Viceroys, Viziers & the Amun Precinct

VICEROYS, VIZIERS & THE AMUN PRECINCT: THE POWER OF HEREDITY AND STRATEGIC MARRIAGE IN THE EARLY 18TH DYNASTY* J J Shirley Abstract

The early 18th Dynasty was a time of military and political reorganization and consolidation in which significant administrative changes were enacted that were likely designed to support a “powerful and pervasive royal authority.”1 Certainly the offices of viceroy of Kush and vizier were a central feature of this, and the rise of Amun and his priesthood – with newly created positions – was another area which King Ahmose and his successors sought to promote. While initially the kings may have chosen men to fill the positions of viceroy and vizier, and likely several high posts within the Amun precinct, some office-holders were quickly able to establish family dynasties that would last for several generations. This paper reviews the connections, both political and familial, between the viceroys, viziers and various officials of the Amun domain. It seeks to demonstrate the considerable role that one elite family, utilizing heredity, marriage and nepotism, was able to play in controlling a wide range of positions within the burgeoning 18th Dynasty government.

* A reduced version of this paper was originally given at the 58th Annual ARCE Meeting, held April 20–22, 2007 in Toledo, Ohio. The longer form was then presented at a workshop inaugurating the Journal of Egyptian History entitled In Search of Egypt’s Past: Problems and Perspectives of the Historiography of Ancient Egypt, at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, April 23–24, 2008. The workshop was hosted by Professor Thomas Schneider, whom I would like to thank for the invitation. I would also like to thank Robert Rittner for his suggestion of “strategic marriage” as a way to define the tactics used by early 18th Dynasty elite families. Peter Piccione generously shared his primary data used for his online GIS database of the Theban Necropolis, for which I am especially grateful. In addition, I must acknowledge the work of Ashley Fiutko who patiently and painstakingly created the maps of the Theban Necropolis for this article. Finally, I am grateful to Betsy Bryan, Violaine Chauvet, Aidan Dodson, Steve Harvey, Kasia Szpakowska and Raphael Cunniff for their comments and suggestions, all of which certainly improved the final product. Any remaining mistakes or flaws of logic are purely those of the author. 1 According to van den Boorn’s dating of the “Duties of the Vizier” this was already occurring under King Ahmose; see van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier, 347 ff., 355 ff., 368 ff. But cf. Spalinger, “Review of G.P.F. van den Boorn,” for a different view of the reforms reflected in the “Duties” (he prefers a Middle Kingdom date). See also the review by Lorton, “Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom.” For a recent overview of King Ahmose’s administration, see Barbotin, Âhmosis, 99–112. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 Also available online – brill.nl/jegh

JEGH 3.1 DOI: 10.1163/187416610X487241

74

j j shirley Introduction

Our knowledge of the events which occurred at the end of the Second Intermediate Period into the early 18th Dynasty comes from a variety of sources, including, e.g., the Kamose stelae, private autobiographies and archaeological remains at Tell el-Dab‘a and Abydos. Much of the information that can be gleaned from these sources focuses on the military campaigns led by the late 17th Theban rulers and early 18th Dynasty kings against their Hyksos opponents; and the logistics of these early campaigns, the routes taken and the reasons for them are all topics that have been considered by other scholars in detail.2 The purpose of this paper is to examine the “other side” of the fledgling 18th Dynasty and burgeoning empire. That is, as Egypt found herself once again in command and control of an extensive area, stretching from Sharuhen in southern Palestine to Sai in Nubia, how did King Ahmose and his successors effectively organize the administration of Egypt and its extending borders? And as Egypt’s – and the kings’ – control and power continued to grow both internally and externally, how was the newly (re-)founded bureaucracy formed? Our ability to examine these issues comes in part from the material culture of the officials who served the early and mid-18th Dynasty kings. From the evidence it would appear that at its earliest stages three important areas of administration, namely viceroy, vizier and the Amun precinct, were connected by family ties. How did this come about, and was it, as has been suggested,3 intentional on the part of King Ahmose and his successors, or rather a testament to the power of elite families at the beginning of the New Kingdom? By examining the office holders and families found within these three areas of the government – viceroys, viziers and the Amun precinct – we gain a more informed understanding of the interplay between elite families and the newly established royal line.

See, for example, the various publications of Bietak and others on Tell el-Dab‘a listed at http://www.auaris.at/html/bibliographie_en.html); Harvey, The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos, 35 ff. and 303 ff.; Morris, Imperialism, 27–113; Spalinger, War, 1–83; Spalinger, “Covetous Eyes South”; Redford, Wars, 185–94. 3 See supra note 1. 2

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

75

Viceroys The position of king’s son and overseer of southern countries, or “viceroy,”4 was created during the early 18th Dynasty, perhaps appearing under Kamose, but certainly in place during the reign of King Ahmose.5 A great deal has been written about the ordering and chronology of the mid-18th Dynasty viceroys, where the documentation is problematic at best.6 However, perhaps because of this, the viceroys of the early 18th Dynasty have been somewhat neglected, and an aspect that has not been considered in detail concerns the involvement of the viceroys in the Amun priesthood. Nor has the probable familial relationship between the 18th Dynasty viceroys and viziers been fully explored (see below: Viziers). The work of Habachi7 on the family of the earliest officials who held the full title of “viceroy” has resulted in a solid geneaological reconstruction spanning five generations (Fig. 1). Our knowledge of the family’s patriarch, Ahmose-Satayt/Sayit, is slight, based only on monuments belonging to his son Ahmose-T( j)uro and greatgrandson Tety/Tetitiy. On one of Turo’s seated statues (BM/EA 1279) Ahmose-Satayt/Sayit is referred to only as the scribe of divine offerings of Amun – sš tp-n r n Ἰ mn – and called simply Sayit.8 However, on Tety’s block statue (BM/EA 888) he is called a 4 I follow previous scholars in assigning the title of viceroy only to those officials who were both king’s son and overseer of southern countries. 5 Spalinger, “Covetous Eyes South,” 346 f., 351, 353. Cf. Habachi, “Königssohn von Kusch”, 630–31; Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 111–12 (= JARCE 13, 113); Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 155 f. During the 17th Dynasty, holders of the title and office of king’s son appear to have been entrusted with a wide variety of duties. See Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 305 f.; cf. Schmitz, Untersuchungen zum Titel s¡-njśwt. 6 The earliest work is that of Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” and Gauthier, “Les ‘fils royaux de Kouch’ ”; followed by Habachi, Sixteen Studies and “Königssohn von Kusch”; Dewachter, “Une nouvelle statue du vice-roi de Nubie”; Dewachter, “Le vice-roi Nehy”; Dewachter, “Un nouveau ‘fils royal’”; Dewachter, “Le roi Sahathor – Complements,”; Schmitz, Königssohn. The most recent discussions are those of ElSabbahy, “King’s Son of Kush under Hatshepsut”; Pamminger, “Nochmals zum Problem der Vizekonige”; Dziobek “Some Kings’ Sons Revisted”; Bács, “A name with three (?) orthographies.” See also Bryan, “The Eighteenth Dynasty before the Amarna Period,” 101–2; Spalinger, “Covetous Eyes South,” 346 f., 351, 353. 7 Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, Ch. 3–5. 8 A sandstone seated statue, possibly from Kerma, BM/EA 1279. Turo gives his lineage on either side of the statue seat; on the left side he is ı’r.n sš tp-n r n ’Imn S¡-yı’t m¡ - rw. See Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 91–6, fig. 34–5 (= Kush 9, 210–14, pl. XXXVIII); Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 29 ff. (= Kush 5, 13 ff.); PM VII, 180; Gauthier, “Les ‘fils royaux de Kouch’,” 185; Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 78; British Museum, Guide, 182 (no. 653). Although the correct official, Eichler, Die Verwaltung

76

j j shirley

viceroy – sš nsw ı’my-r ¡swt rsyt – and his full name, Ahmose-Satayt, is used.9 Tety’s block statue also provides additional genealogical information, solidifying the kinship connections between these men. The inscription on the back pillar provides Tety’s ancestry for three generations, naming Tety as the son of Ahmose-Patjen, who was the son of Ahmose-Turo, himself the son of Ahmose-Satayt.10 In addition, on the statue’s front the horizontal line of text along the bottom indicates that the statue was dedicated by Tety’s own son Hori, a scribe of divine offerings of Amun, thus giving us five generations of this family.11 The father-son relationship between Turo and Ahmose-Patjen is confirmed by a second seated statue of Turo, erected at Deir el-Bahri, and made for him by Ahmose-Patjen, who is referred to as Turo’s son (s¡.f ) and called the scribe of divine offerings – sš tp n r.12 The final male family member is another son of Ahmose-Patjen, named Amunemhab, who erected a block statue of his own father at Deir el-Bahri.13 This Amunemhab, like his father and brother, functioned within the Amun precinct as a scribe of divine offerings of Amun and also as a 4th priest of Amun – tp-n r 4 n ’Imn.14 Finally, several female members of the family are named on the monuments of their husbands and sons, though little else is known about them. Turo names his mother Satiah on the seated des “Hauses des Amun”, no. 009, incorrectly gives the name as Ahmose son of (Ta-)yit rather than Ahmose-Satayt. 9 A quartzite block statue, possibly from Deir el-Bahri, BM/EA 888. See Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 66–9, fig. 25–6, and 78–9 (= Kush 7, pl. XV–XVI); Gauthier, “Les ‘fils royaux de Kouch’,” 183; Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts V, 9, pl. 25; Schulz, Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus I, 377, no. 218. 10 See above. The inscription, which comprises one horizontal row above three vertical columns, reads: (1) sš nsw ry- b r-tp // Tty (2) s¡.f sš tp-n r n ’Imn ’I -ms P¡ n¡ m¡ - rw (3) s¡ s¡-nsw ’ımy-r ¡swt rsyt ’I -ms Twr m¡ - rw (4) s¡ s¡-nsw ı’ my-r ¡swt rsyt ’I -ms S¡-t¡yt m¡ - rw. 11 The inscription reads: s¡.f sš tp-n r n ’Imn rı’ ms.n nbt pr Mwt-nsw. Cf. Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no. 438. 12 A sandstone seated statue from Deir el-Bahri. On the right side of the seat the last three columns give Turo’s title and name followed by: (x+2) ı’ r.n ı’ n s¡.f s n rn (x+3) [.f sš tp-n r n ’Imn ’I -ms] d n.f P¡ n m¡ - rw r n r ¡. The last column on the left side reads: . . . ı’ n s¡ mr.f s n rn.f sš tp-n r n ’Imn. See Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 69–76, 84 f. (= Kush 7, 48–53, 59, fig. 3–7, pl. XVII–XVII); Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple Part III, 8, pl. IX Ca-f; Helck, Historisch-biographische Texte, 114 ff. 13 A black granite statue from Deir el-Bahri, Chicago OIM 8653. See Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 76–7, fig. 32 (= Kush 7, 53–4, fig. 8); Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple Part III, 2, pl. IV 3, VIIIA; Schulz, Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus I, 121, no. 47. Cf. Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no. 008. 14 Cf. Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no. 076, who however leaves out the 4th priest of Amun title.

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

77

statue mentioned above (BM/EA 1279)15 and included the name of his wife Hapi in the inscription he left on a limestone temple gateway at Buhen.16 A seated pair statue of Ahmose-Patjen and his wife preserves a portion of her name as Tar . . .,17 and on Tety’s block statue his wife Mutnesu is given as his son Hori’s mother.18 From the inscriptions on the statues mentioned above it becomes clear that two main positions were held by this family: viceroy by Satayt and Turo, and scribe of divine offerings of Amun by all but Turo, who, however, was a scribe of the temple and seems to have had other temple-related positions.19 Yet the only extensive information we have on this family concerns Turo and his grandson Tety, who functioned within the Amun precinct in both priestly and administrative capacities.20 Even so, Turo is the only family member for whom a clear career path can be reconstructed based on contemporaneously dated inscriptions.21 15 Turo gives his lineage on either side of the statue seat; on the right side he is ms.n nbt pr S¡t-ı’ m¡ t- rw. See supra note 8. 16 UPenn Museum E10987. The thickness of the door depicts Tjuro and his wife standing facing each other above a 5-row tp-dı’ -nsw inscription; the last line reads mt.f nbt pr pı’ . See Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 82 (= Kush 7, 57), 156; PM VII, 130; Randall-MacIver, Buhen, 88; Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 29, 1a; SäveSöderbergh, Agypten und Nubien, 144 n.7; Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 76–7, 198, 207 Anm. 7, pl. LXXX 3; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, 136. 17 A black grano-diorite statue, probably from Thebes, MFA 1972.359. See Simpson, “Ah-mose, called Pa-tjenna” and “Egyptian Statuary of Courtiers in Dynasty 18,” 37–40; Eggebrecht and Eggebrecht, Ägyptens aufsteig zur Weltmacht, 206 no. 130. The end of the 7-column inscription on the right side is partially lost, reading: n k¡ n T¡-r //////// m-n r 4 n ’Imn nb //// ’Imn //// which, based on the space available, could plausibly be restored with their son Amunemhab’s name as // [ı’ n s¡.sn] m-n r 4 n ’Imn nb [nsty n t¡wy ?] // [sš tp-n r n ’Imn] ’Imn-m- b. Although Simpson suggested that the broken area could give the name of Tar . . .’s father (Simpson, “Egyptian Statuary of Courtiers in Dynasty 18,” 40), it seems more likely that it is the son’s name as the dedicator of the statue. This interpretation is supported by the left side of the seat where following the only 5-column inscription the remaining space is taken up by a male figure in an offering pose with his right arm outstretched and reaching into the final column of the inscription, containing Ahmose-Patjen’s name. This side is likewise damaged, though there would be space below Patjen’s name either for a dedication or inclusion of lineage, while above the figure additional text could have been placed. 18 BM/EA 888, see supra note 9. Her name and filiation is included in the line of text also giving their son Hori’s name: s¡.f sš tp-n r n ’Imn rı’ ms.n nbt pr Mwt-nsw. 19 Cf. Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no. 008 (Ahmose-Satayt), no. 009 (Ahmose-Patjen), no. 076 (Amunemhab), no. 438 (Hori), no. 547 (Tety); she does not include Turo in her catalog. 20 Tety’s titles are listed on his block statue, BM/EA 888; see supra note 9. 21 Cf. Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 81–9 (= Kush 7, 56–64), 156-57. As all of Tety’s titles come from his one block statue, BM/EA 888, any chronological reconstruction of his career would be both relative and speculative.

78

j j shirley

Ahmose-Satayt/Sayit sš tp-n r n ’Imn s¡-nsw ı’my-r ¡swt rsyt

Ahmose-Turo/Tjuro/Tjuri sš wt / s -n r ı’t n r ı’my-r k¡w m-n r tp sw n Bhn s¡-nsw (n) ı’my-r ¡swt rsyt

Ahmose-Paten/Patjen/Patjena sš tp-n r n ’Imn

Amunemhab sš tp-n r n ’Imn m-ntr 4 n ’Imn (? )

Satiah nbt pr

Hapi

Ta-r/// krt nswt

Tety/Tetitiy sš tp-n r n ’Imn ry sšt¡ m pr ’Imn mw m pr Pt sš nswt ry- b r-tp m-n r Šw Tfnwt m-n r r ı’my-r sšw sm n pr dw¡t

Mutnesu nbt pr

Hor(i) sš tp-n r n ’Imn

Fig. 1

Genealogy of the Early 18th Dynasty Viceroys and Their Families.

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

79

Before becoming viceroy, Turo, like his father, was a member of the priesthood. Two graffiti, one from Abu Simbel22 and the other from Abuhuda,23 document that he was the scribe of the temple (or perhaps shrine),24 god’s father, overseer of cattle, ¡ty- , and high priest. A statuette which may have belonged to Turo also gives the title w b-priest of Montu, lord of Thebes.25 The Abu Simbel inscription, and thus the time frame for which Turo held these positions, can be firmly dated to in or before year eighteen of King Ahmose by the paleography of Turo’s name, which is written in its full form, Ahmose-Turo, with the ı’ -, or moon-, sign (Gardiner N11/12) turned upwards.26 The inscriptions Turo left on the North Temple gateway at Buhen,27 which he erected for King Ahmose, indicate that before regnal year eighteen Turo also became the commander ( sw) of the fortress at Buhen.28 Although only Turo’s shortened name is given, on the lintel of the gateway the writing of King Ahmose and his mother Ahhotep’s names are done with the points of the ı’ -sign facing upwards, indicating a pre-year eighteen date. The progression of Turo’s career is enhanced by his Deir el-Bahri statue inscription – mentioned above29 – and its similarities to the 22 Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 81 (= Kush 7, 56); Gauthier, “Les ‘fils royaux de Kouch’,” 182; Lepsius, Denkmäler, Text V, 168. The text reads: ir.n sš wt/s n r it-n r ı’ my-r k¡w ¡ty- m-n r tpy ’I -ms d.f Tw-r m¡ - rw. 23 Habachi, Sixteeen Studies, 82 (= Kush 7, 57); Weigall, Antiquities of Lower Nubia, 139; Maspero, “Notes de voyage,” 159; PM VII, 119. The text reads: sš wt/s n r Tw-r. 24 wt n r = WB III, 5.1: in titles of temple officials, e.g. temple scribe. s n r = WB III, 465.6: temple building for offerings and 465.7: in titles alone or with god’s name following. 25 The limestone statuette comes from Deir el-Bahri and dates to early Dynasty 18. It was dedicated by Turo’s son and likely intended as a votive piece. See Hall, Hieroglyphic Texts V, 8, pl. 24, no. 40960. 26 Based on dated inscriptions King Ahmose changed the writing of his name around regnal year 18, turning the i moon-sign downwards. See Vandersleyen, “Une stèle d’Amosis” where he revises the year 17 date he posited in Les Guerres d’Amosis, 205 ff. See also the recent discussion by Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 14–20, 57 f., which mentions the possible existence of a year 22 writing of Ahmose’s name with the i -sign facing upwards. 27 Upenn Museum E10987. See supra note 16. According to Smith, the lintel, jambs and right thickness, which were found reused in the floor of Chamber E, were originally part of the doorway between chambers E and D of the temple, and were inscribed not earlier than King Ahmose’s year twelve, but it is unclear why he concluded this; see Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 76–7, 198, 207 Anm. 7. 28 Below the king’s titulary on both jambs are three rows of text that read: (1) ı’ n sw (2) n Bhn (3) wrı’ w m n . On the right thickness the figures of Turo and his wife Hapi stand facing each other with five rows of text below containing the tp-dı’ -nsw formula for the k¡ of (3) sw n Bhn (4) wrı’ w m n (5) mt.f nbt pr py. 29 See supra note 12.

80

j j shirley

text of Seni, the viceroy who succeeded Turo during the reign of Thutmose I.30 While the sides and rear of Turo’s seated statue contain the typical tp-dı’-nsw formula, the inscriptions along the front and around the pedestal seem to form a narrative of Turo’s career. Based on what remains, it appears that the front inscriptions formed one unit and the pedestal another, with each side of the pedestal designed to be read before moving to the next, starting at the right. A plausible reconstruction is that Turo was in charge of inspecting “the entire Medjay,”31 then was involved with or perhaps rewarded with items “worked in gold” before being sent or brought as viceroy to “the Southern Countries.”32 Although it seems likely that Turo had these duties while commander at Buhen, the use of the verb p in reference to becoming viceroy, as well as the damaged condition of the inscription, do leave open the possibility that Turo held another, as yet unknown title. While the first dated inscription for Turo as viceroy comes from the early years of Amunhotep I’s reign, it is possible that he was promoted by King Ahmose sometime after year eighteen. This is suggested by both the provenance of several of Turo’s monuments and the writing of his name on them. A scarab of the “viceroy” Turo was found in a grave at Semna, and a fragment of a sandstone statue and a jar-sealing on which Turo is called “king’s son” were both found at Buhen.33 In addition, on BM/EA 1279 which was 30 Urk.IV, 39 ff. and 141 f. See Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 84 f. (= Kush 7, 59 f.), 156 f.; Breasted, “Second Preliminary Report”, 105; Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 342–43; Pamminger, “Nochmals zum Problem der Vizekonige”; el-Sabbahy, “King’s Son of Kush under Hatshepsut”; Dziobek, “Some Kings’ Sons Revisted”; SaveSoderbergh, 1941, 208–9; Dewachter, “Le vice-roi Nehy”; Simpson, Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna, 33–4; Spalinger, “Covetous Eyes South,” 353; Helck, Verwaltung, 419–20. 31 Based on the vertical inscription on the statue’s front. Along the left front of the statue (the only vertical inscription remaining): ///// sı’ p.n.f M ¡yw mı’ d.f n ¡t n mr (sic mn ?) ry-ı’ b ////. The right side of the pedestal is lost, but in comparison to Seni’s Kumma inscription, may have contained the beginning of this inscription with Turo’s titles and name, cf. Urk. IV, 141–2. 32 The front contains the phrases (1) . . . b¡kw m nbw and (3) ı’ w p .n.ı’ (continuing on the left side) (1) ¡swt rsyt m s¡ nswt ı’ my-r ¡swt rsyt. While it is uncertain whether the inscriptions formed a contiguous narrative, it does seem likely, especially given the comparison to Seni’s inscription (Urk. IV, 39–41). Cf. Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 85 (= Kush 7, 59). 33 The scarab was found in grave S.711 at Semna (no. 24–4–5); see Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 86 (= Kush 7, 60). Only a fragment of the statue base was found; see Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 156 n.7; Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 132 no. 1629, 198, 208, pl. 31, 3. According to Smith, it was found as part of the fill for the enclosure wall of the South Temple, which was built during the reign of Hatshepsut. The jar-sealing

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

81

found “near Kerma” and which was likely erected during Turo’s lifetime, he is referred to as the viceroy Ahmose-Turo, with his full name written with the ı’ -sign facing downwards.34 King Ahmose changed the paleography of his name around year eighteen in precisely this manner – an alteration that the elite would certainly have quickly followed in their own names. This combined evidence could support the idea that during the last half of King Ahmose’s reign Turo was promoted to succeed his father Satayt as viceroy after having served in priestly capacities and as commander of Buhen during the first half of King Ahmose’s reign, while has father was still viceroy.35 Whether Turo was promoted by King Ahmose is uncertain, but his graffiti at Semna West36 and Uronarti, the latter with the year and prenomen of Amunhotep I (Djeserkare),37 demonstrate that certainly by year seven or eight of Amunhotep I (c.1518/17 BCE) Turo was “king’s son, overseer of southern countries,” i.e., viceroy. Turo apparently served as viceroy throughout Amunhotep I’s twenty year reign, and was sent a royal decree by Thutmose I announcing his ascension to the throne.38 The last known date for Turo as viceroy is from year three of Thutmose I (c.1501 BCE), when he was involved in clearing a canal near the 1st cataract that was used by Thutmose on his return from campaigns in Kush.39 It would thus seem that Turo, like his father, was first a member of the priesthood before becoming viceroy. However, Turo also came from the commander’s palace (Block A, Room 4) and Smith dates it to later in Turo’s career (Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 208). 34 See supra note 8. This writing is also used on Turo’s sandstone seated statue from Deir el-Bahri (see supra note 12), though this has the name restored, and on his grandson Tety’s statue, BM/EA 888 (see supra note 9). 35 Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 156; Gauthier, “Les ‘fils royaux de Kouch’,” 185; cf. Säve-Söderbergh, Agypten und Nubien, 197 n. 7. 36 Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 82 (= Kush 7, 57); Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 29, 1b; Breasted, “Second Preliminary Report,” 108. 37 Inscribed on the walls of Amunhotep I’s temple to Dedwen and Montu. See Habachi Sixteen Studies, 82–3 (= Kush 7, 57–8); Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 29, 1c; Urk. IV 78 (29); cf. PM VII, 143–44. 38 Preserved on stelae from Quban (Berlin 13725) and Wadi Halfa (CM 34006). See Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 83 (= Kush 7, 58), 157; Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 29, 1d; PM VII, 84, 141; Urk IV, 79–81; Smith, Buhen: Inscriptions, 198, 208. 39 Habachi, Sixteen Studies, 33, 1–2, fig. 6-Inscr. 1 (= Kush 5, 15, plate V, Insc. 1) and 83–4 (= Kush 7, 58–9); Reisner, “The Viceroys of Ethiopia,” 29, 1e; de Morgan, Catalogue, 85, 13 and 19; Urk. IV 89–90 (34)B–C; PM V, 250. Cf. Helck, “Überlegungen zur Geschichte,” 283–84; Schmitz, Königssohn, 45–6; Smith, Buhen, 207; Morkot, “Studies in New Kingdom Nubia I,” 30; Kadry, Officers and Officials, 10; Spalinger, “Covetous Eyes South,” 351.

82

j j shirley

appears to have followed a somewhat planned path, moving from the priesthood to military commander of Buhen and then to the civil position of viceroy.40 This could suggest that his father, for whom only the two titles “scribe of divine offerings of Amun” and “viceroy” are known, may have been hand-picked out of the priesthood for the post of viceroy by King Ahmose as part of his efforts to form a strong government whose top officials would have clear loyalty to the king.41 In contrast, Turo’s more fluid path to the viceroyalty reflects Satayt’s ability to groom his son for the post and demonstrates that this family had some degree of power in Nubia, at least for a short time, since Turo was unable to retain control, and the viceroy who succeeded him during the reign of Thutmose I was not his son Ahmose-Patjen, but an unrelated man called Seni.42 In fact, when one compiles the titles listed by Turo’s family on their various monuments (see Fig. 1) what becomes apparent is that it is not the position of viceroy that was held by this family throughout the early-mid 18th Dynasty, but rather that of scribe of divine offerings of Amun. With the exception of Turo, every known male relative for six generations held this position, though, as was noted above, Turo also started out in the priesthood as the scribe of a temple or shrine. Indeed, by the fourth generation the family seems to have been well entrenched in the priesthood overall, both as priests and administrators. The connection between Turo’s family and the Amun precinct will be returned to below, following a discussion of the familial relationship between the early 18th Dynasty viceroys and viziers. 40 The promotion of Turo from military commander to viceroy is accompanied by the transition from military to civil officials being placed in charge of the newly re-won and re-furbished fortress in Lower Nubia as witnessed by Turo’s successor at Buhen being termed “mayor” rather than “commander.” See most recently Spalinger, “Covetous Eyes South,” 351. 41 Cf. van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier, 347 ff., 355 ff. 42 See supra note 30. Of note is that Seni also held Amun-related titles before becoming viceroy, he was an overseer (of something) under King Ahmose (Urk. IV, 39 ff.), during the reign of Amunhotep I he became overseer of the granary of Amun to direct construction work at Karnak and mayor of Thebes (Urk. IV, 142), and became king’s son and overseer of southern countries under Thutmose I–II (Urk. IV, 41.8). Whether or not Seni should be equated with the mayor of Thebes Seni-res, known from the tomb of his son Djhutynefer, TT317, is uncertain, but if Ineni (the architect of Thutmose I’s tomb) did in fact take over the position of overseer of the granaries of Amun from Seni in year 3 when Seni became viceroy, then it seems plausible that Ineni also became mayor of Thebes at this time, taking over for Seni/Seni-res; cf. Dziobek, Ineni, 125.

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

83

Viziers While the position of viceroy was created at the start of the 18th Dynasty, that of vizier seems to not have been re-introduced until the reign of Thutmose I.43 The first known vizier, Imhotep, served under Thutmose I, but it is his successor Ahmose-Aametu who presents us with a line of viziers that is in many ways the example par excellence of the ability of officials at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty to retain control over a position through multiple generations and several kings, from Thutmose I through the early years of Amunhotep II. Beginning with Ahmose-Aametu the office of vizier is traceable through three generations of the same family on the basis of numerous monuments.44 Although our knowledge of AhmoseAametu’s ancestors and early career is extremely sparse,45 that of his descendants is not. Indeed, the majority of our information about his family comes from the monuments of Aametu’s son and successor as vizier Useramun,46 as well as Useramun’s nephew, and also successor, Rekhmire. This extensive family dominated the vizierate by employing the “staff of old age” (mdw ı’¡w) and heredity to maintain their position.47 In Useramun’s case, he was appointed as a mdw ı’¡w for his aging father; a process he recorded in his lower tomb (TT131) in the so-called “Co-Installation Text.”48 After becoming vizier in year five of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III, Useramun retained his position until sometime between years 28 43 While there are references to viziers during the 13th and 16th Dynasties, none are known for the 15th, 17th or even early 18th Dynasties; Imhotep, who served under Thutmose I, is the first attested vizier. See Hornung, “Amunophis I,” 202; Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 305 ff. 44 For a useful listing of this family and their monuments see Dziobek, Denkmäler, 103–28. 45 For a complete list of Aametu’s monuments, with full citations, and including the titles Aametu held on each monument see Dziobek, Denkmäler, 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 funerary cones belonging to his relatives. For TT83, see also the discussion in Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 282–84. 46 For a complete discussion of Useramun, including his career and monuments, see Dziobek, Denkmäler and Die Gräber des Vezirs. 47 See Shirley, Culture of Officialdom, 80–95. 48 The text is located on the west end of the southeast wall and includes a presentation scene of Useramun and his father before Thutmose III. See the discussion in Dziobek, Denkmäler, 16–21.

84

j j shirley

and 34 of Thutmose III’s sole reign.49 He was succeeded as vizier by his nephew Rekhmire, who appears to have inherited the office due to his family ties and perhaps because none of Useramun’s own sons were eligible.50 Rekhmire certainly stresses his kinship to both Usermaun and Aametu in his own tomb, TT100, above those of his own parents, perhaps in an effort to emphasize his familial right to inherit the position. Before becoming vizier Rekhmire also held several administrative posts within the Amun precinct which may have assisted in his rise to vizier over Useramun’s other sons.51 Indeed, in addition to the vizierate, Aametu and his descendants can be found throughout the Amun domain – both priestly and administrative – a feature which will be more fully explored below (Thebes and the Amun Cult). First however, the relationship between the viziers and viceroys during the early 18th Dynasty will be examined. The connection between these two offices, and the office-holders, is based on the Silsilah shrine of Useramun.52 On the north wall of the shrine Useramun stands offering to his parents with three registers of offering bearers behind him. In the bottom register Useramun’s siblings are depicted – five brothers on the left and three sisters,53 49 Year 5 is provided by Papyrus Turin 1. Year 28 of Thutmose III is the last attested date for Useramun as vizier, provided by a stela in the tomb of his steward, Amunemhat – TT82, PM I.1, 163–67. Papyrus Louvre E.3226 provides the earliest date for Rekhmire as vizier, in year 34 of Thutmose III. 50 For this argument, see Dziobek, Denkmäler, 126–28. 51 Prior to becoming co-vizier, Useramun was an official in the Amun priesthood; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, 100–1. Rekhmire, unlike Useramun’s sons who were primarily priests in the Amun precinct, does not seem to have had many of the same Amun and Karnak related titles held by Useramun. Significantly, Rekhmire did not have any titles that dealt with the divine seal, and his positions were primarily administrative in nature. In addition, in contrast to Useramun, most of Rekhmire’s Amun or Karnak related titles seem to be those that come under his jurisdiction as vizier (e.g. overseer of all craftsmen of Amun, controller of all work in Karnak) rather than necessarily being titles that he held independent of assuming this office (Helck, Verwaltung, 45ff.; Kees, Priestertum, 81. See also Allen, “The High Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom,” 15 and Quirke, “The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom,” 118 on this trend in the Middle Kingdom.) This may suggest that a specific path to the vizierate through the Amun priesthood did not exist, or perhaps that an administrative role in the Amun precinct was important and thus Rekhmire’s placement within the precinct was more significant than that of Useramun’s sons. 52 Shrine 17; see Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl. 46. 53 All of the children are called s¡.f / s¡t.f with reference to Ahmose-Aametu. The brothers are, from right to left: ı’ my-r nt Amunemhat, ı’ my-r šn n ’Imn Neferhotep (see Shirley, “One Tomb, Two Owners,” forthcoming, for the restoration of the name), w b n ’Imn Neferweben, w b n Mwt Nacht/Amunnacht, and w b Hor; the sisters from

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

85

along with Useramun’s wife Tuiu, and three other female relatives on the right.54 At the head of the row of women stands the king’s son and overseer of southern countries Turo. No filiation is given for Turo, making his relationship to Aametu’s family and reason for inclusion in this scene unclear. Dziobek has suggested that Turo’s presence in the Silsilsah shrine was due to him being a distinguished colleague and a generational contemporary of Aametu’s and hence a family friend. In support of this he posits that the children of both Turo and Aametu were active in the priesthood connected to Deir el-Bahri, but that Turo’s wife being Hapi likely precludes an intermarriage of these families.55 However, as we do not know anything about Aametu’s siblings, Turo’s wife Hapi, whose parents are likewise unknown, certainly could have been a relative of Aametu. As will be seen below, there is also a similarity in name-patterns between Aametu’s and Turo’s families which is germane to the discussion and may indicate an even closer relationship. In addition, a familial connection is suggested by the nature of the Silsilah shrines as family monuments that often depict multiple generations, and the fact that the persons depicted in the shrines as recipients, as well as those around them, when identifiable, are exclusively family members.56 Thus the question of a family relationship, either through marriage or blood, must be re-visited. While Aametu and Turo could have been colleagues of different ages – and thus loosely contemporary – the relative ages of Aametu and Turo are relevant for ascertaining a marital or filial bond between the men, and hence should be reexamined. Dziobek suggests that Turo left or retired as viceroy just as Aametu became left to right: Ahmose, Ahhotep, Sentihotep. See Caminos and James, Silsilah I, pl. 46; Dziobek, Denkmäler, 112–19, pl. 6–7. Aametu’s sons are also found in TT100 of Rekhmire in the same order, with Useramun placed between Amunemhat and Neferhotep; see Davies, Rekh-mi-rē‘ I, pl. IX; Dziobek, Denkmäler, pl. 8. 54 Tuiu, called mt s¡.f, follows the sisters, with the three final women standing behind her. The first of these, deginated mt s¡.f Baket is probably a sister-in law of Useramun, with perhaps two more sisters or even daughters of Useramun, s¡t.f Baket and //[Nofretar]i, at the end of the row. Cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, 114–19. 55 Dziobek (Denkmäler, 136 f.) bases the Deir el-Bahri connection on the find spot of several statues. See discussion below. 56 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 Amunemhat and TT56 of the scribe of counting bread Userhat. However this practice was apparently not followed at Silsilah, see Caminos and James, Silsilah I, 4 ff.

86

j j shirley

vizier, so there would not have been a large age difference between them.57 However, if one retired as the other attained his highest position, it implies that not only would they not really be colleagues, but could also be rather distant in age. Indeed, when the careers of Aametu and Turo are charted it becomes clear that at the very least there was a generation gap between them – and thus can not be truly labeled as “close contemporaries” with regard to age. We know that Useramun succeeded his father Aametu as vizier in year five of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III (c.1474 BCE). Following Dziobek, if we assume Aametu was approximately sixty years of age at this time, then Aametu was born during the latter half of Ahmose’s reign, c.1534 BCE and had a roughly forty-year career spanning the reigns of Amunhotep I to the early years of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III, having become vizier under Thutmose I.58 This estimated date of birth accords well with the paleography of Aametu’s full name, Ahmose-Aametu, in his tomb (TT83), as the points of the ı’ -sign are turned downwards.59 Turo however was already a commander of Buhen under King Ahmose and early in the reign of Thutmose I retired or was replaced as viceroy.60 Indeed, from Turo’s earliest inscriptions it Dziobek, Denkmäler, 136 f. Dziobek, Denkmäler, 111. Dziobek assumes that Aametu had a 40 year career that began around age 20 under Amunhotep I (c.1514 BCE) and that he became vizier around age 40 under Thutmose I (c.1494 BCE). The assertion by Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 284, that Aametu was born at the end of Dynasty 17 and built his tomb late in the reign of King Ahmose or early Amunhotep I does not seem plausible as this would place him at an extremely advanced age in year 5 of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III. 59 It should be noted, however, that Aametu’s mother’s name – Iahhotep – is also written this way in his tomb. While it is possible that Aametu changed the writing of his name to follow his king (as Turo did), this seems less likely given that even if Aametu was born in the first half of King Ahmose’s reign, he would only be around 10 when the change occurred and around 20 when King Ahmose died – a rather early age and career stage to be so concerned with pleasing the king. In addition, the writing of Iahhotep could perhaps be explained as a result of the paleographic change; the same form is used for Turo’s parents’ names on his sandstone statue (BM/EA 1279), and certainly their names could originally have been written with the ı’ -sign turned upwards. 60 On this issue it is interesting to note that around year two or three Thutmose I campaigned in Upper Nubia, leaving inscriptions at the 3rd and 4th cataracts. Could it be, as Dziobek suggested (“Some Kings’ Sons Revisted,” 31f.), that Turo was replaced as viceroy following these campaigns due to his inability to effectively control or police Egypt’s southern border in Lower Nubia? And following from this it might be possible to suggest that Turo took up his position immediately preceding Amunhotep I’s campaigns to the 2nd cataract in year eight. 57 58

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

87

seems likely that by King Ahmose’s seventeenth year, c.1532 BCE, Turo was at least in his mid-twenties, and quite possibly older, since he held several priestly positions and had become commander of Buhen by this point. If we put Turo at age twenty-five in 1532 BCE then he was born c.1557 BCE in the late 17th Dynasty. Our inscriptional evidence for Turo’s career as viceroy spans the seventeen years from year seven of Amunhotep I to year three of Thutmose I (c.1518–1501 BCE), during which time Turo would have aged roughly from thirty-nine to fifty-six.61 In Thutmose I’s third year however, Aametu would have been only around thirtythree, making him twenty-three years younger than Turo – a not insignificant difference. This age difference can only be lessened by making Turo younger and/or Aametu older, however such attempts result in unlikely career scenarios. If Turo was born in c.1552 BCE and thus only twenty when he was commander of Buhen – which seems to be a very young age for such a position of authority – we are still left with an eighteen year gap between the two men (with Aametu born in c.1534 BCE). On the other hand, if we increase Aametu’s age to seventy upon his retirement in c.1474 BCE, this places his birth at c.1544 BCE in the early years of King Ahmose’s reign. While long lives were not unknown for Egyptian royalty and the elite, seventy is still a rather advanced age to postulate for Aametu’s retirement.62 Regardless, there is still a thirteen year gap (with Turo born in c.1557 BCE) between the two men. The only way that Turo’s presence in the Silsilah shrine can be explained as due to his being a colleague also contemporary in age with Aametu is if Turo was only twenty when he became commander of Buhen, thus born in c.1552 BCE, and Aametu was nearing seventy when he retired, thus born in c.1544 BCE, which results in only an eight year gap between them. This would mean that as Turo retired and Aametu became vizier they would be fiftyone and forty-three respectively. However, as already mentioned, 61 This age range also allows for the possibility that Turo was promoted earlier by King Ahmose, becoming viceroy in his late twenties or early thirties. 62 It may be worth noting here that in the “Co-Installation Text” in Useramun’s lower tomb (TT131) Thutmose III’s courtiers request that Useramun be made as a “staff of old age” (mdw ı’ ¡w) for his father Aametu because the vizier had reached old age and his back was bowed with the weight of his responsibilities. The accompanying scene does depict Aametu as slightly bent over, as if with a bowed back. Perhaps then this is a representation of Aametu’s advanced age?

88

j j shirley

twenty seems a very young and unlikely age for Turo to already be the highest military authority in Buhen as its commander, even given his father’s position as viceroy; particularly because during King Ahmose’s reign Buhen was of significant importance for Egypt’s control of Nubia. Likewise, Aametu retiring at sixty is already an advanced age, so adding another ten years seems equally dubious. Thus the evidence and chronology indicate that there is certainly a generation gap between Turo and Aametu and they are around twenty-three years apart, making Turo significantly closer in age to Aametu’s parents than Aametu himself, and refuting the idea that they were colleagues and generational contemporaries. So if Aametu and Turo were not in fact colleagues and contemporaries in age, but instead were most likely a full generation apart, why is Turo depicted in the Silsilah shrine? This brings us back to the issue of a possible familial relationship. As noted above, a familial connection is suggested by the nature of the Silsilah shrines as exclusively family monuments. Dziobek is correct in asserting that an intermarriage of the families did not exist, but not for the reason he gives – that Turo’s wife being Hapi precludes a marriage between him and Aametu’s family; Turo’s marriage is in fact irrelevant. Rather, an intermarriage is not probable because the most likely reconstruction is that Aametu and Turo were filially related. It has already been mentioned that we know almost nothing about Aametu’s ancestors or how he became vizier. Aametu’s father’s name is unknown, but based on a ceiling inscription from his Theban tomb (TT83) his mother’s name was likely Iahhotep (’I - tp).63 We know Turo’s parents were Ahmose-Satayt and Satiah (S¡t-ı’ ), and based on the preceding discussion of the age gap between Turo and Aametu, we can posit that Turo and Aametu’s mother Iahhotep were close in age. The similarity in the names of these four individuals – incorporating “Ahmose” in the men’s and “Iah” in the women’s names – makes it possible to suggest that Iahhotep was a sister of Turo, named in part after their mother Satiah in a similar fashion to Turo’s full name Ahmose-Turo which follows the pattern of their father. The reason for Turo’s inclusion in the

63 Found in the portico of TT83; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, 103, 111. Although damaged, personal inspection by the author confirms that the name is written with the ı’ points turned down.

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

89

Silsilah shrine is now clear: he was an honored family member who, as viceroy, had held a position of great importance (Fig. 2). Thus already at the very beginning of Dynasty 18 we have one family holding, for multiple generations, the most important administrative positions as the respective heads of newly reunified and re-bureaucratized Egypt, vizier, and re-conquered Nubia, viceroy. Polz has suggested that the Theban 17th Dynasty kings entrusted the duties traditionally assigned to the vizier to the “king’s son” (s¡ nsw).64 This possibility accords well with the familial relationship between the viceroys and viziers proposed here and strengthens the power of this family. Rather than having the position of viceroy move out of the family just as that of vizier enters into their control, it can be suggested that Ahmose-Satayt and Turo were both viziers in their capacity as “king’s sons,” as well as viceroys; and that shortly after the position of vizier was re-instituted it was placed in this family’s hands.65 In addition, this extended family also held positions throughout the Amun domain, the next area for discussion. Thebes and the Amun Cult Within the Amun precinct based in Thebes we find yet another area of administration that was burgeoning in importance at the start Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 305 f. Was Thutmose I wary of having both Egypt and Lower Nubia effectively under the control of one family, thus resulting in the replacement of Turo with an unrelated man, who it must be noted, also had Theban and Amun connections? Seni also held Amun-related titles before becoming vizier: he was an overseer (of something) under King Ahmose (Urk. IV, 39 ff.), during the reign of Amunhotep I he became the overseer of the granary of Amun and mayor of Thebes (Urk. IV, 142), and became king’s son and overseer of southern countries under Thutmose I–II; see Urk. IV, 41.8; Breasted, “Second Preliminary Report,” 105; Davies and Macadam, Corpus, nos. 342–43; Helck, Verwaltung, 419–20; Dziobek, Ineni, 125. Although other titles are unknown for Amunemnekhu, viceroy at least in yr. 18 of Hatshepsut-Thutmose III), and nothing can be said of the elusive In . . . of year 20, it is clear that with the sole reign of Thutmose III, and continuing under Amunhotep II, all the known viziers have titles that reflect both a military background and a close personal relationship to the king, likely reflecting a change in policy of the king. It is interesting to note that under Thutmose IV the additional titles held by the viziers once again include a lack of military and prevalence of Amun-related offices, but whether this is a true return to the earlier situation is unclear as the rise of the Ptahmose family in Memphis is certainly also a factor. See discussions by Bryan, Thutmose IV, 244, 268 and Murnane “The Organization of the Government,” esp. 202 ff. for Ptahmose. 64 65

Ta-ametu

Iahhotep

Menkheperresoneb sš tpw-n r (tp) n ’Imn

Fig. 2

2 sons

1 daughter

5 sons

Betau krt nswt

Satiah nbt pr

5 daughters

3 daughters

6 sons

Hapi

Amunemhab sš tp-n r n ’Imn m-ntr 4 n ’Imn (?)

Ahmose-Paten/Patjen/Patjena sš tp-n r n ’Imn

Ahmose-Turo/Tjuro/Tjuri sš wt / s -n r sw n Bhn s¡-nsw (n) ı’my-r ¡swt rsyt etc.

Hor(i) sš tp-n r n ’Imn

Tety/Tetitiy sš tp-n r n ’Imn ry-sšt ¡ m pr ’Imn etc.

Ta-r/// krt nswt

Family Connections: The Early 18th Dynasty Viceroys and Viziers.

Meryt

Tjuiu Neferweben w b n ’Imn

Rekhmire ı’my-r nı’wt ¡ty ı’my-r šn n ’Imn etc.

Useramun ı’my-r nı’wt ¡ty sš tmt-n r n ’Imn etc.

Ahmose-Aametu ¡ty

?

Ahmose-Satayt/Sayit sš tp-n r n ’Imn s¡-nsw ı’my-r ¡swt rsyt

Mutnesu nbt pr

90 j j shirley

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

91

of the New Kingdom, and perhaps even earlier.66 King Ahmose created two important new positions relating to the god Amun: the offices of high priest of Amun and God’s Wife of Amun. The latter was certainly designed to strengthen royal ties to the priesthood as not only did King Ahmose establish the position for his wife Ahmose-Nefertari, he bequeathed the office and its associated holdings to her and her chosen successors in perpetuity.67 As Barbotin notes, the position of high priest of Amun heightened the power and prestige of the cult of the god as well as its servants, as witnessed by the earliest office holders, who were also important officials within the civil administration and the palace.68 This early linking of the Amun cult with the civil and palace administration is also seen in the both the viceroy and vizerate families discussed above. As already observed with the viceroys, all known members of Turo’s family held the position scribe of divine offerings of Amun, and Turo’s grandchildren held several other priestly and administrative posts as well. In the case of the viziers, their descendants are placed throughout the Amun domain in a wide variety of priestly and administrative offices. This likely came about through the marriage of the vizier patriarch, Aametu, into the prominent Theban family of the mayor of Thebes and architect of Thutmose I’s tomb, Ineni. Ineni’s career, like Aametu’s, spanned the reigns of Amunhotep I into the early years of Hatshepsut/ Thutmose III.69 In addition to being mayor of Thebes, Ineni also held a number of mid to upper-level administrative positions Polz (Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 304 f.) suggests that already by the early to mid 17th Dynasty the Theban rulers were refocusing their attention on Amun-Re’s cult, especially at Karnak. 67 Recorded on the “Donation stele,” erected in Karnak. See, in general, Gitton, Les divines épouses; Graefe, Untersuchungen . . . Gottesgemahlin des Amun; and the references in Barbotin, Âhmosis, 106 ff. 68 Barbotin, Âhmosis, 106 ff. The first known high priests are Djhuty, who served under King Ahmose and was also overseer of the seal-bearers (ı’ my-r tmw), and Minmonth called Senires, who served under Kings Ahmose and Amunhotep I, and in addition to being high priest of Amun and first god’s father of Amun held the (probably) honorific title s ¡wt bı’ty. See Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, nos. 561 and 247; cf. Lefebvre, Histoire des grands prêtres, 226–28. 69 Ineni mentions his role in the construction of Thutmosis I’s tomb in Thebes in the lengthy autobiographical stele in his tomb, TT81 (PM I.12, 159–63), l.11–14, Urk. IV, 57–8. For the full text see Urk. IV, 53–62; Dziobek, Ineni, 44–55, pls. 34c, 42, 50, 63. Compare the shorter, less well preserved stele on the opposite wall, Urk. IV, 62–6; Dziobek, Ineni, 55–9, pl. 51. For his career, see Dziobek, Ineni, 122–41, and his brief discussion in Denkmäler, 111. 66

92

j j shirley

connected to the granaries and storehouses of the Amun temple precinct, while several of his brothers were priests (Fig. 3).70 In fact, Ineni appears to have been childless, and it may be that he was able to use his influential positions within the Amun precinct and Thebes to introduce his brothers into the priesthood. Ineni depicted his many siblings in his tomb several times, and included among them is a sister named Taametu, who became the wife of the vizier Aametu (Fig. 3).71 This marriage had a wide-ranging impact on Aametu’s family. Seven of Aametu’s eight sons were all priests or temple administrators, and of these four were involved in the Amun priesthood, both at Karnak and Deir el-Bahri, while two more were priests in the larger Karnak precinct, and the seventh was concerned with the funerary cult of Thutmose I.72 The vizierate family’s presence within the larger Amun priesthood and precinct continues through the next two generations. Four of Useramun’s five sons and one of his daughters were certainly involved with the 70 Ineni’s father was also connected to the Amun precinct, though in what capacity is unclear. Among Ineni’s brothers Pahery was a steward and/of the high priest of Amun, Userhat was a w b-priest of Amun and Qen was a priest of Mut. Ineni’s positions include overseer/controller of work in Karnak, overseer of the granaries of Amun as well as overseer of the treasury, all offices and every seal in the house of Amun. For a complete list, see Dziobek, Ineni, 122–23. For Ineni’s positions and placement in the Amun domain, see also Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, 260 f., no. 144, and her individual discussions of the titles he held. 71 Taametu is depicted in Ineni’s tomb standing behind Ineni and his wife Ahhotep-T( j)uiu at the east end of the west side of the north wall of the portico. She is the uppermost figure of the three sisters included here. Dziobek, Ineni, 33–6, pl. 3, 48, 60. 72 Useramun held several Amun-related positions before inheriting the vizierate; see Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no. 175. According to Dziobek, Denkmäler, 100–1, Useramun’s movement through the temple ranks can be reconstructed as: tm(.ı’ ) špss nb m ’Ipt-swt tm(.ı’ ) špssw nw t¡w nbw m wt n r nt ’Imn sš ¡(w)t nbt špst sš tmw n r sš nbw sš tmt n r nt’Imn [ı’ my-r tmt nt’Imn] ı’ my-r pr.wy nbw. The last two titles, as well as a few others, were likely held in conjunction with Useramun’s position as vizier because they fall within the framework of the vizier’s total responsibilities. Neferhotep was an ı’ my-r šn n ’Imn and possibly a 2nd priest of Amun (in Karnak or perhaps Deir el-Bahri), Neferweben (the father of Rekhmire) was a w b-priest of Amun, and Amunmes was a scribe of the treasury of Amun. In the larger Karnak precinct are Nacht(amun), a w b-priest of Mut, and Aakheperkare, a m-priest of Montu. Hor was a w b-priest, chief lector-priest in the funerary temple of Aakheperkare (Thutmose I), and possibly overseer of the temple of Amun, referring to that of Thutmose I. In general, see the material provided by Dziobek, Denkmäler, 112–14 and Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, nos. 370, 123, 348, 082, and 435; on the identification of Neferhotep as the owner of TT122 and the son of Aametu, see Shirley, “One Tomb, Two Owners,” forthcoming.

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

93

Amun precinct at a variety of levels;73 and the sons of his brother Hor were priests in Thutmose I’s funerary temple like their father.74 Finally, a number of the same positions turn up among Useramun’s grandsons75 as well as his nephew the vizier Rekhmire’s sons,76 all Aametu’s great-grandchildren (Fig. 3). In total, out of the three generations descending from AhmoseAametu nearly half of the thirty-nine children whose names and titles are known served within the Amun precinct, from lowly w bpriests to upper level administrators, including some daughters.77 In this regard it is especially significant that some of Aametu’s sons held the same or similar titles as their maternal uncles, i.e. Useramun and Ineni, Nacht(amun) and Qen, Neferweben and Userhat, and may even have served under their uncles. In subsequent generations we again see a transmission of titles between fathers and sons, uncles and nephews.78 The fact that one of Rekhmire’s sons, Baket was a chantress of Amun (šm yt nt //[’Imn]//), she was not, however, the wife of the steward of the vizier Amunemhat (TT82). Samenkhet, Merymaat, Mery and Amunemhat shared various titles, including w b-priest, scribe of the divine seal and m-priest, and Merymaat also held several upper level priestly posts. See Dziobek, Denkmäler, 120–27; Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, nos. 057, 282, 487. 74 Dziobek, Denkmäler, 113, 117 f., 126 f. 75 Dziobek, Denkmäler, 125 ff. Merimaat’s son Aapehty was a 3rd priest of Amun in Djser-djeseru, not unlike his father, while Baket’s son Amunemhat was an overseer of the šn of Amun, like his uncle Rekhmire (and Rekhmire’s son Mery) and great uncle Neferhotep. 76 Rekhmire’s eldest son, Menkheperresoneb, was a (chief ) scribe of divine offerings of Amun and 2nd priest of Amun. See also Eichler, Die 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 m-n r snnw n ’Imn, this inscription in fact carries the name of Menkheperresoneb (Davies, Rekh-mi-rē II, pl. LXX). Kees’ reference to a son of Rekhmire with this title (Priestertum, 20, 23) is not in fact followed up, rather he mentions a son of Useramun, the same Menkheperresoneb discussed here.) Amunhotep, like his uncle Useramun, was a scribe of the divine seal of Amun, and Mery was an overseer of the šn of Amun. The restoration of a son named Amunemhat with the title of ı’ my-r šn n ’Imn is unlikely (Urk. IV, 1157), and I would follow Davies (Davies, Rekh-mi-rē II pl. XXXVI, XXXVIII) 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. See also Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, no. 274. Rekhmire’s daughter Takhat and a granddaughter named Henuttawy were both chantresses of Amun (šm yt nt ’Imn). They are both found in the passage scene that depicts Rekhmire being greeted upon his return from Hutsekhem; see Davies, Rekh-mi-rē II, pl. LXX–LXXI). 73

77

18 out of 39 known descendants = 46%.

Samenkhet and Merymaat, Useramun’s two eldest, both had titles that their father also held (w b-priest and scribe of the divine seal in Karnak), while Merymaat’s priestly position in Deir el-Bahri placed him in the same position as his paternal 78

Samenkhet w b n ’Imn sš tmt-n r n ’Imn

Pahery ı’my-r pr (n) m-n r n ’Imn

Aapehti m-n r 3-nw n ’Imn

Fig. 3

Menkheperresoneb sš tpw-n r (tp) n ’Imn

Mery ı’my-r šn n ’Imn

Takhat šm yt nt ’Imn

Hor Merimaat ry- b n ry- b n ( ¡- pr-k¡-r ) ( ¡- pr-k¡-r )

Meryt 5 sons

Amunhotep sš tmt-n r n ’Imn

? Amunemhat 1 son, 3 daughters Rekhmire w b n ’Imn 6 daughters ı’my-r nı’wt ¡ty ı’my-r šn n ’Imn etc.

Amunemhat ı’my-r šn n ’Imn

Ineni Iahhotep Tuiu ı’my-r šnwty n ’Imn ı’my-r tmt nbt m pr ’Imn ı’my-r prwy nbw ı’my-r ı’ ¡wt nbt pr m ’Imn etc.

Nakht(amun) 5 daughters w b n Mwt Betau Hor ? krt nswt ry- b n ( ¡- pr-k¡-r )

2 daughters

Satdjhuty krt nswt

Strategic Marriage: The Vizierate and Theban Family of Ineni.

? Baket šm yt nt ’Imn

Neferweben w b ’Imn

8 sons

Initef/Ineni s¡b /// n ’Imn Userhat w b n ’Imn

Aakheperkare m-n r n Mn w ///-henutef-/// (?)

Qen m-n r n Mwt

Amunemhat ı’my-r šn n ’Imn

Amunmes sš pr- n ’Imn Tjuiu Neferhotep ı’my-r šn n ’Imn m-n r snnw n ’Imn

Ta-ametu

Iahhotep

Merimaat sš tmt-n r n ’Imn m-n r snnw n ’Imn m-n r n ’Imn m sr- srw

Amunemhat ı’my-r nrt Useramun ı’my-r nı’wt ¡ty sš ı’ ¡wt nbt sš nbw sš tmt-n r n ’Imn ı’my-r prwy nbw ı’my-r šnwty n ’Imn etc.

Ahmose-Aametu ¡ty

?

94 j j shirley

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

95

Menkheperresoneb, was a scribe of the divine offerings of Amun, is also noteworthy to the present discussion since it is a position we have seen was also held by the viceroy Turo’s family for six generations. Yet despite the immediate and ubiquitous presence of Aametu’s children throughout the Amun precinct, Aametu held only titles connected to the vizierate.79 This suggests that although Aametu was a powerful official as vizier, able to pass the position to his son Useramun,80 it was Aametu’s marriage to Ineni’s sister Taametu that enabled his sons to flourish in the Amun domain. Ineni’s positions certainly would have enabled him to help his brother-in-law’s children as well as his own family. Likewise the (here proposed) family relationship of Aametu’s mother as a sister of Turo, linking Aametu’s family and that of the viceroys who were also temple administrators and priests, would have enhanced this ability. Thus, familial nepotism played an integral role in how Aametu’s descendants gained their positions in the Amun precinct (Fig. 4). uncle Hor, and in addition, Hor’s two sons (Hor and Merimaat) followed in their father’s footsteps as ry- b priests of Aakheperkare. Rekhmire’s son Mery was also an ı’ my-r šn n ’Imn, like his great-uncle, Useramun’s brother Neferhotep, and second or third cousin Amunemhat; see Shirley, “One Tomb, Two Owners,” forthcoming, for a discussion of Amunemhat’s relationship to the family. 79 Other than vizier, his titles 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 (s¡b ¡yty r N n m-n r m¡ t r shrr m t¡ r- // [r.f ]//, ı’ my-r wt wrt 6, ı’ my-r nı’ wt). The only possible reference to a position within the Amun priesthood may occur in col. 24 of the Co-Installation text of Useramun, but there is a lacuna here. Although Helck (“Die Berufung des Vezirs Wśr”) and Davies (“The Graphic Work of the Egyptian Expedition,” 50) restore Aametu as a scribe of the divine seal in the temple of Amun during the reign of Thutmose I, Dziobek, in comparison with Stele Uriage lines 3–5, has convincingly shown that it is Useramun who is being referred to, see Dziobek, Denkmäler, 7–8. Although Aametu 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 “priest of Maat” is perhaps really an epithet connected to his function as a vizier. 80 The eldest, Amunemhat, was the overseer of the prison (ı’ my-r nrt), possibly in Thebes (Dziobek, Denkmäler, 116–17). Sections of the Duties indicate that the vizier administered over the prison and appointed various officials within it, including the overseer of police (Van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier, Sec. 6–7, 120–45, Sec. 17, 250–64, and 309 ff, esp. 317–27). If, as Van den Boorn suggests, the prison was a “functional extension of the vizier’s administrative apparatus” (Van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier, 325), then it seems quite possible that Aametu may have used his influence as vizier to place his son Amunemhat 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.

Amunemhab sš tp-nr n ’Imn m-nr 4 n ’Imn (?)

Hor(i) sš tp-nr n ’Imn

Tety/Tetitiy sš tp-nr n ’Imn ry sšt¡ m pr ’Imn etc.

Ta-r/// krt nswt

? Iahhotep

Fig. 4

Samenkhet wb n ’Imn sš tmt-nr n ’Imn

Satdjhuty krt nswt

Ta-ametu Pahery Qen Userhat 8 sons 2 daughters Ineni Iahhotep-Tuitu ı’my-r pr (n) m-nr n Mwt wb n ’Imn ı’my-r šnwty n ’Imn ’ m-nr n ’Imn ımy-r tmt nbt m pr ’Imn ı’my-r-prwy -nbw ı’my-r ı’¡wt nbt m pr ’Imn etc.

Initef/Ineni s¡b /// n ’Imn

Menkheperresoneb sš tpw-nr (tp) n ’Imn

Amunemhat 1 son, 3 daughters wb n ’Imn 6 daughters

Amunemhat ı’my-r šn n ’Imn

?

Meryt

5 sons

Amunhotep Mery sš tmt-nr n ’Imn ı’my-r šn n ’Imn

Rekhmire ı’my-r nı’wt ¡ty ı’my-r šn n ’Imn etc.

The Extended Family: Viceroys, Viziers & the Amun Precinct.

Aapehti m-nr ¡-nw n ’Imn

? Baket šmyt nt n ’Imn

Takhat šmyt nt ’Imn

Hor ry-b n (¡-pr-k¡-r )

Merimaat ry-b n (¡-pr-k¡-r )

Amunemhat Amunmes Aakheperkare Nakht(amun) 5 daughters sš pr- n ’Imn m-nr n ’Imn wb n Mwt ı’my-r nrt Useramun Tjuiu Neferhotep ///-henutef-/// Neferweben Betau Hor ? ı’my-r šn n ’Imn wb n ’Imn krt nswt ry-b n ı’my-r nı’wt ¡ty m-nr snnw n ’Imn (?) (¡-pr-k¡-r ) sš ı’¡wt nbt sš  nbw sš tmt-nr n ’Imn Amunemhat ı’my-r šn n ’Imn ı’my-r prwy  nbw ı’my-r šnwty n ’Imn etc.

Merimaat sš tmt-nr n ’Imn m-nr snnw n ’Imn m-nr n ’Imn m sr-srw

Mutnesu nbt pr

Ahmose-Aametu ¡ty

Satiah nbt pr

Ahmose-Turo/Tjuro/Tjuri sš wt / s-nr sw n Bhn s¡-nsw (n) ı’my-r ¡swt rsyt etc.

Ahmose-Paten/Patjen/Patjena sš tp-nr n ’Imn

Hapi

Ahmose-Satayt/Sayit sš tp-nr n ’Imn s¡-nsw ı’my-r ¡swt rsyt

96 j j shirley

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

97

Through a comparison of the priestly and temple administrative titles held by various members of these three interconnected families a new pattern emerges. Although the Amun precinct has traditionally been viewed as a source from which the king could draw elites for higher office,81 the prevalence of Aametu’s extended family throughout the Amun domain suggests that it served rather as a kind of “dumping ground” for younger sons and daughters – a location into which officials could place their children. The comparatively large number of mid- and lower-level titles held by the family indicates that being a priest or administrator in the Amun domain was not necessarily a path for attaining higher office. However, it would certainly provide the family with greater wealth and ensure that all sons, and even some daughters, held office. While the position of high priest of Amun is not held by this family, their authority over the administrative area of the temple was extensive, with Ineni, Aametu’s sons Amunemhat, Useramun and Neferhotep, Rekhmire and his son Mery, and another Amunemhat all in upperlevel “overseer” positions. Although for Useramun and Rekhmire these are likely connected to their position as vizier, it nonetheless indicates a degree of power relating to the Amun precinct in Thebes that can not be dismissed. In addition, there is a strong probability that several members of both Aametu’s and Turo’s family served the Amun cult centered in the west bank royal funerary temples, in addition to or instead of the main cult at Karnak. This is suggested by the findspots of statuary in the area of Deir el-Bahri82 as well as several priestly positions relating to the royal temples.83 The 81 See Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, Ch. 11 and the sources therein. 82 A statue and stauette of Turo, two statues of his son Ahmose-Patjen, and a statue of his grandson Tety were all found in the vicinity of Deir el-Bahri. See supra with notes 9, 12, 13, 17 and 25. It thus seems possible that the role of Turo’s descendants as scribes of divine offerings was in fact connected to the cult of Amun at Deir el-Bahri. Also found at Deir el-Bahri are a statue base of Aametu’s son Neferhotep (Naville, The XIth Dynasty Temple Part III, tf. 7, 4; cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, 109), while a statue of his son Hor likely came from Thutmose I’s funerary temple and was probably erected by his sons (cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, 113). In addition, two graffiti at Deir el-Bahri give the names and titles of Useramun’s son Merymaat and Merymaat’s son Aapehti (Wente, “Some Graffiti from the reign of Hatshepsut,” 51, Anm. 17, 18; Dziobek, Denkmäler, 122, 125–26). 83 Aametu’s son Neferhotep was an ı’ my-r šn n ’Imn and a 2nd priest of Amun (in Karnak or perhaps Deir el-Bahri due to his statue’s findspot). Aametu’s son Hor was a w b-priest, chief lector-priest in the funerary temple of Aakheperkare (Thutmose I), and possibly overseer of the temple of Amun, referring to that of Thutmose I. In addition, Hor’s two sons (Hor and Merimaat) followed in their father’s footsteps

98

j j shirley

almost immediate presence of this family in the west bank Amun cult further implies that it was a central feature of royal constructions already at the beginning of the dynasty, perhaps as early as the reign of Amunhotep I. It now becomes clear how at the earliest stages of the 18th Dynasty the most important and arguably influential areas of civil administration, namely viceroy and vizier, as well as the administration of the Amun precinct, were held in the hands of essentially one large extended family that had used heredity, strategic marriage and familial nepotism to create a significant powerbase. The considerable authority that this family must have wielded, both in the court and in Thebes, is reflected not only through titles and lineage, but also on the ground in the placement of their tombs. Theban Tombs Beginning at the outset of the New Kingdom, the Theban Necropolis was already developing as the primary burial ground of the New Kingdom elite. Although the known locations of tombs belonging to some of the earliest officials are still few, it is nevertheless clear that starting in the late 17th Dynasty Thebes was becoming a place of funerary importance. At this early stage the placement of both royal and private tombs is largely clustered in the necropolis of Dra Abu el-Naga, but as the 18th Dynasty solidifies under King Ahmose and Amunhotep I new areas of the Theban west bank cliffs are explored for private tombs, including sections of Asasif and Sheikh Abd el-Qurna.84 How and why specific tomb sites were chosen is still not entirely clear, though certainly rock quality, visibility from the plain below, and location relative to royal mortuary temples were as ry- b priests of Aakheperkare. Useramun’s son Merymaat was a priest of Amun in sr- srw (Hatshepsut’s funerary temple) and on a Deir el-Bahri graffito is referred to as the scribe of the divine seal of Amun, and Merymaat’s son Aapehti was a 3rd priest of Amun in sr- srw. Finally, Amunemhat, the son of Neferhotep or grandson of Useramun (see Shirley, “One Tomb, Two Owners,” forthcoming, for a discussion of this official and his relationship to the vizierate family) was also an overseer of the šn of Amun. In general, see the material provided by Dziobek, Denkmäler, 104–27, as well as Eichler, Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun”, nos. 370, 435, 282, 153. 84 See the work of Polz in Dra Abu el-Naga, e.g. Polz, “The Royal and Private Necropolis”; Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches; and Polz, et al., “Bericht über die 6., 7. und 8. Grabungskampagne.”

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

99

all factors.85 Indeed, one might presume that given the relatively undeveloped expanse of the Theban west bank, tombs constructed during the early New Kingdom were placed in particular spots for specific reasons. It is all the more striking then that all of the known tombs belonging to the extended family under discussion were constructed along the upper slope of Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, facing east across the low desert plain toward the Nile River and the royal mortuary temples.86 The tombs in question belong to Ineni (TT81), AhmoseAametu (TT83), Ahmose-Aametu’s sons the vizier Useramun (TT61 and TT131), overseer of the šn Neferhotep (TT122) and scribe of the Amun treasury Amunmes (TT228), and Ahmose-Aametu’s grandson the vizier Rekhmire (TT100). Neferhotep also shared his tomb with the overseer of the šn Amunemhat, who is yet another member of the family (Fig. 5).87 The tombs of Ineni and Aametu were constructed during the early 18th Dynasty, when the necropolis was certainly still in its initial stages of development and thus there were many potential sites available with excellent rock quality and vantage points to the plain below (Fig. 6). The remaining tombs were fashioned during the mid-18th Dynasty, between the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, a time when the Qurna hillside witnessed a dramatic increase in tomb construction, and presumably securing a location of quality was becoming more difficult (Fig. 7). A cursory examination of the placement of these six tombs on the Qurna hillside does at first make it appear as though they are separated spatially and thus one might argue that they are not intentionally connected. However, an analysis of the spatial layout of the relevant tombs in fact supports the idea of a family precinct (Figs. 6–8). Ineni’s tomb (TT81), whether it utilized a pre-existing Middle Kingdom saff-tomb or was newly constructed, is placed at an excellent vantage point along the high ridge of Qurna, with a view of 85 See, e.g., Helck, “Sozial Stellung und Grabanlage”; Englemann von-Carnap, “Soziale Stellung und Grabanlage” and Die Struktur des thebanischen Beamtenfriedhofs; Romer, “Who Made the Private Tombs of Thebes?” 86 The temples of Thutmose III and Amunhotep II are in direct view of Qurna, though that of Amunhotep I / Ahmose-Nefertary is not far removed. 87 The tomb, which has chapels dedicated to two different men, was originally built for Useramun’s brother Neferhotep and later utilized by a man named Amunemhat. I have suggested elsewhere that Amunemhat was another member of the family – either Neferhotep’s son or perhaps Useramun’s grandson. For a discussion of this relationship, see Shirley, “One Tomb, Two Owners,” forthcoming.

Fig. 5

Theban Necropolis, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, detail of upper slope, with tombs mentioned in the text labeled. Photo: Raimond Spekking/Wikipedia – Licence: CC-by-sa-3.0.

100 j j shirley

&

the amun precinct

Fig. 6 Theban Necropolis, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, Middle Kingdom and Early 18th Dynasty tombs, with tombs mentioned in the text labeled and outlined. Map created by Ashley Fiutko using data taken from Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole; Peter Piccione’s GIS work on the Theban Necropolis, available on-line at: http://maps. cofc.edu/website/olgis2009/viewer.htm; Survey of Egypt maps of the Theban Necropolis; and GoogleEarth. The map was created using ArcGIS ArcMap 9.3.1.

viceroys, viziers 101

Fig. 7 Theban Necropolis, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, Middle Kingdom through mid-18th Dynasty tombs, with tombs mentioned in the text labeled and outlined. Map created by Ashley Fiutko using data taken from Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole; Peter Piccione’s GIS work on the Theban Necropolis, available on-line at: http://maps. cofc.edu/website/olgis2009/viewer.htm; Survey of Egypt maps of the Theban Necropolis; and GoogleEarth. The map was created using ArcGIS ArcMap 9.3.1.

102 j j shirley

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

103

the entire plain.88 At around the same time, Aametu built a portico tomb (TT83) similar to Ineni’s, and placed it on a direct path leading down the slope from Ineni’s tomb.89 Although Aametu’s tomb is not as high up, it is more centrally located and built on a section where the cliff projects outward, contributing to the tomb’s ability to be noticed. Continuing on this route the cliffside path leads down to the lower tomb of Useramun (TT131), which has an elaborate niched façade not unlike the pillared porticos of his father and uncle. Thus, as we move down the slope it becomes clear that the tombs of these family members are intentionally placed along the same path, tying the owners together in death as they were in life (Fig. 8). Useramun had not one but two tombs, the lower one (TT131) just mentioned and directly up the hillside from it an upper tomb, TT61. From the plain looking up, or from TT61 looking down, they are clearly in a direct line with each other, and the pyramidal shape of the upper tomb was apt to have been intentionally made so that it would rise above and crown the pyramid that once topped the lower tomb.90 Once again the family members have intentionally placed their tombs along a route leading down the slope – the path leading from Useramun’s upper tomb towards his lower tomb crosses TT122, the tomb shared by Useramun’s brother Neferhotep91 and another family member named Amunemhat (Fig. 8).92 Perhaps Amunemhat, who may have lived during a time when the family’s fortunes were declining, was trying to heighten Dziobek, who published the tomb (Ineni, 17–20), categorizes it as a re-used Middle Kingdom saff-tomb; but contra this is Polz (Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 284 ff.), who views it as a new 18th Dynasty construction. On the architectural development of 18th Dynasty Theban tombs in general, see Dziobek, “The Architectural Development”; Englemann von-Carnap, Die Struktur des thebanischen Beamtenfriedhofs; Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole; Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, esp. 279 ff. 89 Ahmose-Aametu’s and Ineni’s tombs were likely constructed chronologically very close together, with the decoration finished by Hatshepsut’s becoming co-regent. Both began their careers under Amunhotep I and were in their highest positions of power under Thutmose I. Thus, Polz’s dating of Ahmose-Aametu’s tomb (TT83) significantly earlier does not seem tenable (Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 282–86); see also supra with note 58. 90 See Dziobek, “Eine Grabpyramide,” “Theban Tombs” and Die Gräber, which include drawings and photographs depicting the juxtaposition of these tombs. 91 The family relationship is based on the depiction in TT122 of Neferhotep offering to both his parents, the vizier Ahmose-Aametu and his wife Taametu, and his brother, the vizier Usermaun along with his wife Tjuiu. 92 See supra note 87. 88

Fig. 8 Theban Necropolis, Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, showing pathways and distances between tombs mentioned in the text, which are labeled and outlined. Map created by Ashley Fiutko using data taken from Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole; Peter Piccione’s GIS work on the Theban Necropolis, available on-line at: http://maps. cofc.edu/website/olgis2009/viewer.htm; Survey of Egypt maps of the Theban Necropolis; and GoogleEarth. The map was created using ArcGIS ArcMap 9.3.1.

104 j j shirley

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

105

his prestige by utilizing a family member’s tomb higher up the hill while at the same time strengthening the link to his ancestors, all at less cost than building a new tomb. In addition, this cluster of tombs is connected by natural pathways along the cliffside. Thus we see that TT122 is located at roughly the same contour level as the tomb of Ahmose-Aametu (TT83), while Useramun’s upper tomb (TT131) is topographically in a similar position to the tombs of his father (TT83) and uncle (TT81) (Fig. 8). At this point, the beginning of what one could call a “family complex” is becoming clearer, and this concept of planned topographical positioning is further supported by examining the remaining known tombs of this family, TT228 of Ahmose-Aametu’s son Amunmes and TT100 of Ahmose-Aametu’s grandson Rekhmire. These two tombs are placed at either end of the Qurna upper necropolis, at the outskirts of the central “family complex.” Nonetheless, Amunmes’ tomb, although around the cliffside, is at approximately the same contour level as that of Useramun’s lower tomb (TT131), as is Rekhmire’s. Rekhmire may also have been trying to emulate his uncle and predecessor, as the lower position of his tomb allows for both an expansive courtyard area and elaborate façade, like that of TT131. Also, as with the higher tombs, there are clear natural routes along the cliff that connect these three lower tombs to each other (Fig. 8). By calculating both the direct vertical and horizontal distances as well as those of the natural pathways between the tombs, two things become clear. First, that the central cluster of tombs – TT81, TT83, TT61 and TT122 – are all within a very short distance of each other, approximately 46 to 190 meters apart.93 This makes them very well-spaced for processional stops during festivals and other times when family members might visit the tombs of their ancestors. Second, even the three remaining tombs which are further away – TT100, TT131 and TT228 – are placed along routes that connect them easily with the other tombs belonging to their relatives, surely not a coincidence. Finally, these three tombs provide points of access from the floodplain and the royal mortuary temples up onto the necropolis, ensuring that they would by passed during

93 These are the pathway distances based on paths now visible. As the crow flies the direct distances are less, e.g. TT 61 and TT122 are only about 25 meters apart vertically.

106

j j shirley

festival processions, when the tombs would have been visited as well (Fig. 8). The construction of the tombs belonging to this “family complex” would have been completed between the reigns of Thutmose I and the early years of Hatshepsut/Thutmose III, at a time when the necropolis was just beginning to develop. This allowed for the tombs to be spread out at key vantage points while still being related to each other spatially and probably aesthetically as well – looking from the floodplain up towards a relatively blank cliffside these tombs would have been very noticeable. It may be as well that their placement had a commemorative purpose: serving the entire family, and especially those members who may have been unable to build their own tombs, as a cultic complex.94 As mentioned above, private tomb locations at the end of the 17th Dynasty were mainly concentrated in Dra Abu el-Naga, with the Asasif and Qurna also witnessing tomb construction at the outset of Dynasty 18. Thus, at the time this family complex was being developed, we find the tombs of contemporary high officials in other locations. For example, the tomb of the high priest of Amun Djhuty (reign of Ahmose) has been located by Polz in the Asasif,95 and that of Minmonth (reigns of Ahmose-Amunhotep I) is TT232 in Dra Abu el-Naga.96 Aametu’s likely predecessor as vizier, Imhotep (reign of Thutmose I), has his tomb in the Valley of the Queens (no.46),97 while early predecessors of Ineni as mayor of Thebes and overseer of the granary of Amun have tombs in Dra Abu el-Naga (respectively Tetiki, TT15 and Panacht, tomb A.20, both reign of Ahmose).98 The tombs of known mid- and lower-level officials dating to the early 18th Dynasty are likewise concentrated in the Asasif and Dra Abu el-Naga,99 while Qurna has very few tombs, located both on the lower plain and the upper slope. There According to Polz (Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 308 f.) the shaft tombs of the late Second Intermediate Period and early 18th Dynasty either have superstructures for practicing the funerary cult meant to be shared by the shaft owners or are located near royal tombs and thus utilized the royal cult place. The family complex of built tombs discussed here could perhaps be seen as a development of this practice. 95 “Winlock Tomb 1”; see Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 145–55. 96 PM I, 12, 328–29; cf. Kampp, Die thebanische Nekropole, 507–11; Polz, Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 280–82. 97 PM I, 22, 755. 98 TT15: PM I, 12, 26–7; tomb A.20: PM I, 12, 453. 99 Polz (Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 138–62) discusses and attributes several unpublished tombs excavated by Winlock in the Asasif to officials of the late 17th and early 18th Dynasty through Amunhotep I. 94

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

107

are only a few tombs contemporary with the construction of Ineni and Aametu’s tombs that are also located in the same vicinity, and they are primarily Middle Kingdom(-style) saff-tombs not (yet) reused or newly constructed in the early 18th Dynasty, along with a few “T-shaped” tombs (Fig. 6).100 All of these factors lend support to the idea that a “family complex” was being created by Aametu and his descendants. As use of the Qurna necropolis expanded during the reigns of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III the remaining tombs of the “family complex” are built, and additional tombs appear around them (Fig. 7). This fact does not diminish the family complex, but rather heightens it as these new tombs belong to officials who would have served under or alongside Useramun, Neferhotep, Amunemhat, Amunmes and Rekhmire – they are all priests or administrators connected to the Amun precinct.101 In addition, such high officials as Hatshepsut’s steward Senenmut (TT71) and her high priest of Amun Hapuseneb (TT67), and the overseer of the seal Sennefri (TT99; time of Hatshepsut-Thutmose III) also have their tombs in the vicinity, solidifying the development of Qurna during this period as the chosen spot of the highest elite.102 Conclusions We have now seen how one family with claims to both the viceroyalty and vizierate at the outset of the 18th Dynasty strengthened itself through a strategic marriage into the family of the mayor of Thebes and Amun precinct administrator. The influence and power thus created allowed them to utilize heredity and family 100 Only three owners are known, all of whom have “t-shaped” tombs: User, the scribe and steward of Thutmose I whose tomb is perhaps a bit later in date (Thutmose I-Hatshepsut, TT21), Tjay, the overseer of the fowl-houses, presumably of the Amun precinct (early Dynasty 18, TT349), and Amunemhat, the noble at the head of his people (reign of Ahmose-Amunhotep I, tomb C.2). 101 The most obvious of these subordinates is Useramun’s own steward, Amunemhat whose tomb, TT82, is located in the midst of the “family complex” due to his longstanding relationship with the family. The author presented a paper discussing the development of Qurna during the 18th Dynasty at ARCE 2008. 102 With a few exceptions [TT11, overseer of the treasury Djhuty; TT112, HPA Menkheperresoneb; TT146, overseer of the granary of Amun Nebamun; TT155, first herald Intef; TT294, overseer of the granary of Amun Amunhotep; tomb A.4, mayor of Thebes Wensenu] the contemporary tombs located in Khokha, the Asasif and Dra Abu el-Naga belong primarily to mid and lower-level officials connected to the Amun precinct or funerary temples.

108

j j shirley

influence to retain control of the vizierate and place several generations of children in positions throughout the Amun domain, and to create a family precinct of tombs in a select section of the developing Theban necropolis. The question remains, was this a strategy developed by the early 18th Dynasty kings to ensure the stability and strength of the newly re-unified country, or rather a testament to the power of elite families at the beginning of the New Kingdom? Based on the evidence presented here, I would suggest that it was not so much a planned strategy on the part of King Ahmose and his successors as a situation that developed due both to the circumstances of the time and the power of the families in charge. Certainly King Ahmose would have appointed men whom he trusted, and likely those with close connections to Thebes and the early royal court, as part of his efforts to centralize and strengthen both his own kingship and Egypt generally.103 The significant changes brought on by the early Second Intermediate Period had the effect of reinforcing the traditional world-view in the 17th and early 18th Dynasties, including a pre-existing social structure in which hereditary inheritance of positions was a normal occurrence.104 King Ahmose would in fact not need to create such a policy, but would have recognized the value of having two of the highest offices in the land, as well as important positions connected to Thebes and the Amun cult, held by one family. As the late 17th and early 18th Dynasty kings focused on ousting foreigners, campaigning at home and abroad, and re-building a newly re-unified country, a situation in which independent trusted families began to intermarry would have created the kind of internal stability that is needed in times of chaos. The continuation and expansion of this family’s power into the mid-18th Dynasty is perhaps due in part to the internal uncertainty of Hatshepsut’s regency and ascen103 The prevalence and pattern of royal names used among all three families, i.e. Ahmose and Ahhotep combined with a second name (a pattern also followed by the royal family at this time, as their monuments indicate; cf. Vandersleyen, “Ahmose,” 100), as well as the use of the moon-sign, does suggest at least a close relationship to the new line of kings if not a direct kinship. In addition, Ineni’s father’s name, Intef, hearkens back to the kings of the 17th Dynasty. See also Polz’s conclusions (Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches, 305 ff.) that the administrative changes wrought by the late 17th and early 18th Dynasty kings were designed in part to create a royal “family-oriented” government. 104 Cf. O’Connor, Social History, 189f.; Cruz-Uribe, “A Model for the Political Structure of Ancient Egypt.”

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

109

sion to the throne,105 while certainly in the time of Thutmose III the king was away from Egypt much of the time and may have depended on a few established elite families, like Aametu’s, to keep order at home. Thus a process began under King Ahmose, or perhaps earlier, continued to be utilized by him and his successors as they began to replace foreign rule, disunity and the instability of war with the stability of a newly reunified Egypt and the power of a permanent, filially connected, government. However, if left unchecked the natural result of titular inheritance would be for influence to expand and power to be consolidated among fewer and fewer families. And by the reign of Amunhotep II, a time when Egypt’s stability and royal power were assured, it is clear that this extended family’s power was no longer an asset but a potential danger and had to be curbed.106 It is precisely at this time as well that the family disappears from the Theban necropolis – the last known tomb belongs to Rekhmire – also the last in the family to hold the position of vizier,107 and along with his children the last family members about whom anything is known. Abbreviations AJSL BMMA Gardiner JNES PM I.1

PM I.2

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Gardiner, A.H. Egyptian Grammar. 2nd revised ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1950. Journal of Near Eastern Studies Porter, B. and R. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings I: The Theban Necropolis, Part 1: Private Tombs. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. Porter, B. and R. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings I: The Theban Necropolis, Part 2: Royal Tombs and Smaller Cemeteries. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.

Cf. Dziobek, Denkmäler, 144–48. See Shirley, Culture of Officialdom, for an in-depth discussion of the administrative changes that took place between the reigns of Thutmose III and Amunhotep II. 107 Under Amunhotep II the position of vizier is given to an entirely new official, Amunemopet, whose cousin Sennefer as mayor of Thebes also had administrative control of the Amun precinct. 105 106

110 PM V

PM VI I

Urk. IV WB III

j j shirley Porter, B. and R. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings V: Upper Egypt, Sites. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Porter, B. and R. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings VII: Nubia, The deserts, and Outside Egypt. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Sethe, K. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Urkunden des ägyptischen Altertums, 4. Issued in 22 parts. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1906–1958. Erman, A. and H. Grapow , eds. Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache. Vol. III. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1955. References

Allen, J. “The High Officials of the Early Middle Kingdom.” In The Theban Necropolis: Past, Present and Future, eds. N. Strudwick, and J. Taylor, 14–29. London: British Museum Press, 2003. Bács, T. “A name with three (?) orthographies: The case of the ‘king’s son, overseer of southern foreign lands, Penre’.” Sudan & Nubia 13 (2009): 30–37. Barbotin, C. Âhmosis et le début de la XVIIIe dynastie. Les grands pharaons. Paris: Pygmalion, 2008. Breasted, J.H. “Second Preliminary Report of the Egyptian Expedition.” AJSL 25 no.1 (1908): 1–110. British Museum. A Guide to the Egyptian galleries (sculpture). London: British Museum, 1909. Bryan, B. The reign of Thutmose IV. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. ———. “The Eighteenth Dynasty before the Amarna Period (c.1550–1352 BC).” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw, 218–271. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Caminos, R.A. and T.G.H. James. Gebel es-Silsilah I. The Shrines. ASE 31. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1963. Cruz-Uribe, E. “A Model for the Political Structure of Ancient Egypt.” In For his Ka: essays offered in memory of Klaus Baer, ed. D.P. Silverman, 45–53. SAOC 55. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1994. Davies, N. de G. “The Graphic Work of the Egyptian Expedition, 1925–1926. Part II.” BMMA 21 no.3 (1926): 41–51. ———. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-rē‘ at Thebes I–II. PMMA 11. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1943. Davies, N. de G. and M.F.L. Macadam. Corpus of Inscribed Egyptian Funerary Cones. Part I: Plates. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957. Dewachter, M. “Une nouvelle statue du vice-roi de Nubie Ousersatet a Khartoum.” Archéologia 72 (1974): 54–58.

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

111

———. “Le vice-roi Nehy et l’an 52 de Thoutmosis III.” RdÉ 28 (1976): 151–153. ———. “Un nouveau ‘fils royal’ de la XVIIIe dynastie: Qenamon.” RdÉ 32 (1980): 66–73. ———. “Le roi Sahathor – Complements.” RdÉ 35 (1984): 195–199. Dziobek, E. “The Architectural Development of Theban Tombs in the Early Eighteenth Dynasty.” In Problems and Priorities in Egyptian Archaeology, eds. J. Assmann, G. Burkard, and V. Davies, 69–79. Studies in Egyptology. London/New York: Kegan Paul International, 1987. ———. “Eine Grabpyramide des fruhen NR in Theben.” MDAIK 45 (1989): 109–132, 519. ———. Das Grab des Ineni Theben Nr. 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 Nr. 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 Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. Neue Perspektiven archäologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.–13.6.1993, eds. J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F. Kampp, 129–140. SAGA 12. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995. ———. Denkmäler des Vezirs User-Amun. SAGA 18. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1998. Eggebrecht, A and E. Eggebrecht, Ägyptens aufsteig zur Weltmacht. Maink am Rhein: von Zabern, 1987. Eichler, S. Die Verwaltung des “Hauses des Amun” in der 18. Dynastie. SAK Beihefte 7. Hamburg: Buske, 2000. El-Sabbahy, A.-F. “King’s Son of Kush under Hatshepsut.” GM 129 (1992): 99–102. Englemann von-Carnap, B. “Soziale Stellung und Grabanlage: Zur Struktur des Friedhofs der Ersten Hälfte der 18. Dynastie in Scheich Abd el-Qurna und Chocha.” In Thebanische Beamtennekropolen. Neue Perspektiven archäologischer Forschung, Internationales Symposion Heidelberg 9.–13.6.1993, eds. J. Assmann, E. Dziobek, H. Guksch, F. Kampp, 107–128. SAGA 12. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1995. ———. Die Struktur des thebanischen Beamtenfriedhofs in der Ersten Hälfte der 18. Dynastie. Analyse von Position, Grundrißgestaltung und Bildprogram der Gräber. ADAIK 18. Berlin: Achet, 1999. Gauthier, H. “Les ‘fils royaux de Kouch’ et le personnel administratif de l’Ethiopie.” RT 39 (1921): 179–238. Gitton, M. Les divines épouses de la 18e dynastie. CNRS 61 (Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 306). Paris: Les Belles-Lettres, 1984. Graefe, E. Untersuchungen zur Verwaltund und Geschichte der Insitution des Gottesgemahlin des Amun vom Beginn des Neuen Reiches bis zur Spätzeit. ÄA 37. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1981. Habachi, L. “Königssohn von Kusch.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie III, eds. W. Helck and E. Otto, 630–640. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1980. ———. Sixteen Studies on Lower Nubia. Cahiers supplémentaires des ASAE 23. Cairo: Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale, 1981. Hall, H.R., Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, &c., in the British Museum. Part V. London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914. Harvey, S. The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos. PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, 1998.

112

j j shirley

Helck, W. “Die Berufung des Vezirs Wēr.” In Hermann Grapow zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, ed. O. Firchow, 107–17. Ägyptologische Studien. Institut für Orientforschung 29. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1955. ———. Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs. Probleme der Agyptologie 3. Leiden/Koln: Brill, 1958. ———. “Sozial Stellung und Grabanlage (Bemerkungen zur thebanischen Nekropole).” JESHO 5, no. 3 (1962): 225–243. ———.“Überlegungen zur Geschichte der 18. Dynastie.” Oriens Antiquus 8 (1969): 281–327. ———. Historisch-biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975. Hornung, E. “Amunophis I.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, eds. W. Helck and E. Otto, 201–203. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975. Kadry, A. Officers and Officials in the New Kingdom. Studia Aegyptiaca 8. Budapest: Universite Lorand Eotvos, 1982. Kampp, F. Die thebanische Nekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie. Theben 13. 2 vols. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1996. Kees, H. Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat, vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit. PdÄ 1. Leiden/Koln: Brill, 1953. Lefebvre, G. Histoire des grands prêtres d’Amon de Karnak jusqu’a la XXIe Dynastie. Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1929. Lepsius, R. Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Theben. Text. Volume V. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1901. Lorton, D. “Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom.” CdÉ 70 (1995): 123–132. Maspero, G. “Notes de voyage.” ASAE XI (1911): 145–161. de Morgan, J. Catalogue des Monuments et Inscriptions de l’Égypte antique. Volume I: Haute Égypte. Vienna: Adolphe Holzhausen, 1894. Morkot, R. “Studies in new Kingdom Nubia I: Politics, Economics and Ideology; Egyptian Imperialism in Nubia.” Wepwawet 3 (1987): 29–49. Morris, E. The Architecture of Imperialism. Probleme der Agyptologie 22. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Murnane, W.J. “The Organization of Government under Amunhotep III.” In Amunhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign, eds. D. O’Connor, and E.H. Cline, 173–221. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Naville, E. The XIth Dynasty Temple at Deir el-Bahari Part III. Memoir EEF 32. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1913. O’Connor, D. “New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, 1552–664 B.C.” In Ancient Egypt: A Social History, eds. B.G. Trigger, et al., 183–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Pamminger, P. “Nochmals zum Problem der Vizekonige von Kusch unter Hatschepsut.” GM 131 (1992): 97–100. Polz, D. The Royal and Private Necropolis of the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Dyasties at Dra‘ Abu el-Naga. Cahiers supplémentaires des ASAE 34/II. Cairo: Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale, 2005. ———. Der Beginn des Neuen Reiches. Zur Vorgeschichte einer Zeitenwende. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Abteilung Kairo, Sonderschrift 31. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Polz, D., U. Rummel and A. Piccato. “Bericht über die 6., 7. und 8. Grabungskampagne.” MDAIK 55 (1999): 344–70.

viceroys, viziers

&

the amun precinct

113

Quirke, S. “The Regular Titles of the Late Middle Kingdom.” RdÉ 37 (1986): 107–130. Randall-MacIver, D. Buhen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1911. Redford, D.B. The Wars in Syria and Palestine of Thutmose III. CHANE 16. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Reisner, G.A. “The Viceroys of Ethiopia.” JEA 6 (1920): 28–55. Romer, J. “Who Made the Private Tombs of Thebes?” In Essays in Egyptology in honor of Hans Goedicke, eds. B. Bryan and D. Lorton, 211–232. San Antonio, TX: Van Siclen Books, 1994. Säve-Söderbergh, T. Agypten und Nubien. Lund: H. Ohlssons, 1941. Schmitz, B. Untersuchungen zum Titel z¡ nswt “Königssohn”. Habelt Dissertationsdrucke, Reihe Ägyptologie 2. Bonn: Habelt Verlag, 1976. Schulz, R. Die Entwicklung und Bedeutung des kuboiden Statuentypus: eine Untersuching zu den sogenannten “Würfelhockern”. 2 vols. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1992. Shirley, J J. The Culture of Officialdom. PhD Dissertation. Johns Hopkins University, 2005. ———. “One Tomb, Two Owners: Theban Tomb 122 – Re-Use or Planned Family Tomb?” In Z. Hawass and J. Houser Wegner (eds.), Studies in Honor of David P. Silverman. Cairo: Supreme Council of Antiquities (distributed by American University in Cairo Press), forthcoming in 2010. Simpson, W.K. Heka-Nefer and the Dynastic Material from Toshka and Arminna. New Haven/Philadelphia: Yale University Press, 1963. ———. “Ah-mose, called Pa-tjenna.” BMFA 70 nos. 361–362 (1972): 116-117. ———. “Egyptian Statuary of Courtiers in Dynasty 18.” BMFA 77 (1979): 3649. Smith, H.S. The Fortress of Buhen: The Inscriptions. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1976. Spalinger, A.J. Review of G.P.F. van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. Varia Aegyptiaca 8 (1992): 57–62. ———. “Covetous Eyes South: The Background to Egypt’s Domination of Nubia by the Reign of Thutmose III.” In Thutmose III: A New Biography, ed. E. Cline and D. O’Connor, 344–369. London: Thames and Hudson. ———. War in Ancient Egypt: The New Kingdom. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. van den Boorn, Duties of the Vizier: Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom. Vandersleyen, C. Les guerres d’Amosis. Fondateur de la XVIIIe dynastie (Monographies Reine Élisabeth 1), Bruxelles: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1971. Vandersleyen, C. “Ahmose.” In Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, eds. W. Helck and E. Otto, 99–101. Weisbaden: Harrasowitz, 1975. ———. “Une stèle de l’an 18 d’Amosis à Hanovre.” CdÉ 52 (1977): 223–244. Weigall, A.E.P. Report on the Antiquities of Lower Nubia: the first cataract to he Sudan frontier, and their condition in 1906–07. Oxford: H. Hart, 1907. Wente, E.F. “Some Graffiti from the reign of Hatshepsut.” JNES 43 (1984): 47–54.