KAWAI, JEgH 3(2) (2010), Ay Versus Horemheb

AY VERSUS HOREMHEB: THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN THE LATE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY REVISITED* Nozomu Kawai Waseda University, Tokyo Abstract This article examines the interaction between Ay and Horemheb and their attitudes towards one another. Under Tutankhamun, Ay was the fatherly advisor of the king at the court, while Horemheb was the actual governor of all the administration in the country. However, Ay seems to have obtained the title “Vizier,” indicating that he was also capable of governing the country. Ay was indeed on the verge of becoming the successor of Tutankhamun. There was strong antagonism between Ay and Horemheb sometime after Tutankhamun’s death. The evidence implies that Horemheb sought to discredit Ay as proper successor to the king. As a result, Ay appears to have excluded Horemheb from greater courtly influence by appointing Nakhtmin not only as his “Generalissimo” but also as “King’s Son.” This squabbling even continued after Ay’s death as Horemheb endeavored to erase all memory of Ay, his men, and even Queen Ankhesenamun in revenge.

*

*

*

*

* This article is the revised and expanded version of the excurse: “Ay versus Horemheb” in my Ph.D. dissertation, Studies in the Reign of Tutankhamun, Department of Near Eastern Studies, Johns Hopkins University, 2005. The ideas from this article were first presented in the forty-ninth annual meeting of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan at Waseda University in 2006 (in Japanese) and a revised version was presented at the Tenth International Congress of Egyptology in Rhodes, 2008. I would like to thank Betsy M. Bryan, Richard Jasnow and Marc Gabolde for reading the manuscripts of this article and providing invaluable suggestions. I am also grateful to Geoffrey T. Martin and Jacobus van Dijk for the invaluable information about the Memphite tomb of Horemheb which they provided to me after I had presented my paper in the congress. I am also grateful to Dr. Christophe Thiers, Director of Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude des Temples de Karnak (CFEETK) for granting me the permission to publish Horemheb’s scribal statue from Karnak. I would like to acknowledge Drs. François Lárche and Luc Gabolde for allowing me access to the photographic archive of CFEETK, and I would like to thank Alain Arnaudiès for his kind assistance in the archive. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 Also available online – brill.nl/jegh

JEGH 3.2 DOI: 10.1163/187416610X541727

262

nozomu kawai Introduction

For many years the individual roles of Ay and Horemheb and the relationship between them have been discussed. Did they work together cooperatively or did some form of competition or hostility exist between them? Was Horemheb the designated successor of Tutankhamun, although Ay ascended to the throne after Tutankhamun’s death? This paper attempts to understand the interaction between Ay and Horemheb and their attitudes towards one another through an examination of all the evidence available to us, including some recent discoveries. The first part focuses on their positions and relationship during Tutankhamun’s reign and the second deals with their interactions following Tutankhamun’s death, namely during Ay’s reign. During Tutankhamun’s reign, Ay was the fatherly advisor of the young king at the court, while Horemheb acted as the actual governor of all the administration in the country under Tutankhamun. I would suggest that Ay intentionally obtained the title of Vizier in order to demonstrate that he was capable of ruling the country as the counterpart of Horemheb’s role as King’s Deputy. I will also demonstrate that there is no concrete evidence that Horemheb was the designated successor of Tutankhamun as has been proposed recently. At the time of the death of Tutankhamun, both Ay and Horemheb seem to have maintained a peaceful relationship. However, sometime after Tutankhamun’s death there was strong antagonism between Ay and Horemheb. I argue that Horemheb sought to dishonor Ay as the proper successor to the king. Horemheb represented himself as the near equal to the king, although he was a private official. At the same time, Ay appears to have excluded Horemheb from greater court influence by appointing Nakhtmin as his designated successor. This squabbling continued after Ay’s death as Horemheb, soon after ascending to the throne, endeavored to erase all memory of Ay, his men, and even Ankhesenamun, as revenge. 1. Ay and Horemheb under Tutankhamun Ay and Horemheb were undoubtedly the most influential officials behind the throne during Tutankhamun’s reign, but scholars have

ay versus horemheb

263

debated the exact nature of their positions and influence. Some scholars hold that Horemheb was the predominant figure,1 while others considered Ay to be the major player.2 Among the former scholars, Jacobus van Dijk argued that Tutankhamun appointed Horemheb as “Crown Prince” immediately after his accession, since Horemheb was ôry-p t, “Hereditary Prince,” chosen by the king according to Horemheb’s coronation inscription.3 On the contrary, Otto Schaden maintained that Ay was the regent of Tutankhamun, since on a gold foil from KV58 Ay was shown standing in front of Tutankhamun striking an enemy, and more significantly, it was Ay who became king before Horemheb.4 As for the relationship between these two figures during Tutankhamun’s reign, the picture is also cloudy. C. Descroches-Noblecourt suggested that there was a tacit agreement between Ay and Horemheb to operate for mutual benefit.5 Schaden also argued that Horemheb and Ay must have worked together, Horemheb perhaps concerning himself with the army and the northern frontiers and Ay remaining at court to tutor the young king and look after internal affairs.6 Ahmed Badawi pointed out that the nation was split.7 Robert Hari characterized Ay’s role as passive and Horemheb’s role as active insofar as the politics of the day were concerned.8 Andrea Gnirs recently suggested that under Tutankhamun the court was divided into two circles: those who had been close to Tutankhamun and supported Akhenaten’s religion, and those who favored restoration and wanted a return to orthodoxy.9 Gnirs 1 Gardiner, “The Tomb of the General Horemheb,” 11; Winlock, “Harmhab, Commander-in-chief of the Armies of Tutekhamon,” 8; Badawi, Memphis als zweite Landeshauptstadt im Neuen Reich, 86; Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb; van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis; van Dijk, “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun”; van Dijk, “The Amarna Period and the later New Kingdom,” 291. 2 Newberry, “King Ay, The Successor of Tutankhamun,” 52; Carter and Mace, The Tomb of Tut.Ankh.Amen, 27; Helck, Der Einfluß der Militärführer, 74; Seele, “King Ay and the Close of the Amarna Age,” 176; Hornung, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches, 93; Schaden, The God’s Father Ay, 142. 3 Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 47–48 and “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun,” 36. 4 Schaden, The God’s Father Ay, 142. 5 Desroches-Noblecourt, Vie et mort d’un phraon, Toutankhamon, 170. 6 Schaden, The God’s Father Ay, 143. 7 Badawi, Memphis als zweite Landeshauptstadt im Neuen Reich, 86. 8 Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, 57. 9 Gnirs, “Die 18. Dynastie: Licht und Schatten eines internationalen Zeitalters,” 41.

264

nozomu kawai

noted that Tutankhamun’s restoration program was initiated by the latter circle and that Horemheb was the driving force behind this. Although she admitted that we cannot establish to which side Ay belonged when Tutankhamun ascended the throne, she saw him as one of the most eager supporters of Akhenaten’s religion, characterizing him as one of the major figures in preserving the continuity of the royal family of Akhenaten. These theories, however, do not seem to have examined the contemporary evidence of Ay and Horemheb as a whole in order to understand what kinds of roles they played in relation to Tutankhamun. The following discussion will demonstrate that Ay was the senior advisor to Tutankhamun at the court and also in the cult rituals performed by the king, while Horemheb functioned as the regent supervising every branch of the administration. Ay Although Ay does not mention his parents at all, he seems to have originated from Akhmim, from whence the wife of Amenhotep III, Queen Tiye, also came.10 Ay held the important titles “fan-bearer on the right of the king,” “troop commander,” “master of the horse,” and “god’s father.” Obviously, his background was from the military sphere. However, his most important title was that of “god’s father,” which he retained even when he became king after the demise of Tutankhamun. The “god’s father” seems to have played the role of the closest advisor to the king.11 10 Although Ay did not leave any documents regarding his parents, some scholars suggest that he was a son of Yuya and Tjuya. See van Dijk, “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun,” 3. Three inscriptions of Ay after he became king confirm Akhmim as his place of origin. The rock shrine of Ay in Akhmim suggests that he originated from there; see Kuhlmann, “Der Felstempel des Eje bei Achmim.” In an inscription on the base of a sphinx between the 10th pylon and Mut temple at Karnak, Ay is mentioned as “Son of Min and Isis”; see Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil, 479. In the tomb of Neferhotep (TT 49), chief scribe of Amun under Ay, an inscription mentions “forever on the throne of his father, just as the lifetime of Min in Akhmin”; see Davies, The Tomb of Nefer-hotep at Thebes, 21. 11 The official who had the title “god’s father” prior to Ay was Yuya from Akhmim, who was the father of Queen Tiye. Thus, he was the father-in-law of Amenhotep III. Recently, Birrel proposed that Ay was the father of Akhenaten’s second wife Kiya (Birrell, “Way Ay the Father of Kiya?”), yet this hypothesis does not provide plausible evidence that Ay and Ty were the parents of Kiya. Ty’s position as the nurse of Queen Nefertiti suggests that she was in the highest position after the female members of the royal family. However, this does not seem to have been the reason why Ay was very influential. Rather, their origin from Akhmim was important. They

ay versus horemheb

265

Ay seems to have participated in the royal rituals where he often appeared with Tutankhamun. In Tutankhamun’s monument at Karnak, Ay often appears standing behind the king who performs for the gods (Fig. 1).12 On a piece of gold foil from KV58 in the Valley of the Kings, Tutankhamun smites his foreign enemies in front of Ay, who is shown carrying the royal fan (Fig. 2).13 Gnirs suggested that as the official companion of the ruler, Ay introduced the Ramesside ritual roles of the Crown Princes accompanying their fathers in cult rituals.14 I would agree and further suggest that Ay was intentionally demonstrating that he was the power behind the king. During the reign of Tutankhamun, Ay gained a new title to signify his participation in the return to orthodoxy. Three small ivory discs in the Turin Museum contain the title “Leader of the Festival of the Ennead.”15 This was a priestly duty given to non-priestly officials by the king.16 This indicates that Ay participated in temple festivals of the old traditional cult during Tutankhamun’s reign. There are some other scraps of gold leaf with titles from KV 58, which have been attributed to Ay.17 The inscriptions seem to show Ay’s titles just before he was elevated to king: “Hereditary noble, count, [Seal bearer] of the king of Lower Egypt. . . . (god’s) father, fan bearer (on the right of the king). . . ., vizier, one who does the truth, m-n r-priest of Maat, one who unites the god’s hand. . . .”18 The other inscription reads: “Hereditary noble, count. . . . Great. . . . of [His] Majesty. . . .”19 Although Ay’s name does not appear on any of these fragments, there is yet another fragment containing the end of the possible ( y).20 This assumption can be supported by the name of Ay: fact that the epithet ôr m¡ t (“one who does the truth”) was contained were probably closely connected to the royal family as was the case with Yuya and Tuya from the reign of Amenhotep III. 12 Saad, “Fragments d’un monument de Toutânkhamon retrouvés dans le Ixe pylôn de Karnak. 13 Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutânkhamanou, fig. 4. 14 Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 98. 15 Newberry, “King Ay, The Successor of Tutankhamun,” 52; Schaden, The God’s Father Ay, 138–39. 16 Kees, Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat, 46–47. 17 Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutânkhamanou, 1–3, 125–35. 18 Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutânkhamanou, 133. 19 Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutânkhamanou, 133. 20 Davis, et al., The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutânkhamanou, 133.

266

Fig. 1

nozomu kawai

Ay stands behind Tutankhamun. After Saad, Karnak V, fig. 5. Courtesy of Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude des Temples de Karnak.

ay versus horemheb

267

Fig. 2 Ay watches Tutankhamun smiting his enemy. After Davis, The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutânkhamanou, fig. 4.

in the cartouche of Ay’s prenomen when he became king.21 This titulary of Ay is extremely important; he now possessed the title “Vizier,” which cannot be identified in any other monument of Ay. Since we know that there were two viziers in the north and south respectively under Tutankhamun’s reign,22 I assume that this Vizier title was intended to show Ay’s political capability to rule the country in order to counter the position of Horemheb who was the regent of Tutankhamun. In addition, the title m-n r-priest of Maat and the epithet “one who does the truth” both emphasize the legal aspect of the vizier.23 Moreover, the epithet dm rt n r. . . . “one who unites the hand of the god . . .” seems to express Ay’s relationship as the god’s father with royal women, since the “hand of the god 21 His prenomen was Kheper-kheperu-Ra ir-Maat ( pr- prw-R ôr m¡ t). Cf. Dessoudeix, Chronique de l'Égypte Ancienne, 318. 22 Apparently Tutankhamun’s viziers were Pentu (North) and Usermontu (South). See Habachi, “Unknown or Little known monuments of Tutankhamun and his Viziers.” 23 This title and epithet were included among those of the Vizier Usermontu under Tutankhamun. See Habachi, “Unknown or Little known monuments of Tutankhamun and his Viziers.”

268

nozomu kawai

( rt n r)” was normally possessed by the God’s Wife of Amun or the queen.24 Gnirs assumed that Ay wanted to express his personal relationship to the royal women, such as Nefetiti and Ankhesenamun.25 However, they did not bear the title “hand of the god.” Thus, Ay’s title “one who unites the hand of the god” may represent his relationship with a queen in the role of “god’s father.” In fact, Ay had a finger ring bezel inscribed with the name of Ankhesenamun, Tutankhamun’s widow, and his name side-by-side.26 It is likely that Ay wanted to stress his relationship to Ankhesenamun before his accession. The last title . . . wr n m.[ f ] . . . “. . . Great of [His?] Majesty . . .” must be a high-ranking title, but it cannot be reconstructed due to the fragmentary preservation of the text. These new titles and epithets indicate Ay’s ambitious preparations for the throne. Probably, he included the Vizier title to show himself as king’s deputy in the civil administration,27 since the Generalissimo Horemheb also proclaimed himself as King’s Deputy. In fact, the title Vizier seems to have become one of the mandatory titles used to legitimize kingship in the Ramesside period,28 for Paramessu and Seti I both bore the Vizier title before they became kings.29 It is interesting to note that the titulary of Paramessu consists of a combination of the titles which both Ay and Horemheb had before they became kings.30 I would suggest that Paramessu intentionally bore these titles in order to secure his new kingship since he came from a non-royal blood line. When did Ay add these new titles and epithets? If he gained the new titles and epithets before Tutankhamun’s death, it indicates that Ay was already planning to assume the trappings of royalty. If, as Gnirs assumed, Tutankhamun was shown on the gold leaf of Ay containing his Vizier title,31 this was likely the case. On the other hand, it is also possible that Ay assumed these new titles and 24

The “hand of the god ( rt-n r)” refers to the hand for the masturbation of the creator god when he created Shu and Tefnut. Due to the feminine form of the word, this was identified as a goddess, who became assimilated with Hathor by the Eighteenth Dynasty. The epithet was associated with the title of God’s Wife of Amun. See, Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt, 153. 25 Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 63. 26 Newberry, “King Ay, The Successor of Tutankhamun.” 27 For the Vizier as King’s Deputy, see van den Boorn, The Duties of Vizier, 320–22. 28 Martin-Pardey, “Wesir, Wesirat,” 1228. 29 See the “400-Year Stela,” KRI II, 287–88. 30 For the titles of Paramessu, see Polz, “Die Särge des (Pa)-Ramessu.” 31 Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 92.

ay versus horemheb

269

epithets immediately after Tutankhamun died in order to legitimize his succession. Whenever Ay was exalted, Ay had reached the position to be ready for the throne around the time of Tutankhamun’s demise. At least one clear point is that Ay had already become king when Tutankhamun was buried in his tomb, as Ay appears as king, while Tutankhamun is depicted as Osiris, the deceased person. Horemheb Almost nothing is known about the origin of Horemheb other than that he came from Hutnesu ( wt-nsw),32 now called El-Kom el-Ahmal Sawaris, near Sharuna in Middle Egypt.33 It has been suggested that he is to be identified with a certain Paatenemheb, who was a military official and one of the close adherents of Akhenaten.34 Probably, he gained his credit through his military and administrative career during Akhenaten’s reign. Horemheb married two women, Amenia and Mutnodjmet, both of whom seem to have been buried in his tomb at Saqqara.35 Horemheb’s second wife Mutnodjmet has been assumed by many scholars to be Nefertiti’s sister, and it has been further proposed that she secured Horemheb’s throne.36 However, Horemheb’s wife Mutnodjimet was in fact not Nefertiti’s sister, since, as Sethe noted, the name of Nefertiti’s sister can be read as Mutbeneret rather than Mutnodjmet.37 Therefore, Horemheb was not related to the royal family at all. Horemheb compensated for his apparently modest family background through an outstanding career in military and civil service. During Tutankhamun’s reign, Horemheb’s titles are unparalleled by any other contemporary officials. Horemheb referred to himself as r-gs ity “at the side of the sovereign.”38 This seems to be a textual equivalent to the image of Ay appearing with Tutankhamun mentioned above. Horemheb was not only the “Generalissimo,” but also the regent of Tutankhamun, bearing the titles ôry-p t “Hereditary 32

See Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I, 106*–108*, no. 387 A. Horemheb’s coronation inscription mentions his hometown. See Gardiner, “The Coronation of King Haremhab.” 34 Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, 29–36; Martin, The Hidden Tombs of Memphis, 37. 35 Martin, The Hidden Tombs of Memphis, 93–98. 36 Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. 3, 22. 37 Sethe, “Die Schwägerin Amenophis IV.” 38 Martin, The Memphite tomb of Horemheb, 31, scene 7, pl. 21–22. 33

270

nozomu kawai

Prince (of the entire land)” and ôdnw n nswt “Deputy of the King” among other major functions, controlling almost all the branches of the government.39 Due to his predominant status, van Dijk and William Murnane suggested that Tutankhamun appointed Horemheb as his “designated successor,” should the king die without an heir.40 However, this theory is not plausible. If Horemheb was appointed as the “Crown Prince” already at the beginning of Tutankhamun’s reign, this means that the end of the royal bloodline was already arranged. If this arrangement was made, people like Ay, who were closely connected to the royal family, would not have accepted it. Although Horemheb boasted of his strength already in his pre-royal career, the statements must have been exaggerated, especially in his coronation inscription, which was undoubtedly intended to propagate his legitimacy as the king. Notably, he called himself the “Eldest son of Horus,” a title that regularly refers to the “Crown Prince.” For van Dijk this means that he was already the designated successor of Tutankhamun.41 Janssen, however, states that the “Eldest Son” was honorific and did not indicate the surviving heir to the throne.42 I would suggest that this expression seems to have been a propaganda title meaning the “Eldest son of Horus of Hutnesu,” Horemheb’s birthplace. Therefore, this expression should be interpreted in the context of his coronation ceremony. Van Dijk also referred to the fragmentary inscription from the tomb of Maya, Overseer of Treasury, mentioning “Eldest Son” as a reference to Horemheb.43 However, it probably refers rather to a deity, since Maya mentions divine statues in the text.44 During Tutankhamun’s reign, a pattern emerged wherein high officials took on administrative prerogatives normally reserved for the king. Ay’s participation in royal cultic ritual is one example. Horemheb, in his separate sphere, assumed similarly royal attributes 39 As for the pre-royal titles of Horemheb, see Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 162–64; Thiem, Speos von Gebel es-Silsileh, 275–79. 40 Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 48 and “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun,” 36; Murnane, “The Return to Orthodoxy.” 41 Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 16. 42 Janssen, “La Reine Nefertari et la succession de Ramsès II par Merenptah,” 36. 43 Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 18–19. 44 Martin, et al., “The Tomb of Maya and Meryt,” 12 and n. 20.

ay versus horemheb

271

by depicting and describing himself as the victorious military leader and an excellent legislator, roles which were supposed to have been significant to the kingship. In this manner, royal functions seem to have been delegated to the high officials such as Ay and Horemheb under Tutankhamun. 2. Ay and Horemheb under King Ay Although Ay and Horemheb had played important roles in their separate duties, the relationship between the figures appears to have changed after Tutankhamun’s sudden death. The relationship between Ay and Horemheb after the former became king has been controversial as well. There are two schools of thought on this matter. There are those who consider the relationship between Ay and Horemheb to have been peaceful and who believe that the succession from the former to the latter went smoothly;45 others believe that there was a struggle between the two in which Horemheb was ultimately victorious.46 I would suggest that at least at the beginning of Ay’s reign, he and Horemheb probably kept the relationship they had under Tutankhamun. However, their relationship seems to have changed shortly thereafter. Horemheb discredited Ay as the king throughout most of Ay’s reign. The following discussion will demonstrate my argument. Wall Scene from Tutankhamun’s Tomb Many scholars have suggested that Horemheb did not leave any evidence in Tutankhamun’s tomb, while prominent persons such as Ay, Maya and Nakhtmin left either funerary items or iconographic images. However, the wall scene of the tomb shows Tutankhmun’s coffin dragged by a group of officials in a mourning procession that contains a man who seems to be Horemheb (Fig. 3). The lone figure standing behind the two viziers must be Horemheb, which also makes him situated closest to the mummy of Tutankhamun. This means that Horemheb acted as the leader of the funerary procession. As Schulman, Hornung and Gnirs have rightly pointed out, this 45

Hornung, Das Grab des Haremheb im Tal der Könige, 17; Aldred, “Egypt: the Amarna Period and the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty,” 71. 46 Pflüger, Horemheb und die Amarnazeit, 45; Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, 144; Helck, Der Einfluß der Militärführer, 81; van Dijk, The New Kingdom Memphite Necropolis, 48–64.

272 nozomu kawai

Fig. 3

Funerary procession for the burial of Tutankhamun in the tomb of Tutankhamun (KV62). Author’s photo.

ay versus horemheb

273

scene resembles the scene of the “Berlin Trauerrelief ” which depicts a “Royal Scribe,” “Hereditary Prince” and “Generalissimo” preceding the two viziers in the funerary procession of Ptahemhat Ty, the High Priest of Ptah in Memphis under Tutankhamun (Fig. 4).47 As many scholars have already observed, the person represented as the head of the procession is Horemheb. Van Dijk argued that the person was not Horemheb because he was no longer the ôry-p t at the time of Tutankhamun’s death, although he admitted that the person appears to represent the ôryp t.48 However, it does not seem that the person in question could be anyone other than Horemheb at the time of Tutankhamun’s burial, since Nakhtmin, who will have acquired the title ôry-p t later, was just a General at that time, as we learn from the titles on the shabti figures that he donated to Tutankhamun.49 Therefore, I suggest that Horemheb seems to have maintained his position as the chief of the high officials at the time of Tutankhamun’s burial, namely, the beginning of Ay’s reign, when the scene was painted. The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb Geoffrey Martin and van Dijk suggested that the second courtyard in Horemheb’s Memphite tomb would have likely been decorated during Ay’s reign, since it was demonstrated that the eastern end of the courtyard was the last to be built and decorated, and much of its surviving adornment is in outline only, implying the work was done just before Horemheb ascended to the throne (Fig. 5).50 The wall scenes in the second courtyard, therefore, provide information on the career of Horemheb during Ay’s reign. On the south wall of this part, Horemheb clearly intended to represent King Ay, because there is an unfinished relief showing a part of the so-called

47 Schulman, “The Berlin ‘Trauerrelief (No. 12411),” 57; Hornung, Das Grab des Haremheb im Tal der Könige, 17; Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 108. 48 Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 57. Van Dijk felt that it was odd that a man who had been the deceased king’s crown prince designate should be shown in such a casual and wholly anonymous way. 49 Carter nos. 318a, 330j, 330k; Beinlich and Saleh, Corpus der hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab des Tutanchamun, 140, 165–66. 50 Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 14, 25; van Dijk, The New Kingdom Memphite Necropolis, 36. This courtyard has been regarded as the first courtyard previously, but recent excavations revealed another courtyard to the east of this one. Thus, it turned out that the previously designated first courtyard was indeed the second courtyard. See, Raven, et al., “Preliminary Report on the Leiden Excavation at Saqqara.”

274 nozomu kawai

Fig. 4

“Berlin Trauerrelief,” funerary procession of Ptahemhat-Ty, High Priest of Ptah under Tutankhamun and Ay. Photo courtesy of the Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin, inv. no. 12411, archive photo.

ay versus horemheb

275

Fig. 5 Development of the plan of the Memphite Tomb of Horemheb. After Martin, Hidden Tombs of Memphis, pl. 9. Reproduced with the permission of the author.

“Window of Appearances” in the royal palace on the south wall of the second courtyard (Fig. 6).51 If it had been finished, the king would have been shown distributing rewards to Horemheb who was standing in the courtyard below. Considering the length of Ay’s reign – four full years52 – Horemheb could easily have completed the figure of King Ay at the window of appearances on his tomb wall. However, the work seems to have been abandoned. This might imply that Horemheb intentionally decided not to depict Ay. On the opposite wall of the scene of the Window of Appearances, instead of showing King Ay, Horemheb represented himself, in large scale, giving the Gold of Honor to an aged official in small 51 52

Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 25. Vandersleyen, L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil, 483.

276 nozomu kawai

Fig. 6

Unfinished relief showing a part of the “Window of Appearance.” After Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Scenes 2 and 3, pl. 19. Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

ay versus horemheb

277

scale (Fig. 7).53 This was an act that is regularly attributed to the king,54 and indeed, Horemheb represented himself receiving the Gold of Honor from Tutankhamun on the wall of the innermost courtyard.55 Martin interpreted the scene as showing Horemheb, as regent of Tutankhamun, deputizing an official whom he assumed was Paramessu, the future Ramesses I.56 However, Martin’s theory contradicts the dating of the second courtyard, which he believes was adorned in Ay’s reign. Van Dijk argued that the scene shows Ay rewarding Horemheb with the Gold of Honor, because this sort of scene regularly depicts the king rewarding his servants, and there are no parallels which represent an official rewarding another official.57 Susanne Binder also follows van Dijk’s idea.58 I agree with Martin that the scene shows Horemheb giving the reward to one of his officials, although he does not seem to have been deputized as Tutankhamun’s regent, and there is no concrete evidence that the official is Paramessu. Van Dijk’s argument contradicts some elements of the scene. As he admitted, the dress of the larger figure shows a typical pleated costume worn by Horemheb in other parts of his tomb.59 The text on the block contains the epithets of Horemheb: smr w ty ns shrr [m t¡ r r.f ]. . . . “Sole companion, tongue that appeases [in the entire land.]” Since the text is oriented in the same direction as the large figure, there is no doubt that Horemheb rewards the official. Why, then was the king not depicted as the giver of honor to the official? In my opinion, this scene represents Horemheb giving honor to one of his officials.60 Apparently, Horemheb acts as the political leader, dishonoring Ay as king during the latter’s reign. Following the idea of Martin and van Dijk that the decoration of the outer courtyard was carried out during Ay’s reign, this scene might indicate the political situation of Horemheb during Ay’s reign. In fact, it is strange that the scene 53 Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 40–43, pl. 32, 34 and The Hidden Tombs of Memphis, 54–56, fig. 18. 54 Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 39, 40, fig. 8. He noted a close parallel to this from the tomb of Meryre, “Greatest of Seers of Aten,” at Amarna. 55 Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 87–92, pl. 106–107, scene 72. 56 Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 54–56. 57 Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Memphite Necropolis, 38–41. 58 Binder, The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt, 114–15. 59 Binder, The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt, 41. 60 Binder refers to the only explicit example for a scene showing a high official in charge of a rewarding ceremony in the absence of the king found in the tomb of Penniut at Aniba in the 20th Dynasty. Binder, The Gold of Honour, 114, n. 475.

278 nozomu kawai

Fig. 7

Horemheb represented himself, in large scale, giving the Gold of Honor to an aged official in small scale. After Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Scene 21, pl. 34. Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society.

ay versus horemheb

279

of the throne dais of the king was not finished on the south wall where Ay could have been depicted. Therefore, I would argue that Horemheb tried to maintain his influence over the officials during Ay’s reign, dishonoring him as the king. The Hittite Texts KUB 19.15+KBo 50.24 At the 6th International Congress of Hittitology in 2005, Jared Millar presented the newly reconstructed text KUB 19.15+KBo 50.24 and argued that this text is a letter of Mursili II addressed to Horemheb who was still Generalissimo at the end of Tutankhamun’s reign and the beginning of Ay’s reign.61 In the text, Mursili II corresponds with an Egyptian high ranking military officer named Armaya, who is considered to be identified with Horemheb due to the similarity with Horemheb’s name as it appears in the excerpts of Manetho’s history.62 Generally, the Hittite king writes to the Egyptian king himself and not to his subordinates. This means that Armaya was nearly as powerful as the king, although he is a high official. This perfectly fits the status of Horemheb deducible from the contemporary Egyptian sources.63 The text appears to relate to the Hittite conflict with the Egyptians in Syria in year 7 of Mursili II, when King Ay had just came to power while Horemheb began to invade Amurru in Syria. Thus, Horemheb was nearly the virtual king even when Ay was ruling. These Hittite texts complement my idea. Horemheb’s Scribal Statues There is other evidence indicating that Horemheb dishonored Ay. Of the three scribal statues of Horemheb, one, a quartzite statue from Karnak, bears three cartouches of Tutankhamun,64 but the two others, granite statues from Memphis65 and Karnak – the latter 61 Millar, “Amarna Age Chronology and the identification of Nibuhuriya”; Stempel, “Identification of Nibhururiya.” I would like to acknowledge Marc Gabolde for bringing these articles to my attention. 62 Millar, “Amarna Age Chronology and the identification of Nibuhuriya,” 254. Horemheb was described as Armais, Harmais, and Armaios in the excerpts of Manetho’s history. 63 For example, Horemheb describes himself as almost equal to the king in military and diplomatic activities. See, e.g., the Zizinia inscription, Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 80, pl. 91, scene 69. 64 Urk. IV, 2103.15–2105.20. 65 Winlock, “A Statue of Horemheb before his Accession.”

280

nozomu kawai

published here for the first time (Figs. 8–11),66 do not mention the name of any king at all. Notably, the inscriptions on the last two statues describe Horemheb as a wise administrator rather than as a military leader and their phraseologies are almost comparable to that of the king. I would suggest that the last two scribal statues were made in Ay’s reign and that they support the view that Horemheb did not acknowledge Ay as the king at all.67 On the quartzite scribal statue from Karnak inscribed with the name of Tutankhamun, it is clear that, although Horemheb certainly represents himself as an excellent administrator, the king is acknowledged as an authority: Tutankhamun’s name is mentioned twice, once at the beginning and again at the end of the text. The tone of the text is that of an official showing his respect to the king. For example, Horemheb states “the laws of the temple of Amun were given”68 and “you (the king) founded the city anew.”69 Apparently, the statue represents Horemheb’s loyalty to the king. The inscriptions on the Memphite scribal statue, however, show that Horemheb regarded himself as comparable to the king by equating himself with Thoth and never mentioning the king’s name. Presumably, through the association with Thoth, Horemheb intended to express himself in his capacity as the ideal administrator rather than as a military leader. Assmann observed the emphasis in this text on law and legislation, on memory and knowledge, and characterized the hymn as a “self-portrayal of Horemheb” in which he equated his relation to the king with the relationship between Re and Thoth.70 Horemheb’s comparison of himself with Thoth is also paralleled in his other inscriptions, such as his coronation inscription71 and his great stela from his Memphite tomb, which 66 This statue is unpublished. I am grateful to Dr. Christophe Thiers, Director of Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude des Temples de Karnak for granting me the permission to publish this statue (Inv. no. OR218). I would like to acknowledge Drs. François Lárche and Luc Gabolde for allowing me access to their photographic archive. I would like to thank Alain Arnaudiès for his kind assistance. 67 For the date of the Memphite scribal statue of Horemheb, contra to my view, see Winlock, “A Statue of Horemheb before his Accession,” 4. Hari, Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, 47–48, dates the statue to Tutankhamun’s reign, but Hari pointed out that the statue from Memphis, now in New York, was probably carved a few years after the quartzite statue from Karnak, now in Cairo. 68 Urk. IV, 2105.9. 69 Urk. IV, 2105.13. 70 Assmann, Ägyptischen Hymnen und Gebete, 631–32. 71 His coronation inscription declares: “All his plans were at the footsteps of the Ibis. He expressed the image of the Lord of Hesret, rejoicing with the truth like the Beaky one.” Urk. IV, 2115.8–10.

ay versus horemheb

281

once stood in the second courtyard that dates to Ay’s reign.72 As van Dijk suggested, it is likely that Horemheb equated himself with Thoth from Tutankhamun’s reign.73 However, the text on Horemheb’s Memphite scribal statue clearly describes him as a capable administrator, ready to ascend to the throne, by comparing himself to Thoth. The new granite scribal statue of Horemheb from Karnak shows him squatting dutifully, pen and papyrus in hand.74 The statue is now in very fragmentary condition (Figs. 8–11). The lower body, cracked in the middle, is broken into two parts and the upper body is missing, probably due to intentional destruction. Horemheb holds the writing rush with his right hand and a papyrus roll with his left hand. On his left knee is his ink shell with its two cakes of writing pigment. He wears an intricately pleated kilt like on other scribal statues of him. The inscriptions of the statue, published here for the first time, nearly refer to Horemheb in royal terms, although his appearance is just as a scribe and his name is not written as king yet. Like Horemheb’s scribal statue from Memphis, he never mentions the name of the king. Furthermore, he does not even mention any word meaning the king. In the text on this statue, Horemheb demonstrates his prominence among the high officials and states that it was he who restored the cult of Amun in Karnak. The phraseology of the text is comparable to that of a king, unlike the aforementioned other scribal statues. Text and Translation on Base (Figs. 8–10)

72

Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, 31. Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 19. 74 Inventory number OR218. The provenance is unknown. The left part measures 55cm in height and 28cm in width (front), while the right part measure 52cm in height and 41cm in width (front). 73

282

nozomu kawai

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Front.

Left side.

Figs. 8–11 A granite scribal statue of Horemheb from Karnak. All photos courtesy of Centre Franco-Égyptien d’Étude des Temples de Karnak.

ay versus horemheb

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

Back.

Right side.

283

284

nozomu kawai

///// r-m- b, d=f ô srw (Front) smrw wrw nty r-gs m.f, m¡(w) n tn m r tn m s rw n nb n rw, stp.n=f wô r ôrt m¡ t s r.f mn m/////dô=f n.ô (w) [ r]///// (From left side to back) . . . a Horemheb, he says: O great magistrates and companions of the palace who are on the side of His Majesty, Lookb yourself with your eyes regarding the plans of the Lord of the gods. He has chosen me while doing justice, his plan being firmc with. . . . so that he may grant me an abundance [of ]d. . . . Commentary a) One would expect at least “Royal Scribe” to have been present before the preserved inscription, but it is uncertain whether the common title “Hereditary Prince” and another title “General of the Army” were written. b) Plural determination can be taken as indicator of plural imperative. . c) This word can be reconstructed as is seen near the crack on the back of d) The edge outline of the statue. Horemheb expresses his prominent position among the dignitaries and courtiers in the palace who support the king. He boasts about himself almost like a king in saying that he was chosen by the Lord of the gods, namely Amun. Text and Translation on the Scroll (Figs. 8, 11)

ay versus horemheb

285

s///s rw s b///// /////ôr hrrt nb n rw Imn nb nswt t¡wy [m ôpt]-swt m m¡w s mnw.s wn m m y ôrt ¡ t n nb.f nswt n rw s ¡ nôwt.f r t¡ nb nty r w¡(t) nb sw b rm s n t ///// ôn ôry-p t sš nswt r-m- b ///// ///// m n R r/// n/// sy ¡///// . . . . plans, one who makes festive. . . . one who does what the Lord of the gods, Amun, Lord of the thrones of the Two Lands in Karnak pleases anew, one who erects its monuments which have been ruined,a in searching for doing what is effective for his Lord, King of the gods,b one who magnifies his city more than any other lands continually on every side, one who consecrates its peoplec forever. . . . continually by the Hereditary Prince, Royal Scribe, Horemheb. . . . garland of Re upon . . . of . . . one who is greatly praised. . . . Commentary a) This sentence is similar to a sentence from Tutankhamun’s restoration stela (Cairo GC 34183): swrd.n.f nty mw m mnw “he repaired what was ruined as the monument.” Urk. IV, 2026.16. b) This sentence parallels a sentence from Tutankhamun’s restoration stela: r y ¡ t n ôt Imn “searching for what is beneficial for his father Amun.” Urk. IV, 2028.11. c) This sentence also parallels a sentence from Tutankhamun’s restoration stela: ôw sw b.n. m.f, .w.s. mw mwt šm yt b¡yt wn m n t m pr nswt “His Majesty consecrated male and female servants as well as female singers and dancers who had been maid servants in the king’s house.” Urk. IV, 2030.6–7. Horemheb clearly states that he is responsible for the restoration of the temple of Amun at Karnak and city of Thebes without acknowledging the king at all. The text resembles Tutankhamun’s restoration stela; the number of formulae belonging to the “Königsnovelle” with specific royal phraseology clearly indicate that Horemheb considers himself as the actual “virtual ruler.” One would assume that this statue was made when Horemheb was on the verge of ascending to the throne even though the king was ruling. If the statue had been made under Tutankhamun’s reign, I believe that

286

nozomu kawai

his cartouche would have been inscribed on the statue and the tone of the text would have been more modest. Otherwise, one would be forced to argue that Horemheb ignored the king even during Tutankhamun’s reign, which is highly questionable. Evidence from Ay’s Party Why would Horemheb discredit Ay as king? Sometime after Tutankhamun’s burial, King Ay appointed two officials as ôry-p t, “Hereditary Prince,” within his short reign. There is no clear evidence as to when the two were elevated to that rank. Van Dijk pointed out that King Ay originally gave this office to a high official Nay who built his tomb (TT271) at the hill of Qurnat Murai, facing Ay’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu.75 Nay bears the titles “chief physician,” “chamberlain,” “overseer of the King’s private apartment,” and “fan bearer on the right of the king,” suggesting that he was the highest palace official under King Ay. Moreover, King Ay promoted Nay not only to “Hereditary Prince,” but also to “great chief in the entire land,” “scribe of the elite troops,” and “chief spokesman in the entire land,” indicating that he outranked all other officials under the king.76 In fact, these titles were previously held by Horemheb during Tutankhamun’s reign. However, it is not likely that Nay took over Horemheb’s position. As I have already argued, these titles, including ôry-p t, could have just indicated the heads of the government, not the “designated successor” or “Crown Prince.” In fact, Nay’s tomb did not suffer from any damnatio memoriae. This suggests that Nay was not the designated successor and he could not have been Horemheb’s rival. However, the case of Nakhtmin is different. Nakhtmin was a general, probably a subordinate of Horemheb in the military under Tutankhamun, but he had also a close relation to Ay. He is known to have dedicated five shabtis to Tutankhamun’s funerary equipment. On these shabtis, he was called “General” and “fan bearer on the right of the king.” Then, he appears to have been promoted by King Ay to not only “Hereditary Prince” and “Generalissimo” but also even “King’s Son” – namely the “Crown Prince” of Ay who would succeed the throne.77 This title is undoubtedly superior to Horemheb’s 75

Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 59. Habachi and Anus, Le tombeau de Näy à Gournet Mar eï (No. 271), 27–30. 77 Gnirs pointed out that Nakhtmin’s title ôry-p t did not designate the function of the regent, since this title remained untouched by desecrators, while his titles 76

ay versus horemheb

287

status. Therefore, King Ay intended to relegate Horemheb to a less important position and replace him with Nakhtmin to carry out his functions. We do not know exactly when Nakhtmin was promoted, but this must have created Horemheb’s strong hostility against King Ay. Because of the fact that two men were appointed as ôry-p t within the short reign of Ay, van Dijk believed that Horemheb was pensioned off his crown-princely title with an honorific priestly position like other military officials.78 Van Dijk also suggested that under Ay Horemheb himself resigned from the rank of “Hereditary Prince” and received the office of the “Overseer of Priests of Horus, Lord of Seby,” since the title ôry-p t does not appear in the second courtyard of his Memphite tomb, and because his title “Overseer of Priests of Horus, Lord of Seby” appears on the inner doorjambs of the entrance to the statue room, which van Dijk assigned to the reign of Ay.79 However, this theory has some problems. First, the title ôry-p t does appear in several locations in the second courtyard including on column panels, abaci from columns, jambs, and two large stelae.80 Second, his title “Overseer of Priests of Horus, Lord of Seby” is mentioned among other titles and epithets of Horemheb granted during Tutankhamun’s reign. Even if he resigned the office of the “Hereditary Prince,” he kept his title of “Generalissimo” in all these places. Therefore, I would argue that Horemheb probably kept his power and ignored the king, and that there must have been a tension between the two factions. Helck suggested that Horemheb did not accept being deprived of his title “Hereditary Prince” by King Ay, and removed both Ay and Nakhtmin.81 It is, however, more likely that he just kept silent. Horemheb did not plot revenge on Ay, probably because Ay was old and would likely die soon. Meanwhile, he seems to have “King’s Son,” “Royal Scribe,” and “Generalissimo” were hacked out. Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft, 113. 78 Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Memphite Necropolis, 59, 62. 79 Van Dijk, The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis, 62. 80 Martin, The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, pl. 20, scene 6, pl. 21–25, 27, scene 14, pl. 39, scene 39d, pl. 41–42, scene 40d, 40f, 40h. 81 Helck suggested that the persecutions of these monuments were undertaken during Ay’s reign. Helck, “Probleme der Königsfolge.” Dodson maintained that the mutilation was conducted much later in the reign of Horemheb, or under one of his immediate successors, which could be paralleled by the case of Hatshepsut whose disgrace occurred at least twenty years after her disappearance from the scene. See Dodson, “Crown-Prince Thutmose (V) Generalissimo Nakhtmin,” 30. Cf. Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut, 46–65.

288

nozomu kawai

maintained his power and ignored the king. Ultimately, Horemheb succeeded to the throne, although how this came about is unknown. What is known is that Horemheb became king after Ay’s demise, although Nakhtmin was intended as Ay’s designated successor as the “Crown Prince.” It is not clear if Horemheb pushed Nakhtmin aside, or whether Nakhtmin had already died before Ay. Sometime after Horemheb came to power, he started erasing all depictions of Ay on the monuments of Tutankhamun, as well as those on Ay’s royal monuments and those of his entourage. This action must be understood as damnatio memoriae. Horemheb desecrated Ay’s tomb (KV 23) in the Western Valley of the Kings, usurped his memorial temple at Medinet Habu, and removed all other inscriptions and images of Ay.82 Nakhtmin’s two statues, probably from his tomb in Akhmim, were also desecrated. As Boyo Ockinga rightly showed, the tomb of Senqed in Akhmim was similarly severely desecrated.83 Even his sarcophagus was usurped by a contemporary official, the “Overseer of the Double Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt” Ray who probably served under Horemheb and was buried at Saqqara.84 At the same time, Ankhesenamun became the target of a damnatio memoriae by Horemheb. The evidence indicates that she was persecuted severely. On the lunette of the restoration stela of Tutankhamun, which was usurped by Horemheb, her figures were completely erased and replaced by an inscription instead of changing her image to that of his wife, Queen Mutnodjmet.85 An inlaid stela of Tutankhamun at Karnak shows a large, sharp, rectangular cavity containing some perforations behind the king who presents offering to Amun and Mut.86 The presence of the perforations 82 For Horemheb’s usurpation and demolishing of Ay’s royal monuments, see Schaden, “Clearance of the tomb of Ay (WV-23).” 83 Ockinga, A Tomb from the reign of Tutankhamun at Akhmim, 60–61. 84 Ockinga, A Tomb from the reign of Tutankhamun at Akhmim, 61. 85 Gabolde once suggested that the erased figures were Ay (Gabolde, “Ay, Toutankhamon et les martelages de la stele de la restauration de Karnak (CG 34183)”), but Eaton-Krauss observed that they are actually Ankhesenamun and that her title mt nswt wrt is still visible (Eaton-Krauss, “Akhenaten versus Akhenaten,” 554, n. 97). The author also examined the stela and confirmed that Eaton-Krauss’ observations hold true. 86 Le Saout and Ma’arouf, “Un nouveau fragment de stele de Toutânkhamon.” Although Le Saout and Ma’arouf noted that the rectangular cavity behind Tutankhamun’s figure once contained inlayed inscription, I suspect there was a figure of Ankhesenamun because of the cavity’s depth and height, which is almost the same

ay versus horemheb

289

indicates that there was a figure behind him. Since the figure of the queen is regularly behind the king, it is probable that the figure of Ankhesenamun was deliberately removed by Horemheb. These extreme acts of damnatio memoriae against Ankhesenamun were probably due to some historical events that rankled Horemheb. Conclusion During Tutankhamun’s reign, Ay and Horemheb were the most prominent figures in different social groups, suggesting that Ay was the closest advisor of the king at the court, while Horemheb was the actual governor of all the administration in the country as the “Regent” and “Generalissimo” under Tutankhamun. Around Tutankhamun’s death, Ay seems to have obtained the title “Vizier,” representing that he was now capable of governing the country. Ay was indeed on the verge of becoming the successor of Tutankhamun, while Horemheb was not Tutankhamun’s designated successor. Although Ay and Horemheb maintained a peaceful relationship at the beginning of Ay’s reign, strong antagonism between Ay and Horemheb emerged sometime afterwards. The evidence presented here indicates that Horemheb sought to discredit Ay as the proper successor to the king. As a result, Ay appears to have excluded Horemheb from greater courtly influence by appointing Nakhtmin as his “Crown Prince.” This squabbling even continued after Ay’s death as Horemheb, once he ascended to the throne, soon endeavored to erase all memory of Ay, his men and even Queen Ankhesenamun in revenge. Abbreviations BACE BiOr JEOL

Bulletin of the Australian Centre for Egyptology Bibliotheca Orientalis Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-egyptisch Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux

height as that of Tutankhamun’s figure. I found another missing portion of this stela at Sheikh Labib Magazine at Karnak, which will be published in Cahiers de Karnak in the future. See also Kawai, Studies in the Reign of Tutankhamun, 201–03.

290

nozomu kawai

Kitchen, K.A. Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical. Vol. II. Oxford: Blackwell, 1979. Urk. IV Helck, W. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie, Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, 4. Heft 17–22. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955–1958. KRI II

References Aldred, C. “Egypt the Amarna Period and the end of Nineteenth Dynasty.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. II, 2nd ed., eds. I.E.S. Edwards, C.J. Gadd, N.G.L. Hammond and E. Sollberger, 49–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Assmann, J. Ägyptischen Hymnen und Gebete. Zürich/München: Artemis Verlag, 1975. Badawi, A. Memphis als zweite Landeshauptstadt im Neuen Reich. Cairo: IFAO, 1948. Beinlich, H. and M. Saleh. Corpus der hieroglyphischen Inschriften aus dem Grab desTutanchamun, mit Konkordanz der Nummernsysteme des ‘Journal d’Entrée’ des Ägypten Museums Kairo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Binder, S. The Gold of Honour in New Kingdom Egypt. Oxford: Aris & Phillips, 2008. Birrel, M. “Was Ay the Father of Kiya?” BACE 8 (1997): 11–18. Breasted, J.H. Ancient Records of Egypt. 5 Vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906–1907. Carter, H. and A. Mace. The Tomb of Tut.Ankh.Amen, Vol. I. London: Cassel and Co., 1923. Davies, N. de G. The Tomb of Nefer-hotep at Thebes. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1933. Davis, T.M., et al. The tombs of Harmhabi and Toutânkhamanou. London: Biban el Moluk Publications, 1912. Desroches-Noblecourt, C. Vie et mort d’un phraon, Toutankhamon. Paris: Éditions Pygmalion, 1963. Dessoudeix, M. Chronique de l’Égypte ancienne: Les pharaons, leur règne, leurs contemporains. Arles: Actes Sud, 2008. Dijk, J. van. The New Kingdom Necropolis of Memphis. Historical and Iconographical Studies, Groningen, 1993. ———. “Horemheb and the Struggle for the Throne of Tutankhamun.” BACE 7 (1996): 34–37. ———. “The Amarna Period and the later New Kingdom.” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw, 272–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Dodson, A. “Crown-Prince Thutmose (V) Generalissimo Nakhtmin: Two who might have been king.” In Amarna Letters, Vol. 1, ed. D. Forbes, 26–30. San Francisco: KMT Communications, 1991. Dorman, P.F. The Monuments of Senenmut. London/New York: Kegan Paul International, 1988. Eaton-Krauss, M. “Akhenaten versus Akhenaten.” BiOr 47 (1990): 541–559. Gardiner, A.H. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947. ———. “The Tomb of the General Horemheb.” JEA 39 (1953): 3–12.

ay versus horemheb

291

———. “The Coronation of King Haremhab.” JEA 39 (1953): 13–31. Gnirs, A. Militär und Gesellshaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschite des Neuen Reiches. SAGA 17. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996. ———. “Die 18. Dynastie: Licht und Schatten eines internationalen Zeitalters.” In Tutanchamun: Das Golden Jenseits, eds. A. Wiese and A. Brodbeck, 27–44. München: Hirmer Verlag, 2004. Gabolde, M. “Ay, Toutankhamon et les martelages de la stele de la restaurati de Karnak (CG 34183).” BSEG 23 (1987): 37–61. Habachi, L. “Unknown or Little known monuments of Tutankhamun and his Viziers.” In Glimpses of Ancient Egypt in honour of H. W. Fairman, eds. J. Ruffle, G.A. Gaballa, and K.A. Kitchen, 32–41. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1979. Habachi, L. and P. Anus. Le tombeau de Näy à Gournet Mar’eï (No. 271). MIFAO 97. Cairo: IFAO, 1977. Hari, R. Horemheb et la reine Moutnedjemet, ou la fin d’une dynastie. Genèva: Editions de Belles-Lettres, 1964. Helck, W. Der Einfluß der Militärführer in der 18. ägyptischen Dynastie. Leipzig: J.C. Hinriches, 1939. ———. “Probleme der Königsfolge in der Übergangzeit von 18. zu 19. Dyn.” MDAIK 37 (1981): 207–215. Hornung, E. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des Neuen Reiches. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrsowitz, 1964. ———. Das Grab des Haremheb im Tal der Könige, Bern: Francke Verlag, 1971. Janssen, J. “La Reine Nefertari et la succession de Ramsès II par Merenptah.” CdÉ 38 (1963): 30–36. Kawai, N. Studies in the Reign of Tutankhamun. PhD Dissertation. The Johns Hopkins University, 2005. Kees, H. Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat. Leiden: Brill, 1953. Kuhlmann, P. “Der Felstempel des Eje bei Achmim.” MDAIK 35 (1979): 165–188. Le Saout, F. and A. Ma’arouf. “Un nouveau fragment de stele de Toutânkhamon.” Cahiers de Karnak 8 (1985): 285–291. Martin, G.T. The Memphite Tomb of Horemheb, Commander-in-Chief of Tutankhamun. I: Reliefs, Inscriptions, and Commentary. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1989. ———. The Hidden Tombs of Memphis. London/New York: Thames and Hudson, 1991. Martin, G.T., et al. “The Tomb of Maya and Meryt: Preliminary Report on the Saqqara Excavations, 1987–8.” JEA 74 (1988): 1–14. Martin-Pardey, E. “Wesir, Wesirat.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie VI, eds. W. Helck and W. Westendorf, col. 1227–1235. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986. Millar, J. “Amarna Age Chronology and the identification of Nibuhuriya in the Light of Newly reconstructed Hittite Text.” Altorientalische Forchengen 34 (2007): 2, 252–293. Murnane, W.J. “The Return to Orthodoxy.” In Pharaohs of the Sun: Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, eds. R.E. Freed. Y.J. Markowitz and S.H. D’Auria, 177–185. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1993. Newberry, P.E. “King Ay, The Successor of Tutankhamun.” JEA 18 (1932): 50–52. Ockinga, B. A Tomb from the reign of Tutankhamun at Akhmim. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1997. Polz, D. “Die Särge des (Pa)-Ramessu.” MDAIK 42 (1986): 145–166. Pflüger, K. Horemheb und die Amarnazeit. Zwickau: Ullmann, 1936.

292

nozomu kawai

Raven, M.J., B.G. Aston, L. Horáčková, and G.T. Martin. “Preliminary Report on the Leiden Excavation at Saqqara, Season 2005: The Tombs of Horemheb and Meryneith.” JEOL 39 (2005): 6–10. Robins, G. Women in Ancient Egypt. London: The British Museum Press, 1993. Saad, R. “Fragments d’un monument de Toutânkhamon retrouvés dans le Ixe pylôn de Karnak.” Karnak V (1975): 93–109. Sethe, K. “Die Schwägen Amenophis IV.” ZÄS 42 (1905): 134–135. Schaden, O.J. The God’s Father Ay. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1977. ———. “Clearance of the tomb of Ay (WV-23).” JARCE 21 (1984): 59–62. Schulman, A.R. “The Berlin ‘Trauerrelief ’ (No. 12411) and some officials of Tut‘ankhamun and Ay.” JARCE 4 (1965): 55–68. Seele, K.C. “King Ay and the Close of the Amarna Age.” JNES 14 (1955): 168–180. Stempel, R. “Identification of Nibhururiya and the synchronism in the Egyptian and Hittite chronology in the light of newly reconstructed Hittite Text.” GM 213 (2007): 97–100. Thiem, A. Speos von Gebel es-Silsileh. ÄAT 47. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2000. Vandersleyen, C. L’Égypte et la Vallée du Nil, Tombe 2, Die la fin de l’Ancien Empire la fin du Nouvel Empire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1995. Van den Boorn, G.P.F. The Duties of Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. London/New York: Kegan Paul International, 1988. Winlock, H.E. “Harmhab, Commander-in-chief of the Armies of Tutekhamon.” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin XVIII, Part 2, (1923): 3–16. ———. “A Statue of Horemheb before his Accession.” JEA 10 (1924): 1–5.