS 122 (1995): 104-137. Erman, A., and H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, 7 vols., Leipzig and Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1926-63. Eyre, C., “The Adoption Papyrus in Social Context,” JEA 78 (1992): 207-221. _________

, “Is Egyptian historical literature ‘historical’ or ‘literary’?” in: A. Loprieno (ed.),

Anceint Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (PdÄ 10), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1996, pp.415-433. Fairman, H.W., “Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Sesebi (Sudla) and Amarah West, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan 1937-8,” JEA 24 (1938): 151-156. _________

, “Preliminary Report on the Excavation at Amarah West, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan,

1938-39,” JEA 25 (1939): 139-144. Fakhry, A., “Tombeau de Kaemheribsen a Thebes,” ASAE 34 (1934): 83-86. _________

, “The Tomb of Nebamun, Captain of Troops (No. 145 at Thebes),” ASAE 43

(1943): 369-379. _________

, “The Tomb of Paser (No. 367 at Thebes),” ASAE 43 (1943): 389-414.

Faulkner, R.O., “Egyptian Military Organization,” JEA 39 (1953): 32-47. _________

, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962.

Feucht, E., "The Xrdw n kAp reconsidered,” in: S. Israelit-Groll (ed.), Pharaonic Egypt The Bible and Christianity, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Magnes Press, 1985, pp. 3847.

520

_________

, Das Kind im Alten Ägypten. Die Stellung des Kindes in Familie und Gesellschaft

nach altägyptischen Texten und Darstellungen, Frankfurt - New York: Campus Verlag, 1995. Fischer, H.G., “The Inscription of a Son in the Tomb of his Mother,” in: H.G. Fischer (ed.), Egyptian Studies I: Varia, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976, pp.2325. _________

, “A Mother-in-Law of the Old Kingdom,” in: H.G. Fischer (ed.), Egyptian

Studies I: Varia, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976, pp.19-21. Franke, D., Altägyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mitteleren Reich (HÄS 3), Hamburg: Borg GMBH, 1983. _________

, “Verwandtschaftsbezeichnugen,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ VI, Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz, 1986, cols.1032-36. _________

, “Anchu, der Gefolgsmann des Prinzen (Grabrelief Boston MFA 1971.403),” in:

H. Altenmüller and R. Germer (eds.), Miscellanea Aegyptologica. Wolfgang Helck zum 75. Geburtstag, Hamburg: Archäologisches Institut der Universtät Hamburg, 1989, pp.67-87. _________

, “The career of Khnumhotep III of Beni Hasan and the so-called ‘Decline of the

Nomarachs’,” in: S. Quirke (ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies, New Malden: SIA Publishing, 1991, pp.51-67. Gaballa, G.A., The Memphite Tomb-Chapel of Mose, Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd, 1977. Gabolde, L., “La chronologie du règne de Thoutmosis II, ses conséquences sur la datation des momies royales et leurs répercutions sur l'histoire du développement de la Vallée des Rois,” SAK 14 (1987): 61-81. _________

, La ‘Cour de Fêtes’ de Thoutmosis II à Karnak (Karnak IX), Paris : Éditions

Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1993, pp.1-100. Galán, J.M., Victory and border: terminology related to Egyptian imperialism in the XVIIIth Dynasty (HäB 40) Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1995.

521

Gardiner, A.H., The Inscription of Mes: A Contribution to the Study of Egyptian Juridical Procedure (UGAÄ 4), Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905. _________

, “The Tomb of Amenemhet, High-Priest of Amun,” ZÄS 47 (1910): 87-99.

_________

, The Library of A. Chester Beatty: The Chester Beatty Papyri, 0o.1, Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1931. _________

, “Adoption Extraordinary,” JEA 26 (1940): 23-29.

_________

, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, 3 vols., Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1947.

_________

, Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Third

Edition, Revised, London, Published on behalf of the Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957. Gardiner, A.H., T.E. Peet, and J. Černý, The Inscriptions of Sinai. Part I: Introduction and Plates (EES 45), London: Oxford University Press, 1952. Gardiner, A.H., and K. Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead, London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1928. Gauthier, H., “Rapport sur un Campagne de Fouilles à Dra Abou'l Neggah en 1906,” BIFAO 6 (1908): 122-171. _________

, Le livre des rois d’Égypte (MIFAO 17-21), 5 vols., Cairo: Institut Français

d’Archéologie Orientale, 1907-1917. _________

, “Les ‘fils royaux de Kouch’ et le personnel administratif de l’Ethiopie,” RT 39

(1921): 179-238. Gessler-Löhr, B., “Bemerkungen zur Nekropole des Neuen Reiches von Saqqara vor der Amarna-Zeit I: Gräber des Wesire von Unterägypten,” in: D. Kessler and R. Schulz (eds.), Gedenkschrift für Winfried Barta (MÄU 4), Frankfurt, Berlin, Bern: Peter Lang, 1995, pp.133-157. Gitton, M., L'épouse du dieu Ahmes 0éfertary. Documents sur sa vie et son culte posthume (C0RS 15 = Annales Littéraires de l'Université de Besançon, 172), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1975.

522

_________

, “Le rôle des femmes dans le clergé d'Amon à la 18e dynastie,” BSFE 75 (1976):

31-46. _________

, Les divines épouses de la 18e dynastie (C0RS 61 = Annales Littéraires de

l'Université de Besançon, 306), Paris, Les Belles-Lettres, 1984. Gitton, M. and J. Leclant, “Gottesgemahlin,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ II, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1977, cols.792-812. Glanville, S.K.R., “Scribes' Palettes in the British Museum: Part I,” JEA 18 (1932): 5558. Gnirs, A., “Das Pfeilerdekorationsprogramm im Grab des Meri, Theben Nr. 95: Ein Beitrag zu den Totenkultpraktiken der 18. Dynastie,” in: J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch and F. Kampp (eds.), Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. 0eue Perspektiven archäologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.-13.6.1993 (SAGA 12), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995, pp.233-253. _________

, “Die Ägyptische Autobiographie,” in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian

Literature: History and Forms (PdÄ 10), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1996, pp. 191242. _________

, Militär und Gesellschaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des 0euen Reiches

(SAGA 17), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996. Gnirs, A., E. Grothe and H. Guksch, “Zweiter Vorbericht über die Aufnahme und Publikation von Gräbern der 18. Dynastie der thebanischen Beamtennekropole,” MDAIK 53 (1997): 57-83. Goedicke, H., Die privaten Rechtsinschriften aus dem Alten Reich, (Beihefte zur Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 5), Wien: Verlag Notring, 1970. Graefe, E., Untersuchungen zur Verwaltund und Geschichte der Insitution des Gottesgemahlin des Amun vom Beginn des 0euen Reiches bis zur Spätzeit (ÄA 37), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1981. Gratien, B., Prosopographie des 0ubiens et des Égyptiens en 0ubie avant le 0ouvel Empire (CRIPEL 3, Supplément), Lille: Université Charles de Gaulle, 1991.

523

Griffith, F.Ll., “Notes on a Tour in Upper Egypt, ” PSBA 12 (1889): 89-113. _________

, “Notes on a Tour in Upper Egypt,” PSBA 11 (1889): 228-234.

_________

, The Petrie Papyri: Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob, 2 vols., London:

Quaritch, 1898. _________

, Catalogue of the Demotic Papyri in the John Rylands Library Manchester, 3

vols., Manchester, 1909. Griffith, F.Ll., and P.E. Newberry, El Bersheh Part II (ASE 4), London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1892. Grothe, E., "Das Grab eines Amenophis in Theben,” in: H. Guksch and D. Polz (eds.), Stationen Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998, pp.273-279. Guksch, H., Königsdienst. Zur Selbstdarstellung der Beamten in der 18. Dynastie (SAGA 11), Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1994. _________

, Die Gräber des 0acht-Min und des Men-cheper-Ra-seneb. Theben 0r. 87 und

79 (AV 34), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995. Habachi, L., “The Graffiti and Work of the Viceroys of Kush in the Region of Aswan,” Kush 5 (1957): 13-36 (= Sixteen Studies on Lower 0ubia, Ch.3, pp.29-63). _________

, “Miscellanea on Viceroys of Kush and their Assistants Buried in Dra Abu El-

Naga,” JARCE 13 (1976): 113-116 (= Sixteen Studies on Lower 0ubia, Ch.6, pp.111-19). _________

, Sixteen Studies on Lower 0ubia (CASAE 23), Cairo: Institut Français

d’Archéologie Orientale, 1981. Haeny, G. “New Kingdom ‘Mortuary Temples’ and ‘Mansions of Millions of Years’,” in: B. Shafer (ed.), Temples of Ancient Egypt, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997, pp.86126. Hall, H.R., Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Musuem. Part V. London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914.

524

_________

, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Musuem. Part VII.

London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1925. Harari, I., “Portée de la stèle juridique de Karnak. Essai sur la terminologie juridique du Moyen Empire égyptien.” ASAE 51 (1951): 273-97. _________

, “Nature de la stèle de donation de fonction du Roi Ahmôsis à la Reine Ahmès-

Nefertari,” ASAE 56 (1959): 139-201. Hari, R., “Un Troisieme Djehoutynefer Directeur du Trésor?,” Orientalia 52 (1983): 230232. Haring, B., “Administration: Temple Administration,” in: D. Redford, (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.20-3. Hassan, S., The Great Sphinx and its Secrets (Excavations at Giza 8), Cairo: Government Press, 1953. Hayes, W.C., “Statue of the Herald Yamu-nedjeh in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo,” ASAE 33 (1933): 6-16. _________

, The Scepter of Egypt, Pt. II: The Hyksos Period and the 0ew Kingdom (1675-

1080 B.C.), New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1959. _________

, “A selection of Thutmoside Ostraca from Dēr el-Bahri,” JEA 46 (1960): 43-52.

_________

, “The Civil Service,” in: I.E.S. Edwards (ed.), Cambridge Ancient History II, Pt.

1, Sect. 8, Ch. 9 (CAH), London: Cambridge University Press, 1973, pp.353-72. Helck, W., Der Einfluss der Militärführer in der 18. Ägyptischen Dynastie (UGAÄ 14), Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1939. _________

, Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des Ägyptischen Alten Reiches, (ÄF 18),

Glückstadt, New York: J.J. Augustin, 1954. _________

, “Eine Stele des Vizekönigs Wsr-St,” J0ES 14 (1955): 22-31.

_________

, “Die Berufung des Vezirs Wcr,” in: O. Firchow (ed.), Hermann Grapow zum 70.

Geburtstag gewidmet (Ägyptologische Studien. Institut für Orientforschung 29), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955, pp.107-17.

525

_________

, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Heft 17. Historische Inschriften Thutmosis' III. und

Amenophis' II (Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955. _________

, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Heft 18. Biographische Inschriften von Zeitgenossen

Thutmosis' III. und Amenophis' II (Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956. _________

, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Heft 19. Historische Inschriften Thutmosis' IV, und

und biographische Inschriften seiner Zeitgenossen (Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957. _________

, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und 0euen Reichs (Probleme der Ägyptologie 3),

Leiden-Koln: E.J. Brill, 1958. _________

, Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Übersetzung zu den Heften 17-22 (Urkunden des

ägzptischen Altertums . Abt. IV), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961. _________

, Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des 0euen Reiches, Mainz: Akademie der

Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1961. _________

, Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (ÄA

5), Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971. _________

, “Amtsauffassung und -begriff,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden:

Harrasowitz, 1975, cols.226-7. _________

, “Amtseinsetzung,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,

1975, cols.227-8. _________

, “Amtserblichkeit,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,

1975, cols.228-9. _________

, “Amtsinsignien,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,

1975, cols.229-30. _________

, “Amtssitz,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,

col.230.

526

_________

, “Amtstracht,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,

cols.230-1. _________

, “Amtsverkauf,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,

1975, col.231. _________

, “Amtsverlust,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,

cols.231-2. _________

, “Amtsvermögen,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,

1975, col.232. _________

, “Beamtentum,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ I, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975,

cols.672-675. _________

, “Gaue,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ II, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1977,

cols.385-408. _________

, "Die Datierung des Schatzmeisters Sennefer," GM 43 (1981): 39-41.

_________

, “Priester,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ IV, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1982,

cols.1084-97. _________

, “Titel und Titulaturen,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ VI, Wiesbaden:

Harrasowitz, 1986, cols.596-601. _________

, “Ein verlorenes Grab in Theben-West: TT145 des Offiziers Neb-Amun unter

Thutmosis III.,” Antike Welt 27/2 (1996): 73-85. Hermann, A., Die ägyptische Königsnovelle (LÄS 10), Glückstadt: Augustin, 1938. _________

, Die Stelen der Thebanischen Felsgräber die 18. Dynastie (ÄF 11), Glückstadt-

Hamburg-New York, 1940. Hornung, E., Die Grabkammer des Vezir User (0AWG 1), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1961. James, T.G.H. Pharaoh’s People. Scenes from Life in Imperial Egypt, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

527

Jansen-Winkeln, K. “Der Schlußsatz der Biographie des Chnumhotep in Beni Hassan,” GM 180 (2001): 77-81. Janssen, J.J, and P.W., Pestman, “Burial and Inheritance in the Community of the Necropolis Workmen at Thebes (Pap. Bulaq X and O. Petrie 16),” JESHO 11 (1968): 137-170. Janssen, J.J., and R.M. Janssen, Getting Old in Ancient Egypt, London: The Rubicon Press, 1996. Jasnow, R.L., A Late Period Hieratic Wisdom Text (P. Brooklyn 47.218.135) (SAOC 52), Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1992. _________

, “Ancient Egypt,” in: R. Westbrook and R.L. Jasnow (eds.), A History of Ancient

0ear Eastern Law (Handbook of Oriental Studies, 0ear and Middle East 72/1-2) [A0E Law], Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp.93-359. Johnson, J.H., “The Legal Status of Women in Ancient Egypt,” in: A.K. Capel and G.E. Markoe (eds.), Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven. Women in Ancient Egypt, New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1996, pp.175-185. Kadry, A., Officers and Officials in the 0ew Kingdom (Studia Aegyptiaca 8), Budapest: Université Loránd Eötvös, 1982. Kampp, F., Die thebanische 0ekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie (Theben 13), 2 vols., Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1996. Kanawati, N., The Egyptian administration of the Old Kingdom, Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1977. _________

, Governmental Reforms in Old Kingdom Egypt, Warminster: Aris & Phillips,

1980. _________

, Akhmim in the Old Kingdom. Part I: Chronology and Administration (ACE

Studies 2) Sydney: The Australian Centre for Egyptology, 1992. Kees, H., Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat, vom 0euen Reich bis zur Spätzeit (PdÄ 1), Leiden-Köln: E.J. Brill, 1953.

528

_________

, Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat, vom 0euen Reich bis zur Spätzeit. Indices

und 0achträge (PdÄ 1), Leiden-Köln: E.J. Brill, 1958. _________

, “Webpriester der 18. Dynastie im Trägerdienst bei Prozessionen,” ZÄS 85

(1960): 45-56. _________

, Die Hohenpriester des Amun von Karnak von Herihor bis zum Ende der

Äthiopenzeit (PdÄ 4), Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964. Kemp, B.J., “Imperialism and Empire in New Kingdom Egypt (c. 1575-1087 B.C.)” In: P.D.A. Garnsey and C.R. Whittaker (eds.), Imperialism in the Ancient World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 7-57 and 284-297. _________

, “Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period c. 2686-

1552,” in: B.G. Trigger, et al. (eds.), Ancient Egypt: A Social History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 71-182. _________

, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, London and New York: Routledge,

1989. Kitchen, K.A., The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 110 - 650 B.C., Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1986. Kitchen, K.A. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical, Vol. III. Oxford, 1980. Kush, Journal of the Sudan Antiquities Service, Khartoum. Lacau, P., Stèles du 0ouvel Empire (CG nos. 34001-34189) (Catalogue général du Musée du Caire 45) Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1909. _________

, La stèle juridique de Karnak (ASAE Supplément 13), Le Caire: IFAO, 1949.

Lacovara, P., Deir el Ballas: Preliminary Report on the Deir el Ballas Expedition 19801986, Winona Lake, 1990. Leach, E., “The Mother's Brother in Ancient Egypt,” Royal Anthropological Institute 0ews 15 (1976): 19-21. Lefebvre, G., Histoire des Grands Prêtres d'Amon de Karnak jusqu'à la XXIe Dynastie. Paris: Geuthner, 1929. 529

Legrain, G., Recherches généalogiques," RT 31 (n.s 15) (1909): 1-10. Lehner, M., “Fractal House of Pharoah,” in: T.A. Kohler and G.J. Gumerman (eds.), Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies: Agent-Based Modeling of Social and Spatial Processes, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. “Lehren,” and “Lehre ...,” (various authors) in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ III, Weisbaden: Harrasowitz, 1980, cols.964-992. Leprohon, R.J., Stelae II. The 0ew Kingdom to the Coptic Period (CAA Boston 3), Mainz am Rhein: Harrassowitz, 1991. _________

, “Administrative Titles in Nubia in the Middle Kingdom,” JAOS 113 (1993):

434-436. _________

, “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt,” in: J.M. Sasson

(ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient 0ear East (CA0E), vol. 1, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995, pp.273-287. Lepsius, R., Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Theben. Text. Volume III-IV. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'sche, 1900-01. Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 7 vols., W. Helck, et al. (eds.), Weisbaden: Harrasowitz, 197592. Lichtheim, M., Ancient Egyptian Literature; A Book of Readings, 3 vols., Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973-1980. _________

, Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context. A Study of

Demotic Instructions (OBO 52), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. _________

, Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: a study and

an anthology (OBO 84), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. _________

, Maat in Egyptian Autobiographies and Related Studies (OBO 120), Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. _________

, “Didactic literature,” in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: History

and Forms (PdÄ 10), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1996, pp.243-62.

530

_________

, Moral Values in Ancient Egypt (OBO 155), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1997. de Linage, J., “L’acte d’établissement et le contrat de mariage d’un esclave sous Thoutmès III,” BIFAO 38 (1939): 217-234. Lloyd, A.B., “The Great Inscription of Khnumhotpe II at Beni Hasan,” in: A.B. Lloyd (ed.), Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of J. Gwyn Griffiths (Occasional Publications 8), London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1992, pp.21-37. Logan, T., “The jmyt-pr Document: Form, Function and Significance,” JARCE 37 (2000): 49-73. Loprieno, A. (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (PdÄ 10), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1996. Lorton, D., “The Treatment of Criminals in Ancient Egypt through the New Kingdom,” JESHO 20 (1977): 1-64. _________

, “Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom,” CdE 70 (1995): 123-132.

Lüddeckens, E., Ägyptische Eheverträge (ÄA 1), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1960. Lustig, J., Ideologies of Social Relations in Middle Kingdom Egypt: Gender, Kinship, Ancestors (Ph.D. dissertation), Temple University, 1993. MacDonald, D.N., "Terms for 'Children' in Middle Egyptian: a Sociolinguistic View," BACE 5 (1994): 53-59. Malek, J., “The Old Kingdom (c.2686-2160 BC),” in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.118-147. Manniche, L., Lost Tombs: A Study of Certain Eighteenth Dynasty Monumnets in the Theban 0ecropolis (Studies in Egzptology), London: Kegan Paul International, 1988. der Manuelian, P., Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II (HäB 26), Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1987. Mariette, A., and G. Maspero, Monuments divers recueillis en Égypte et en 0ubie, Paris: F. Vieweg, 1889.

531

Mariette, A., Catalogue général des monuments d'Abydos, Vol. 3. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Georg Olms, 1998. Martin, G.T., The Hidden Tombs of Memphis. 0ew Discoveries from the Time of Tutankhamun and Ramesses the Great, London: Thames and Hudson, 1991. _________

, “Memphis: the status of a residence city in the Eighteenth Dynasty,” in: M.

Bárta and J. Krejcí (eds.), Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000 (Archiv oreintální Supplementa 9), Praha: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 2000, pp.99-120. Maspero, G., "Monuments Égyptiens du Musée de Marseille,” RT 13 (1890), pp. 120121. Matthieu, M.E., “Iz istorii sem'i i roda v drevnem Egipte,” Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 3/49 (1954), pp. 45-75. Maystre, C., “Une statue d’Ousersatet vice-roi de Nubie sous Amenophis II,” in: Mélanges Maspero I (MIFAO 66), Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1935-1938, pp.657-663. McDowell, A., Jurisdiction in the Workmen’s Community of Deir el-Medina (Egyptologische Uitgaven 5), Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1990. _________

, “Legal Aspects of Care of the Elderly in Egypt to the End of the New

Kingdom,” in: M. Stol and S.P. Vleeming (eds.), The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient 0ear East (SHCA0E 14), Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1998, pp. 199-221. Meeks, D., Année Lexicographique. Égypte Ancienne, 3 vols., Paris, 1977-82. Megally, M., Le Papyrus Hiératique Comtable E. 3226 du Louvre (BdE 53), Cairo: L'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 1971. _________

, Recherches sur l’économie, l’administration et la comptabilité égyptiennes à la

XVIIIè dynastie d’après le Papyrus E. 3226 du Louvre (BdE 71), Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1977. Menu, B., “La ‘stèle’ d'Ahmès Nefertary dans son contexte historique et juridique. A propos de: M. Gitton, ‘La résiliation d'une fonction réligieuse: nouvelle interprétation de la stéle de donation d'Ahmès Nefertary’,” BIFAO 77 (1977): 89-100.

532

de Meulenaere, H., “Le dircteur des travaux Minmose,” MDAIK 37 (1981): 315-319. Mond, R., “Excavations at Sheikh Abd el Gurneh 1925-26,” LAAA 14 (1927), pp. 13-34. de Morgan, J., Catalogue des Monuments et Inscriptions de l'Égypte antique. Volume I: Haute Égypte, Vienna: Adolphe Holzhausen, 1894. Morris, E. The Architecture of Imperialism, Probleme der Ägyptologie 22, Leiden: Brill, 2005. Mrsich, T., “Erbe,” in: W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), LdÄ I, Weisbaden.: Harrassowitz, 1975, cols.1235-60. Müller, I., “Die Verwaltung der nubischen Provinz im Neuen Reich,” Ethnographischarchäologische Zeitschrift 23 (1982): 465-470. Müller-Wollerman, R., “Das ägyptische Alte Reich als Beispiel enier Werberschen Patrimonialburokratie.“ BES 9 (1987/88): 25-40. Murdock, G.P., Social Structure, New York: The Free Press, 1967. Murnane, W.J., Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (SAOC 40), Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1977. _________

, The Road to Kadesh (SAOC 42), Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the

University of Chicago, 1985. _________

, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt (SBL Writings 5), Atlanta: Scholars

Press, 1995. _________

, “‘Overseer of the Northern Foreign Countries’: Reflections on the Upper

Administration of Egypt's Empire in Western Asia,” in: J. van Dijk (ed.), Essays on Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman te Velde (Egyptological Memoirs 1), Groningen: Styx Publications, 1997, pp. 251-258. _________

, “The Organization of Government under Amenhotep III,” in: D. O'Connor, and

E.H. Cline (eds.), Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998: pp. 173-221.

533

Newberry, P.E., El Bersheh Part I: The Tomb of Tehuti-hetep (ASE 3), London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1891. _________

, Beni Hasan (ASE 1, 2, 5, 7), 4 vols., London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1893-

1900. _________

, “Egyptian Historical Notes,” PSBA 35 (1913): 156-158.

_________

, “The Sons of Thutmosis IV, ” JEA 14 (1928): 82-85.

O'Conner, D., “New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 1552-664 B.C,” in: B.G. Trigger, et al. (eds.), Ancient Egypt: A Social History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 183-278. _________

, “The Social and Economic Organization of Ancient Egyptian Temples,” in: J.M.

Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient 0ear East (CA0E), vol. 1, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995, pp. 319-329. O'Connor, D., and E.H. Cline (eds.), Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. _________

, Thutmose III: Perspectives on His Reign. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press, Forthcoming. O’Connor, D. and D. Silverman (eds.), Ancient Egyptian Kingship (PdÄ 9), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1995. Onasch, A. “Zur sozialen Stellung der ägyptischen Beamten im Neuen Reich,” EAZ 26 (1985): 261-90. Oren, E. (ed.), The Hyksos: 0ew Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (University Museum Symposium Series 8 = University Museum Monograph 96), Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1997. Osing, J., “Königsnovelle,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ III, cols.556-7. Oxford English Dictionary (OED), online, http://oed.com/.

534

Pamminger, P. “Nochmals zum Problem der Vizekönige von Kusch unter Hatschepsut,” GM 131 (1992): 97-100. Pardey, E., "Der sog. Sprecher des Königs in der 1. Hälfte der 18. Dynastie,” in: Essays in honour of Prof. Jadwiga Lipinska (Warsaw Egyptological Studies 1), Warsaw, 1997, pp.377-397. _________

, “Administration: Provincial Administration,” in: D. Redford (ed.) Oxford

Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.16-20. Parkinson, R.B., Voices From Ancient Egypt. An Anthology of Middle Kingdom Writings, London: British Museum Press, 1991. Pestman, P.W., Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961. _________

, “The Law of Succession in Ancient Egypt,” in: M. David, F.R. Kraus, and P.W.

Pestman (eds.), Essays on Oriental Laws of Succession (Studia et Documenta 9), Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969, pp. 58-77. _________

, “Who were the Owners, in the “Community of Workmen”, of the Chester Beatty

Papyri,” in: R.J. Demarée and J.J. Janssen (eds.), Gleanings from Deir el-Medina (Egyptologische Uitgaven 1), Leiden, 1982, pp. 155-172. Petrie, W.M.F., Tanis (EEF 2, 4), 2 vols., London: Trübner, 1885-1888. _________

, A Season in Egypt 1887, London: Field & Tuer, “The Leadenhall Press,” 1888.

_________

, Researches in Sinai, London: John Murray, 1906.

Piccione, P., TTs 121 and 72 website, http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/ Piehl, K., Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques recueillies en Europe et en Égypte, 6 vols., Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1886-1903. _________

, “Un mot de parenté jusqu'ici méconnu,” SPHI0X. Revue Critique 3 (1900): 1-6.

Polz, D., “Bemerkungen zur Grabbenutzung in der thebanischen Nekropole,” MDAIK 46 (1990): 301-336.

535

_________

, “Die Sno-Vorsteher des Neun Reiches,” ZÄS 117 (1990): 43-60.

_________

, “Jamunedjeh, Meri und Userhat,” MDAIK 47 (1991): 281-291.

Porter, B., and R. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings I: The Theban 0ecropolis, Part 1: Private Tombs, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. Quack, J.F. Die Lehren des Ani (OBO 14), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Quirke, S., “The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom,” RdE 37 (1986), pp. 107130. _________

, The administration of Egypt in the Late Middle Kingdom: the hieratic

documents, New Malden, Surrey: SIA, 1990. _________ _________

(ed.), Middle Kingdom Studies, New Malden, Surrey: SIA, 1991. , “Horn, Feather and Scale, and Ships: On Titles in the Middle Kingdom,” in: P.

der Manuelian (ed.), Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson, vol. 2, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1996, pp. 665-677. _________

, “Narrative literature,” in: A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature:

History and Forms (PdÄ 10), Leiden, New York: E.J. Brill, 1996, pp.263-76. _________

, “Administration: State Administration,” in: D. Redford (ed.), The Oxford

Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.12-16. _________

, “Administrative Texts,” in: D. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of

Ancient Egypt, Vol. 1, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.23-9. _________

, “The Second Intermediate Period,” in: D. Redford (ed.), The Oxford

Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt, Vol.3, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp.260-5. Radwan, A., Die Darstellungen des regierenden Königs und seiner Familienangehörigen in den Privatgräbern der 18. Dynastie (MÄS 21), Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1969. Ranke, H., Die ägyptischen Personennamen, 2 vols., Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1935.

536

Redford, D. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies (0ear and Middle East Studies 3), Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967. _________

, “Thutmosis III,” in: W. Helck, et al. (eds.), LdÄ VI, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz,

1986, cols.540-8. _________

, Egypt and Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1992. _________

, The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III, CHANE 16, Leiden: Brill,

2003. Reisner, G.A. “The Tomb of Hepzefa, Nomarch of Siût,” JEA 5 (1918): 79-98. _________

, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” JEA 6 (1920): 28-55.

Ricke, H., Der Totentempel Thutmoses’ III.: baugeschichtliche Untersuchung (Beiträge Bf 3/1), Cairo, 1939. Robins, G., “The Relationships Specified by Egyptian Kinship Terms of the Middle and New Kingdoms,” CdE 54 (1979): 197-217. _________

, “A critical examination of the theory that the right to the throne of ancient Egypt

passed through the female line in the 18th dynasty,” GM 62(1983): 67-77. _________

, “The God’s Wife of Amun in the 18th Dynasty in Egypt,” in: A. Cameron and A.

Kuhrt (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983. _________

, “Detlef Franke, Altägyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mitteleren

Reich,” BiOr 41 (1984): 602-606. _________

, “The role of the royal family in the 18h dynasty up to the reign of Amenhotep

III: 1. Queens,” Wepwawet 2 (1986): 10-14. _________

, Women in Ancient Egypt, Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1993.

_________

, Proportion and Style in Ancient Egyptian Art, Austin: University of Texas Press,

1994.

537

Roehrig, C., The Eighteenth Dynasty Titles Royal 0urse (mn't nswt), Royal Tutor (mn' nswt), and Foster Brother/Sister of the Lord of the Two Lands (sn/snt mn' n nb t3wy) (Ph.D. dissertation), University of California at Berkeley, 1990. _________

, “Review: Valley of the Kings: The Decline of a Royal 0ecropolis. By C.

N(icholas) Reeves. KPI. London, 1990,” JARCE 29 (1992): 208-9. _________

, “Gates to the Underworld: The Appearance of Wooden Doors in the Royal

Tombs in the Valley of the Kings,” in: R. Wilkinson (ed.), Valley of the Sun Kings. 0ew Explorations in the Tombs of the Pharaohs, Tucson: The University of Arizona Egyptian Expedition, 1995, pp. 82-107. Rogge, E., Statuen des 0euen Reiches und der Dritten Zwischenzeit (CAA Wien 6), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1990. Roquet, G., "SMT(= J) (6è Dynastie)," BIFAO 77 (1977): 119-127. Roth, A.M., Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom. The Evolution of a System of Social Organization (SAOC 48), Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991. Sauneron, S. The Priests of Ancient Egypt. New York, London, 1960. Säve-Söderbergh, T., The 0avy of the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty, Upssala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1946. _________

, Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs (PTT 1), Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1957. Schiaparelli, E., Museo Archeologico di Firenze : antichità egizie (Catalogo generale dei musei di antichità e degli oggetti d'arte raccolti nelle gallerie e biblioteche del Regno I), Rome: Salviucci, 1887. Schloen, J.D., The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol. Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient 0ear East (Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant 2), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Schmitz, B., Untersuchungen zum Titel zA nswt “Königssohn” (Habelt Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Ägyptologie 2), Bonn: Hablet Verlag, 1976.

538

_________

, “Truchseß,” in: W. Helck and E. Otto (eds.), LdÄ VI, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,

1986, cols.771-2. Schmitz, F.-J., Amenophis I: Versuch einer Darstellung der Regierungszeit eines ägyptischen Herrschers der frühen 18. Dynastie (HäB 6), Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1978. Schulman, A.R., Military Rank, Title and Organization in the Egyptian 0ew Kingdom (MÄS 6), Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1964. _________

, “The Royal Butler Ramessesemperre,” JARCE 13 (1976): 117-130.

_________

, “The Royal Butler Ramesses-samion,” CdE 61 (1986): 187-202.

_________

, “Military Organization in Pharaonic Egypt,” in: J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations

of the Ancient 0ear East (CA0E) Vol. 1, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, Macmillan Reference Library USA, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1995, pp. 289-301. Seidlmayer, S., “The First Intermediate Period (c.2160-2055 BC),” in: I. Shaw (ed.), The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.118-47. Sethe, K., Urkunden der 18. Dynastie (Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, Abt. IV), 4 vols., Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906-09. _________

, “Der Name >>Merui-tensi